# Can the HR34 record a whole transponder?



## qcarm (Jan 1, 2012)

Since the HR34 must have decent chipset to do what it does, can it record a whole transponder as a future software release like the Dish Hopper?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't think so.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

"Record a whole transponder" is kind of a loaded phrase; it's so ambiguous and technically imprecise that it could mean almost anything. For instance, I have 6 locals carried in HD by Directv spread across two physical transponders. With 5 tuners, the HR34 could certainly record all the channels off of one of those transponders and be accurately said to be "recording the whole transponder."


----------



## qcarm (Jan 1, 2012)

LameLefty said:


> "Record a whole transponder" is kind of a loaded phrase; it's so ambiguous and technically imprecise that it could mean almost anything. For instance, I have 6 locals carried in HD by Directv spread across two physical transponders. With 5 tuners, the HR34 could certainly record all the channels off of one of those transponders and be accurately said to be "recording the whole transponder."


It isn't ambiguous compared to the Dish Hopper which is why I mentioned it in that context.

I am referring to storing the entire transponder stream at once and parsing it later off the hard drive instead of breaking out the individual channels live and storing them as individual channels.

I am guessing that the chipset in the HR34 is general purpose and can be re-purposed for that functionality if Direct chose to.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

I expect it could record an entire encrypted transponder today.

I don't think D* will ever attempt anything like this. The concept of "you can record these things at once because they are on the same transponder but not those because they aren't" doesn't make much sense from a user perspective.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

qcarm said:


> I am guessing that the chipset in the HR34 is general purpose and can be re-purposed for that functionality.


I'm guessing "not".


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Maybe I'm missing something, but a quick look at the Hopper it doesn't look like it will record a whole transponder as the OP purported. It does say it has three tuners and can record 6 HD channels at once. One tuner is dedicated to record the four major networks during primetime + the other two tuners gives you six. Seems like a fine idea, but wastes disk space, since not everyone needs to record all primetime from the four networks. I know I don't.

Help me understand why this Hopper is a great idea?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

FWIW, this Dish Hopper info page explains that "Primetime Anytime" is a VOD service. I could be wrong, but I assume that means you'll need internet connectivity (and no bandwidth cap) to view those shows.



> The Hopper's exclusive feature, PrimeTime Anytime, gives you instant On Demand access to your favorite shows on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC in HD. Over three hours per night of HD primetime programming are available to you On Demand anytime for up to eight days from the initial air date. You'll have instant access to the best primetime programming without having to set timers or using up your personal DVR hard drive space. Plus, you can save your favorite On Demand primetime content forever.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Steve said:


> FWIW, this Dish Hopper info page explains that "Primetime Anytime" is a VOD service. I could be wrong, but I assume that means you'll need internet connectivity (and no bandwidth cap) to view those shows.


On Demand in the sense that the previous 7 days of PrimeTime is already recorded and available to watch "on demand". Local HD channels are required. This is not VOD via internet.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> On Demand in the sense that the previous 7 days of PrimeTime is already recorded and available to watch "on demand". Local HD channels are required. This is not VOD via internet.


Gotcha. Misunderstood the marketing copy.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"David Ortiz" said:


> On Demand in the sense that the previous 7 days of PrimeTime is already recorded and available to watch "on demand". Local HD channels are required. This is not VOD via internet.


But if it's not via Internet, how can one tuner tune to four channels simultaneously? I'm having trouble with that concept. I always figured that even for PIP, it needed two.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Depends how the channels are relayed on the satellite. Consider OTA... When you tune to a channel, with 4 subchannels, its actually receiving the entire channel, and you select the subchannel, which causes the box to select with stream(s) in that broadcast you see.

Think of a DVD. Its all on one disc, but you can select different audio tracks (stereo, dolby, DTS, etc).

So, its possible for the receiver to just record the entire transponder if programmed to do so, rather than just recording the selected video PID + audio PID(s) subcontent as it does now. The downside, is you will be recording 4X as much data (actually a little more) that way.

Specifically, the HR34 (and all Directv boxes) can only record one video PID, and two audio PIDs at once (think thats correct). It would take some major software rewrite to get it to record the entire transponder. Especially difficult since they are using multiple formats MPeg2/Mpeg4.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> But if it's not via Internet, how can one tuner tune to four channels simultaneously? I'm having trouble with that concept. I always figured that even for PIP, it needed two.


The key is that the channels are all on the same transponder. That is the only way that one tuner can record them all at the same time. I wonder if the PrimeTime Anytime tuner is unavailable from 8-11 for any live viewing. The Hopper box may be limited to two live tuners during primetime, while the PTAT tuner is busy recording the big four's feeds.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It's starting to make sense. I have to admit, it's pretty impressive and some high end mojo going on. Having said that, I like the idea that my DVR is mostly recording stuff I'm interested in and not stuff I have no interest in. But, it's an interesting way to handle recording shows that don't repeat with a limited number of tuners.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Yeah, interesting idea;

Though even if the HR34 could record an entire transponder stream, DIRECTV would have a problem implementing such a scheme. At least in the NY and LA markets, since their big four network locals (both HD and SD) are almost all on different CONUS beam transponders at 99(c) (101 for SD) so they can double as DNS service feeds.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Why would anyone want to use dishes new method over just recording the programs you want anyway, since you would only have 7 days and you won't be able to skip commercials. I know people complain about Direct keeping 100 gigs of space on their dvrs, but this is even more than that, and is silly IMHO. They should have just built a 6 tuner dvr and been done with it instead of a marketing gimmick. I am sure they think this will help increase ad revenue, but I doubt it will have any real impact. Frankly, no one should use it, because it could be the first shot in all of dvr land to try and get rid of ffwd on all dvrs.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I dont see it that way. If written correctly, it just locks onto the selected video PID with corresponding audio PID and plays as normal. I dont see any reason that should disable trick play. Its just streams in a file.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Its just streams in a file.


I think this might be a bit simplistic.
First, the transponder has a much wider bandwidth.
Second, if the network channels are broken down into individual files, there is a lot of decoding and multiple files having to be stored at one time.
Third, if the tuner does have the bandwidth, and not the decoding chips, then the whole encoded [muxed] transponder is one big file.
Fourth, to play back, the whole "file" needs to be separated [with a tuner?] into the single channels and then decoded.

Back to the topic of "can the HR34"... with "only" three dual tuner chips, nope.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> I think this might be a bit simplistic.
> First, the transponder has a much wider bandwidth.
> *- not that wide - around 30 Mbps, ie 3 MBps total of TS per transponder, so any HDD will sustain the speed*
> Second, if the network channels are broken down into individual files, there is a lot of decoding and multiple files having to be stored at one time.
> ...


I would add a couple cents.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> I would add a couple cents.


You might need to "rethink" your couple of cents.
You've seemed to substitute Mb/s for MHz and not accounted for the Spaceway TPs that are about twice the size.
I haven't gone through the Broadcom chip details, but it's a tuner and I've worked with tuners for years.
The SAT tuner does have to receive the whole TP, where it then picks out the channel and processes it and sends this to the drive as a file.
I don't see any chip maker including the ability to process four streams at once and not be promoting this in a way that their customers wouldn't have exploited this already, which hasn't happened.
If Dish does have a receiver that will receive four HD channels through one tuner, this chip is not what's being used by others.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Why would anyone want to use dishes new method over just recording the programs you want anyway, since you would only have 7 days and you won't be able to skip commercials.


The one benefit I can see from this is when a new show premieres that you did not know about and the next day everyone is talking about it, it would be nice if you could just go home and watch it.

Other than that, don't really see any benefit as some stuff doesn't get watched within that week.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> The one benefit I can see from this is when a new show premieres that you did not know about and the next day everyone is talking about it, it would be nice if you could just go home and watch it.
> 
> Other than that, don't really see any benefit as some stuff doesn't get watched within that week.


It would also be good for folks who are technologically challenged, for whatever reason. Makes it real easy for them, at least for the network stuff.


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

Seems like a marketing gimmick to one up the HR34 box.

Don't think there is much value in it for real life scenarios.


----------



## Daniel (Feb 6, 2007)

Most of the scheduling conflicts that we have in our house revolve around recording primetime broadcast network shows. If I didn't need to worry about the big four networks and still had two tuners available to record non-broadcast networks (three during non-primetime), that would probably fulfill all of our needs. 

I also saw a demo of the Hopper and it is blazing fast. I've about lost patience with our ridiculously slow HR21s. 

I don't know if I'll switch yet, but the Hopper/Joey combo is very tempting.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Daniel" said:


> Most of the scheduling conflicts that we have in our house revolve around recording primetime broadcast network shows. If I didn't need to worry about the big four networks and still had two tuners available to record non-broadcast networks (three during non-primetime), that would probably fulfill all of our needs.
> 
> I also saw a demo of the Hopper and it is blazing fast. I've about lost patience with our ridiculously slow HR21s.
> 
> I don't know if I'll switch yet, but the Hopper/Joey combo is very tempting.


Hr34 can get all your network channels at once, and because of how often cable channels repeate their programing, you shouldn't miss anything of theirs either.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Davenlr" said:


> I dont see it that way. If written correctly, it just locks onto the selected video PID with corresponding audio PID and plays as normal. I dont see any reason that should disable trick play. Its just streams in a file.


I read that dish said trick play is disable. I doubt it Has anything to do with technology, and everything to do with making Hollywood happy about this feature.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> You might need to "rethink" your couple of cents.
> You've seemed to substitute Mb/s for MHz and not accounted for the Spaceway TPs that are about twice the size.
> *- nope, I'm stick to Mbps not MHz; SW-1/2 are reconfigured for DTV to use 28-36 MHz, not 62.5 MHz tpns, as a band filter inside of sat tuner's chips has the bandwidth settings.*
> I haven't gone through the Broadcom chip details, but it's a tuner and I've worked with tuners for years.
> ...


More cents to add  - see above.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> More cents to add  - see above.


You may be sticking to the wrong thing then.
When Sac HD locals were on Spaceway, the seven channels used one TP, and when they moved them off they take 2 TPs now.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Nope, I can tell you real bandwidth of each tpn. 
5-6-7-8 HD channels is not an issues for DVB-S2 8PSK Ka transponders. Take look back to the numbers (I recal in Sixto's thread) where I did provide all combinations of FEC and real throughput of Ka tpns.
[No way you could take on top of me in such discussion .  I have facts in my hands !] 

Addition: Each One Ka Transponder has *SR = 30 Msps* Regardless Satellite Type, would it be D-xx or SW-x. It would give real hint about bandwidth of these transponders.
Also, I will give a chance to proof the statement about using 62.5 MHz bandwidth of SW-1/2 transponders, but don't forget to cover that by specs of using these by DTV demod chips regarding max Data Rates !


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

:new_popco


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Nope, I can tell you real bandwidth of each tpn.
> 5-6-7-8 HD channels is not an issues for DVB-S2 8PSK Ka transponders. Take look back to the numbers (I recal in Sixto's thread) where I did provide all combinations of FEC and real throughput of Ka tpns.
> [No way you could take on top of me in such discussion .  I have facts in my hands !]
> 
> ...


IIRC, Sixto and I had some PMs about the number of channels per TP, and it turned out he was correct [duh]. When the SAC locals moved off the Spaceway, the seven HD channels took up more than one TP.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sorry, but presenting facts would be more appropriate to get this going...

At this moment, I will take it as that technical info above posted by me is prevailing and a verdict fall to default:
- DTV is not using 'wide' transponders of SW-1/2 for downlink to STBs;
- by modified FW (SW) DTV could take whole mux [transponder], do store it as a raw file and parse/play later by user's request.

[I saw during early stage of D10 in orbit tests these SW-1/2 62.5 MHz tpns - perhaps used for other purpose...]


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> :new_popco


This may not be as entertaining as you want/hope.

I can't measure the actual TPs bandwidth using in MHz.
I do know that the Sac DMA had four 1080i + two 720p channels on one TP off the Spaceway. They later added the PBS 720p, but don't know if this was before or after they move them off the Spaceway and now they use 2 tps.

As for the receiver tuner chip and any additional chips needed. 
"It would seem" everyone would have leveraged this if the chips could do this.
Maybe Dish has added enough chips to handle this, but the topic was about the HR34, which doesn't/can't, and isn't going to be done "with a software update", from what I've heard.
I do know, a couple of years back DirecTV was "floating the idea" of being able to go back in time in the guide and pull up shows to watch. This idea never was explained to any detail, and hasn't seen "the light of day" in any form yet.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Sorry, but presenting facts would be more appropriate to get this going...
> 
> At this moment, I will take it as that technical info above posted by me is prevailing *and a verdict fall to default:*
> - DTV is not using 'wide' transponders of SW-1/2 for downlink to STBs.
> ...


Don't _even_ try to use legal terminology. It's hard enough to follow what you're trying to say in ungrammatical English mashed up with technical jargon (half of which is non-standard or used in odd contexts). Mixing in legal terms with nuances you don't understand helps no one. :nono:

Now, all of the above Treknobabble notwithstanding, I reassert what I wrote in my post above: "recording a whole transponder" is so vague as to be meaningless without substantial qualification and context.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Sorry, but presenting facts would be more appropriate to get this going...
> 
> At this moment, I will take it as that technical info above posted by me is prevailing and a verdict fall to default:
> - DTV is not using 'wide' transponders of SW-1/2 for downlink to STBs;
> - by modified FW (SW) DTV could take whole mux [transponder], do store it as a raw file and parse/play later by user's request.


As I've posted, they carry more channels than the others.
I'd seriously need to see a block diagram before I could believe the "whole TP" could be routed back from the hard drive to be processed for playback.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> This may not be as entertaining as you want/hope.


I'm just enjoying reading the posts. It's refreshing to observe (mostly)/participate (a little) in a discussion with people who know what they're talking about.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sad to see one of so technically educated/trained/experience *satellite building engineer *swamp in my bad English and lost himself in real word of satellites/transponders/chips and terminology.

Stop reading my grammatically incorrect posts - read Broadcom docs, look under hood of your HR34 (no need to open a cover for that) ... 
*Do* something by yourself to understand the discussion, bring real facts what you are *American Correctly Speaking Person* could do, just close eyes to my posts.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> As I've posted, they carry more channels than the others.
> I'd seriously need to see a block diagram before I could believe the "whole TP" could be routed back from the hard drive to be processed for playback.


I can do that with $30 PCIe or USB sat card.... Easy. 

I did give real info about some of KA tpns, when ppl asked to compare some channels between DTV and dish ...


----------



## qcarm (Jan 1, 2012)

From a software standpoint, it doesn't matter where a stream comes from. You just need a stream from somewhere (the receiver or hard drive) to feed the Broadcom and firmware. If the chipset doesn't care where the stream comes from then it shouldn't matter whether it is deconstructed during or after reception.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

qcarm said:


> From a software standpoint, it doesn't matter where a stream comes from. You just need a stream from somewhere (the receiver or hard drive) to feed the Broadcom and firmware. If the chipset doesn't care where the stream comes from then it shouldn't matter whether it is deconstructed during or after reception.


This is where the actual board/block diagram needs to come in.
Can the whole TP get to the hard drive and then can it be routed back to the processing chips? :shrug:

Guess the point I'm trying to make is: is there a common bus for all these chips, or are they cascaded from one to another?


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> ... "recording a whole transponder" is so vague as to be meaningless without substantial qualification and context.


I used to record my HD locals from Comcast with a MyHD tuner card. It supported clear QAM and I remember two of the big 4 networks were subchannels of the same main channel. It meant I could record two channels at once, which was pretty cool.

What dish seems to be doing (or trying to do) with PrimeTime Anytime seems to be a cool idea.

"Can the HR34 record multiple channels from the same transponder with a single tuner?" would be a better question. The dish Hopper, since it is only a 3 tuner box, needs a little help and PTAT is just that. The HR34 can record all 5 networks if necessary, without any extra magic.

I haven't had a chance to compare HD quality, but it may be that dish's HD quality is such that recording sizes are smaller, meaning less data for the four channels combined, which would make it easier to capture the data with a single tuner.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> This is where the actual board/block diagram needs to come in.
> Can the whole TP get to the hard drive and then can it be routed back to the processing chips? :shrug:
> 
> Guess the point I'm trying to make is: is there a common bus for all these chips, or are they cascaded from one to another?


There is serial or parallel TS bus(es) (sometime it named as MPEG TS bus) what carry whole mux ie transponder [for the sat companies] and it's coming to main chip (7400/1/2/10/20), some chips has dual input TS (another hint - PIP HW feature). If you willing going to real implementation, there are dish's DVR schematics out there (for real DP501). 
[Told yeah, I'm for facts  and my bad English will not dismiss these ]


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Does anyone else think that sometimes the babbling is simply done to get the last word in? Since no one can understand the post, it's kind of hard to respond or refute.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> snip...
> 
> I can't measure the actual TPs bandwidth using in MHz.
> I do know that the Sac DMA had four 1080i + two 720p channels on one TP off the Spaceway. They later added the PBS 720p, but don't know if this was before or after they move them off the Spaceway and now they use 2 tps.
> ...


Just to add a data point...

All 7 Portland, OR HD locals come from D10/12 on tpn 21. Four at 1080i and 3 at 720p. There is an eighth in test, also on tpn 21 at 720p.

So at the moment, 8 HD channels on one transponder! :eek2:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Go Beavs said:


> Just to add a data point...
> 
> All 7 Portland, OR HD locals come from D10/12 on tpn 21. Four at 1080i and 3 at 720p. There is an eighth in test, also on tpn 21 at 720p.
> 
> So at the moment, 8 HD channels on one transponder! :eek2:


Adding to that more techno: if DTV could go up to upper limit of current demod chipset [45 Msps] theoretically speaking, it would add 50%; but the step would require to raise power requirement for uplink stations (not that hard to implement) and satellite's transponders - that's where the gold value selected: 30 MSps, for all Ka transponders, for all Ka sats: D-1x and SW-1/2.

As we see from above, the parameters: bandwidth, modulation, SR, FEC, etc creating enough to transmit 7-8 channels from sats to Earth.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Guys, please stay on topic and don't discuss each other.

:backtotop

Thank You.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SW was supposed to be adjustable from what I recall, meaning they could have one TP be as wide as two TPs on say d10. 

Also, Dish is saying only the big four networks right? Do we know for sure that they aren't going to be pushing these shows like DTV does with some movies? If so, they could drop them in overnight to everyone easily, or heck, even during the day and then make them available when the time is right. 

Here would be my question. We know that an HR34 gets an entire tp worth of data at once, but the question is, how does it handle that data, and what is it capable of doing with that data? Can the unit route all the data to the hard drive, and then when it is being pulled from the hard drive be separated, instead of being separated before it goes to the hard drive. Who knows???? I think that is what VOS is saying, right? Or am I way off?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That what I did answer to VOS and you missed.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

P Smith said:


> That what I did answer to VOS and you missed.


Sorry, you may have tried to answer that, but I didn't see it anywhere in your posts that I could understand.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

He didn't complain so far.
Sorry, I'm still working on my ESL ... Pick just technical info, don't bother with my grammar.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> He didn't complain so far.


Which isn't a sign of agreement or understanding, but merely [yawn] not worth commenting, but since you're looking for one: eight HD channels on one TP sure sounds like more than 30 Mb/s


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> Which isn't a sign of agreement or understanding, but merely [yawn] not worth commenting, but since you're looking for one: eight HD channels on one TP sure sounds like more than 30 Mb/s


OK, I don't want make 'sounds' but facts - what sat/tpn you're interesting and I'll provide real numbers to you?

But, please don't make it look messy - I told about Symbol Rate limit for all Ka tpns - 30 Msps; and I told you get a few real numbers xxx Mbps for different combinations of modulation+FEC from old famous Sixto thread. So far you got it wrong and it's not my bad English was the reason.

[Actually it become too messy - you're posting your merely thoughts without any real facts/parameters in correct English, while I'm (with my bad English) responding real technical data -you ignoring it just because don't want to look in Sixto thread, can't accept simple numbers ... sad case; if you don't want to get into it - just say it and we will finish. But as I told you - you got many errors in your posts, factual errors]


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> OK, I don't want make...


"Really" the only thing I wanted from you was the actual bandwidth being used of the TPs, which you've shown in the past, but have ignored and shifted instead to "a bunch of stuff", that doesn't mean much.
Somewhere I think I did find a post from Sixto with Spaceway's being 60+ MHz, yesterday.
Bandwidth in MHz is what's licensed, while modulation schemes/methods can vary the bit rates.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I don't have facts about SW-1/2 tpn's bandwidth. If you can - provide a link to reliable data (by manufacturer preferably). I don't want to repeat what many times been posted here about variable bandwidth of the flexible platform.
But if you come back to matter of the sub-discussion you will get from Sixto same numbers about PERTINENT BITRATES 30-40 Mbps of SW-1/2 transponders.
If you want THE number PRECISELY - tell me what particular TP you wish to know - I'll check it. [How many times I would ask you same question ? Duh !]

Perhaps it would easy to comprehend - bandwidth is not pertinent , but relevant for the hard-coded Symbol Rate (perhaps it underutilized SW-1/2 wide tpns) - that is my answer to your first point in the thread: "_First, the transponder has a much wider bandwidth_." DOESN'T MATTER - TS bitrate is defined by SR/FEC/Modulation parameters. You brought the irrelevant 'wider' point to the discussion -

*HR34 or ANY other DTV DVR COULD collect whole mux of ANY transponders*. Period. Change FW and that dish PTA will bite the dust.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> "Really" the only thing I wanted from you was the actual bandwidth being used of the TPs, which you've shown in the past, but have ignored and shifted instead to "a bunch of stuff", that doesn't mean much.
> Somewhere I think I did find *a post from Sixto with Spaceway's being 60+ MHz*, yesterday.
> Bandwidth in MHz is what's licensed, while modulation schemes/methods can vary the bit rates.


Sixto could mention the centering of SW-1/2 tpns: 62.5 MHz. 
To show bandwidth you or him must present spectrum pictures or manufacturer's data.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I want to throw monkey wrench to that nice 62.5 MHZ centering: last months added/activated a few SW-1/2 tpns with a freq 19850.67 MHz. Before it was nice and clean:
TP##


freq | R| L
19741.67| 1 |2
19804.17 |3| 4
19866.67 |5 |6


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> I want to throw monkey wrench to that nice 62.5 MHZ centering: last months added/activated a few SW-1/2 tpns with a freq 19850.67 MHz. Before it was nice and clean:
> TP##
> 
> 
> ...


I think we both know there is spacing between the TPs, so the 62.5 centering isn't the actual usable bandwidth or what's being used, but going back to the tuner in the receiver, it's bandwidth does need to be wide enough to capture the whole TP being used.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

> the actual usable bandwidth


 - so what's its value ?

I don't see any problem with that - all DTV receivers(modern type) working fine with 'wider' SW-1/2 tpns.
Back to record whole transponder - the 'wideness' is irrelevant for the case - all Ka tpn's streams/muxes from different transponders are fit into 30-40 Mbps bitrate.

Are we clear now ?

Finishing the thread - to answer the OP question: *yes, with modified FW.*


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> - so what's its value ?
> 
> I don't see any problem with that - all DTV receivers(modern type) working fine with 'wider' SW-1/2 tpns.
> Back to record whole transponder - the 'wideness' is irrelevant for the case - all Ka tpn's streams/muxes from different transponders are fit into 30-40 Mbps bitrate.
> ...


So 30 Mb/s has now become 40 Mb/s, but the bandwidth used, in MHz is relevant, as the receiver's tuner does need to have enough bandwidth to receive it, since after all, this is an RF signal.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> So 30 Mb/s has now become 40 Mb/s, but the bandwidth used, in MHz is relevant, as the receiver's tuner does need to have enough bandwidth to receive it, since after all, this is an RF signal.


Seems to me you just bickering ... Deliberately mixing SR (symbol rates) and BitRates ... Sad thing it show a) bad taste of discussion b) misunderstanding the parameters c) unwilling to accept something news (I know how aging affecting, so you are not alone) ...

Back to real facts about GB/s on a drive of DTV's DVR:
- first , the data is taken very easy for those who has external drive and Windows;
- borrow it for short time (stop your DVR for the time)
- connect it to Windows PC by USB or eSATA (it's nice to have a couple TT BlacX docks 
- download/install any trial version of UFS Explorer
- run it, select second partition (15 GB)
- navigate to /viewer/segments folder - you will see all your recordings as folders with names like 
Rcrd-02-13-2010-1700-00-8547-ch501-min65535-src2.mpg
- it has a date [02/13/2010], time [17:00] in military format, ch####; that would be enough to calculate (if you need a name of the show - use all the values and find it in Playlist or look into /mw_data folder for similar name "Rcrd-02-13-2010-1700-00-8547-ch501-min65535-src2.umd.dmd" - there is enough text strings to read) our discussed rates
- oh, inside of that folder you will find precise time count - check [16 MB chunk] file's timestamps

So, what we see for the particular movie: "17 Again" on HBO, ch501, 2hr - 7.365 GB of stream.
What is come to 3.7 GB/h. Good number.
Next: KQED, ch9 (local) 1h30m
/viewer/segments/Rcrd-11-05-2009-0200-00-11-ch9-min65535-src2.mpg
10.535 GB/1.5h = 7.02 GB/h
Other:REEL, ch238
/viewer/segments/Rcrd-04-11-2011-2000-00-2227-ch238-min65535-src2.mpg
0,990 GB /1 hr = ~1 GB/h

Well, let me correct my errors: 
*DTV recordings as files on a drive: ~1 GB/h for SD channels and ~4 GB/h for HD MPEG-4 and ~7 GB/h for LiL channels.*

[Somehow my memory misplaced/reverted the 1:4 SD/HD ratio... I guess that file sizes VOD offline mutipass compression created such impression from past experience]


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Well, let me correct my errors:
> *DTV recordings as files on a drive: ~1 GB/h for SD channels and ~4 GB/h for HD MPEG-4 and ~7 GB/h for LiL channels.*
> 
> [Somehow my memory misplaced/reverted the 1:4 SD/HD ratio... I guess that file sizes VOD offline mutipass compression created such impression from past experience]


So this sort of fall inline with what most have been posting and what DirecTV has about the old HR20 having 30 hours of MPEG-2 HD, and 50 hours of MPEG-4 HD.
The only time I've seen anything other was the Ken Burns national parks series, which for some odd reason didn't encode well into MPEG-4, which ended up taking twice the disk size, and having bit-rates at or above 20 Mb/s.

VOD HD can be as low as a sustained 6 Mb/s, as Game of Thrones I downloaded ten shows over my 6 Mb/s internet, and they finished in 10 hours.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I think anyone who had VOD titles on his drive and willing to follow my steps above, could tell us the number for DTV VOD at least.
Would be interesting to see for 1080i, 1080p and 3D movies ...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> I think anyone who had VOD titles on his drive and willing to follow my steps above, could tell us the number for DTV VOD at least.
> Would be interesting to see for 1080i, 1080p and 3D movies ...


Since I don't have a external drive, I use DirecTV2PC to know/monitor the streaming size.
I was surprised a 1080i [HBO] was "only" 6 Mb/s, and looked fine/good.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Then how you calculate bitrate from the example ?


> So, what we see for the particular movie: "17 Again" on HBO, ch501, 2hr - 7.365 GB of stream.
> What is come to 3.7 GB/h


.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Then how you calculate bitrate from the example ?
> .


"poorly"
[7365 ÷ 120 x 8 ÷ 60] 
but its average seems to be 8.18 Mb/s, which since MPEG-4 varies so much during playback, doesn't give a very good idea of what the peaks are.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The peaks .. I wouldn't concern if you calculating driver's space. 
It would affect fast moving scenes and switching shots.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> The peaks .. I wouldn't concern if you calculating driver's space.
> It would affect fast moving scenes and switching shots.


Correct, for drive space the total/average is what matters.
Streaming bit-rates has more to do with the peaks though and when they vary from as little as 3 Mb/s to over 12 Mb/s "the average" is hard to figure.
Drive space and the percentage of free space seems to be matching your tests though. The 300 GB drives report 2% usage/hour and the 500 GB report 1%.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I think after 1-2-3 (it's so easy) posted method, anyone could bring the numbers by using external drive as a source.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> I think after 1-2-3 (it's so easy) posted method, anyone could bring the numbers by using external drive as a source.


"All they need to do is": have an external drive, which not everyone does.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> ...the transponder has a much wider bandwidth.
> Second, if the network channels are broken down into individual files, there is a lot of decoding and multiple files having to be stored at one time.
> Third, if the tuner does have the bandwidth, and not the decoding chips, then the whole encoded [muxed] transponder is one big file.
> Fourth, to play back, the whole "file" needs to be separated [with a tuner?] into the single channels and then decoded...


I think we need not worry about bandwidth; current DTV DVB tuners see the entire bandwidth of available transponders now as a regular part of how they work. This is because the slots in a transponder are only virtual reservations for separate elemental streams that are really a single data stream. Multiple programs are multiplexed together in a MPTS or multiple program transport stream, typically one MPTS per transponder (and statmuxed within that stream). Current tuners see the entire stream also, so also need to be able to capture the entire bandwidth, which is not a difficult task. The tuner for a "Hopper" would do much the same thing as a conventional tuner.

Here is where the main difference lies: in a conventional DVR, the program of interest is demultiplexed from the MPTS (and the rest ignored) and recorded as a file. In a "Hopper"-type scenario, the entire MPTS is recorded as a file, and the demux happens at playback. Either that, or each program is demuxed and routed to the HDD separately at record (it seems the first option is probably how this works, as the limitations of that are likely what drives some of the partitioning schemes in play).

Recording the entire stream is not difficult, as current media HDDs are capable of handling up to a dozen HD streams at once, and the Hopper only needs to record 6 and play back 1-2 at any particular time. Any existing DVR could theoretically be downloaded an OS version that could allow it to do this, assuming it had the horsepower and the tuners. An HR34 could possibly be retrofitted in place to allow this sort of record/play behavior.

Decode only needs to happen at playback, so there is nothing new there either. All of these technologies are common in the professional world so are proven and not at all expensive or difficult. It's just that the Engineers at DISH have decided to try to implement these technologies in a consumer setting; something never attempted before. The only real technical hurdle to doing this is to have the programs of interest grouped on the same MPTS/transponder. It would be child's play for DTV to make those sorts of changes (although there are some obstacles at the present in some markets).

Bottom line, technically this is not difficult; its just a revolutionary approach to DBS DVRs. The technology has been there for some time; DISH just decided to use it to their advantage. Good for them; I hope its a resounding success and that DTV apes their resounding success.

But the real potential advantage of implementing this technology may not be in block auto-recording prime as much as it may lie in the potential to minimize conflicts among recordings 24/7 and to create an automatic push-technology on-demand cache on the STB HDD.

It is also a way to distinguish themselves from cable and promote advantages that they can't match. DBS can use a single MPTS for a single transponder that can hold 4 or more program streams at the same time, and recording those as a block recording can avoid tuner conflicts. This is different that how conventional sat works where slots are rented out by the time chunk to separate users; in that scenario the transponder would have separate program streams for each slot on the transponder.

Cable works pretty much the same way; they can put usually a max of two HD channels in a single QAM channel slot, 3 if they move to MPEG-4 and keep the bit rate a little lower, which would degrade the PQ a bit. That fact, that even with MPEG-4 they can't really squeeze 3 programs into a QAM channel without a quality compromise is one of the reasons MPEG-4 hasn't really caught on with cable (that and the fact that they have more bandwidth to play with).

This means that they could employ Hopper technology, but it would be of limited value as it would prevent fewer recording conflicts and would be hit and miss. Here's what they should have done, which is to implement it when digital cable (SD) first debuted; then they could have used it with QAM and 10-12 program streams per channel. Now with HD in 87% of homes, its a little late for them. Of course it likely wasn't practical, as DVR HDDs were small back then; only now with the convergence of spot beam locals, MPEG-4, large HDDs, and powerful DVRs does this new approach really start to make sense.

Actually, one of the first digital cable methods did have a way of doubling the number of channels you could carry by combining them 2 to a channel, but compression was MPEG-1 which was not so great, and it implied that every set would need an expensive STB, so that idea died out pretty quickly.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Just to bring a normal well known acronyms, here a quote from one good site [Rod's]:


> SCPC, MCPC, PIDs and Formats
> 
> What's MCPC?
> 
> ...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Just to bring a normal well known acronyms, here a quote from one good site [Rod's]:


True, though for the sake of accuracy I think MCPC is really a generic classification of transmission methods since "Code Division Division Multiple Access" (CDMA) is a type of MCPC too.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

TomCat said:


> ...But the real potential advantage of implementing this technology may not be in block auto-recording prime as much as it may lie in the potential to minimize conflicts among recordings 24/7 and to create an automatic push-technology on-demand cache on the STB HDD...


Funny you should mention On-Demand. Back when the Spaceway satellites were repurposed for DirecTV, there was a lot of talk about them using them exactly this way. Because the spots are so flexible and configurable on the fly, it was speculated that a true On-Demand system could be built, using a few really wide-band transponders. Ultimately, by the time DirecTV got to HD On-demand as a service, it was easier and cheaper to use terrestrial Internet delivery.

Of course, the original purpose of the Spaceway satellites were as "broadband Internet in the sky." That really is very similar to what Dish is doing here. Effectively, they are treating the transponder in question as a single data channel, just as HughesNet does. It just so happens that this data feed contains 4 digital video streams, which the Hopper records for later processing.

As HoTat points out, the Hopper doesn't do anything different than any other DVR, it just does it in a different order. In the Hopper, the record/playback loop can be optionally inserted BEFORE the demux step, whereas the standard method is to do it afterwards.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Titan25 said:


> Funny you should mention On-Demand. Back when the Spaceway satellites were repurposed for DirecTV, there was a lot of talk about them using them exactly this way. Because the spots are so flexible and configurable on the fly, it was speculated that a true On-Demand system could be built, *using a few really wide-band transponders*. Ultimately, by the time DirecTV got to HD On-demand as a service, it was easier and cheaper to use terrestrial Internet delivery.
> 
> Of course, the original purpose of the Spaceway satellites were as "broadband Internet in the sky." That really is very similar to what Dish is doing here. Effectively, they are treating the transponder in question as a single data channel, just as HughesNet does. It just so happens that this *data feed contains 4 digital video streams*, which the Hopper records for later processing.
> 
> As HoTat points out, the Hopper doesn't do anything different than any other DVR, it just does it in a different order. In the Hopper, the record/playback loop can be optionally inserted BEFORE the demux step, whereas the standard method is to do it afterwards.


1. As I did try to explain a few times here - regardless of wide [62.5MHz] bandwidth of SW's transponders, tuner (chips) in DTV receivers/DVRs cannot get full advantage of the wideness. Stable receiving of MCPC tpn is limited to 30 Msps and bitrate 45 Mbps after demod chip.
To speculate - possible SR for such tpn could be 50-60 Msps and bitrate 80-90+ Mbps.
2. That tpns (spotbeam type) carry more then big four channels, just the PTA feature do pull only the four.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> 1. As I did try to explain a few times here - regardless of wide [62.5MHz] bandwidth of SW's transponders, tuner (chips) in DTV receivers/DVRs cannot get full advantage of the wideness. Stable receiving of MCPC tpn is limited to 30 Msps and bitrate 45 Mbps after demod chip.
> To speculate - possible SR for such tpn could be 50-60 Msps and bitrate 80-90+ Mbps.
> 2. That tpns (spotbeam type) carry more then big four channels, just the PTA feature do pull only the four.


So I guess we would then attribute this apparently very inefficient use of the Spaceway's available transponder bandwidth, less than 50%, as due to the fact they were not originally designed for relaying TV signals to begin with?

Also with this less than 50% Tp. BW utilization, it would seem that DIRECTV could fit two MCPC streams per Spaceway Tp. in a "half-transponder" arrangement for more channel capacity and BW efficiency.

But I assume sharing the Tp. power level this way by each MCPC stream would then require a 3 DB loss for both in addition to a necessary power "back-off" on the uplink signals to the satellite to prevent possible IM distortion problems on the receive side of the transponder.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"HoTat2" said:


> So I guess we would then attribute this apparently very inefficient use of the Spaceway's available transponder bandwidth, less than 50%, as due to the fact they were not originally designed for relaying TV signals to begin with?
> 
> Also with this less than 50% Tp. BW utilization, it would seem that DIRECTV could fit two MCPC streams per Spaceway Tp. in a "half-transponder" arrangement for more channel capacity and BW efficiency.
> 
> But I assume sharing the Tp. power level this way by each MCPC stream would then require a 3 DB loss for both in addition to a necessary power "back-off" on the uplink signals to the satellite to prevent possible IM distortion problems on the receive side of the transponder.


Can be as wide as, but doesn't have to be. I don't think they run them at that full bandwidth, but I do think at least at some point they where run at a wider bandwidth than a spot at say d10. That's the whole point of these guys, they are completely configurable. The only thing they failed at was giving us one giant conus transponder that could be used affectively.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I can get the real bandwidth for 99s, 102W spot beams are not active in my area.


----------



## bleggett29 (Feb 2, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> As I've posted, they carry more channels than the others.
> I'd seriously need to see a block diagram before I could believe the "whole TP" could be routed back from the hard drive to be processed for playback.


I've played with TSReader PRO for some time recording entire QAM/ATSC channels into one file and use VLC to select the correct audio/video/subtitle PIDs to watch specific subchannels "on the fly" so to speak.
I don't see why it couldn't be done on a DirecTV HDDVR. Record entire TP in one file and have an entry(pointer file thats 1 or 2kb) in the playlist with the PIDs for each program. User selects the pointer file and program is played back from the large TP dump.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

See post#54. We done with it.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

P Smith said:


> Just to bring a normal well known acronyms, here a quote from one good site [Rod's]:





> What's MCPC?
> 
> MCPC stands for Multiple Channel Per Carrier. Given an average satellite transponder with a bandwidth of 27MHz, typically, the highest symbol rate that can be used is SR 26MS/s. Obviously, with this large bandwidth, multiple video or audio channels can be transmitted via the transponder at the same time.
> 
> MCPC uses a technique called Time Division Multiplex to transmit the multiple programs at the same time. As one can expect from the name, TDM sends data for one channel at a certain time and then data for another channel at another time...


That's a good one, P.

It also helps delineate the difference between cable and DBS, as well as between DBS and conventional digital satellite.

DBS sats using MPTS are using a form of MCPC (except that MPTS uses parameters very specific to MPEG transport streams while MCPC is more of a generic term) and since it uses packetized delivery, is also using a form of TDM almost be definition (188-byte [really 187] packets for one program are time-interleaved with packets from other programs into a single wide program stream per transponder). This is not all that different from how TCP/IP/UDP networking works either.

While conventional DVB sats implement similar technology (the audio and video packets are interleaved, which is also TDM) there are usually separate program streams for an particular program ("program" refers to all of the video, audio, and other streams associated with a particular streaming event). IOW, a digital channel typically has four slots, each of which can be receiving a different upklink from different sources anywhere in the footprint, and they are all on slightly different frequencies but all still within the bandwidth/polarity of the same transponder. So rather than one wide data stream per transponder, there are up to 4 narrow data streams (slots) per transponder.

That is primarily not TDM, but Frequency Division Multiplexing, or FDM. Cable uses primarily FDM to present different networks on different QAM channels, but also uses TDM to get two or more program streams into the same QAM channel, which is then technically also a form of MCPS, and may even be the same MPTS scheme that DVB uses, or something very similar.

And obviously, there are compromises whenever you do this; one program on a transponder can be transmitted at a higher power than each of four programs, for instance. And IM and CTB artifacts on cable systems increase 6 dB every time the number of carriers doubles (either that or they have to lower the power in each carrier somewhat as more channels are added to the system).

Forward error correction, which all of these systems use, is itself a form of TDM, as primary data packets are interleaved with redundant data packets.

So, yes, these are all similar techniques implemented in different ways and flavors. I am just excited to see DBS starting to branch out into new but promising unfamiliar (to them) territory in order to provide better features for customers.

This part, though, seems somewhat out of date:



> ...Many encoder manufacturers are currently experimenting with statistical multiplexing of MPEG-2 data. Using this technique, channels that need high data rate bursts in order to prevent pixelization of the picture (such as live sports events), will obtain the bandwidth as they need it by reducing the data rate for other services that don't.
> 
> Statistical multiplexing should improve perceived picture quality, especially on video that changes rapidly and has the advantage of requiring no changes in the receiver equipment.


 Statmux is hardly experimental. DBS has been implementing statmux very successfully since the mid nineties, and individual TV stations who have sub channels are also beginning to jump on board as this is typically an option in modern ATSC encoders.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> ...I'd seriously need to see a block diagram before I could believe the "whole TP" could be routed back from the hard drive to be processed for playback.


While this may not be exactly why you bring this subject up, you may have hit on what determines whether a particular existing DVR can use the technology or not. Assuming the hardware and OS are modular and flexible enough, it would work, as it centers primarily on whether the demux function can be both retasked and moved from pre-HDD to post-HDD.

If it can, it works. If it can't, it won't. But all of the other requirements are probably already there in modern powerful DVRs such as the HR34 and maybe even the new DTivo (or is that limited to 2 tuners?). And all of what this implies is that "Hopper"-style DVRs would not be hard to ramp up quickly if the concept proves successful for DISH and DTV then wants to jump on the bandwagon. Stranger things have happened.

I would love to see that block diagram myself. But we can probably imagine that one of the first "Hopper" customers was an _in cognito_ DTV engineer and that DTV has been very busy reverse engineering it as a part of the due dilligence of their own R&D. My best guess would be that they have turned it inside out and probably already know more about "Hopper/Joey" than Iran will ever know about fallen drones.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

I think the question for the OP should be why would you want to record a bunch of Primetime programs off your 4 local networks you probably are not going to watch anyways?.

I have DISH and I'm not impressed,DirecTV's HR34 wins this round,unless DISH can go back to the drawing boards and pull a "Joey" out of their hat?.

Once my commitment ends I will be taking a serious look at DirecTV and the HR34.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Jhon69 said:


> I think the question for the OP should be why would you want to record a bunch of Primetime programs off your 4 local networks you probably are not going to watch anyways?.
> 
> I have DISH and I'm not impressed,DirecTV's HR34 wins this round,unless DISH can go back to the drawing boards and pull a "Joey" out of their hat?.
> 
> Once my commitment ends I will be taking a serious look at DirecTV and the HR34.


Suit yourself, but it's not a contest. Options for new technology means everybody wins, not X wins and Y loses. And the technology is pretty simple and simple to implement, so they probably can and will do it if it develops any sort of following.

I think the better question might be "why would you even ask such a question?". The entire point is that the user _*doesn't have to record anything;*_ the DVR records it automatically and with virtually no penalty to existing available HDD space. It's both win-win and a net win; content potentially available that wasn't before without fussing with it, at no penalty.

Even if you never ever record one big-4 prime program (which would really put you in the lunatic fringe of DVR owners), as the owner of such a DVR you would give up absolutely nothing in the process. How could that be considered a problem?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

TomCat said:


> The entire point is that the user doesn't have to record anything; the DVR records it automatically *and with virtually no penalty to existing available HDD space.* It's both win-win and a net win; content potentially available that wasn't before without fussing with it, *at no penalty.*


Please explain that part again.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

LameLefty said:


> Please explain that part again.


I think he means its because the PTAT feature records the network block to the reserved partition of the HDD on the Hopper to which the user has no access to anyway.

IOW, the user partition is not effected by this feature.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

And the penalty is a size of the reserved partition - half of whole drive, because they're left 250 Hrs of HD to us, what would roughly calculated to 1 TB.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

P Smith said:


> And the penalty is a size of the reserved partition - half of whole drive, because they're left 250 Hrs of HD to us, what would roughly calculated to 1 TB.


Exactly.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

TomCat said:


> Suit yourself, but it's not a contest. Options for new technology means everybody wins, not X wins and Y loses. And the technology is pretty simple and simple to implement, so they probably can and will do it if it develops any sort of following.
> 
> I think the better question might be "why would you even ask such a question?". The entire point is that the user _*doesn't have to record anything;*_ the DVR records it automatically and with virtually no penalty to existing available HDD space. It's both win-win and a net win; content potentially available that wasn't before without fussing with it, at no penalty.
> 
> Even if you never ever record one big-4 prime program (which would really put you in the lunatic fringe of DVR owners), as the owner of such a DVR you would give up absolutely nothing in the process. How could that be considered a problem?





P Smith said:


> And the penalty is a size of the reserved partition - half of whole drive, because they're left 250 Hrs of HD to us, what would roughly calculated to 1 TB.


I was just giving my opinion to the OP question and now since as P Smith has pointed out if DirecTV was to do a feature like this feature(Primetime Anytime) it would reduce the internal HDD to half capacity.So the HR34 would be reduced to 500 GB? Ouch! not good.:eek2::nono2:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Jhon69 said:


> I was just giving my opinion to the OP question and now since as P Smith has pointed out if DirecTV was to do a feature like this feature(Primetime Anytime) it would reduce the internal HDD to half capacity.So the HR34 would be reduced to 500 GB? Ouch! not good.:eek2::nono2:


There is also aggressive dish "Push VOD" feature in XiP813 - hundred*s* VOD movies silently downloaded to the drive. And question is - how much space reserved for that ? PTA is 400-500 GB...


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Jhon69 said:


> I was just giving my opinion to the OP question and now since as P Smith has pointed out if DirecTV was to do a feature like this feature(Primetime Anytime) it would reduce the internal HDD to half capacity.So the HR34 would be reduced to 500 GB? Ouch! not good.:eek2::nono2:


Really? You're pulling the "opinion" card? If your opinion is that you might have to give up half your normal user space for a "Hopper" partition on a DTV DVR and you would not be happy about that, well I would have to admit that I might hold a similar opinion. How about that! We actually agree!

But if you are telling me you have an "opinion" that this would be the case for DISH DVRs and DTV DVRs, I'm going to have to call you on that one. While the jury is in on what the "Hopper" is doing with partitioning, its still out on DTV, so you can only have an opinion about whether the existing known approaches and the speculative unknown approaches are acceptable to you, and not about how it will work on DTV, because no one knows just yet, and not about how it will work on DISH, because we do know.

Normally, everyone is entitled to an opinion, although pointing that out is usually only a passive-aggressive way of telling someone their opinion does not matter. So I try to not ever say that (I'd rather take the high road and prove it to you instead).

And sometimes one might be better off not forming nor holding an opinion in certain cases, whether entitled to it or not. Holding an opinion without examining the facts is the textbook definition of prejudice, for one thing. It's also not possible to hold an opposing "opinion" of any value about what has already been determined by the facts. Valid opinions can only be held about undetermined beliefs that one might have or preferences you might have. "The blonde chick on _Alcatraz_ is really hot." Thats a valid opinion (and probably widely held), even if it may differ from another valid opinion. But if you seem to hold an opinion that differs from the true and accepted facts, then the end result is that you can be nothing other than dead wrong.

So opposing facts always invalidate and trump opinion. You might believe that Newt Gingrich should be chosen the Republican party candidate for President, but that is only an opinion _because_ it can't be challenged by fact. On the other hand, you can't hold an opinion about whether Barack Obama is President at the present time because there is no way to dispute it. It _is_ a fact, and any other so-called opinion is completely invalidated by that fact.

Likewise, in the case of the Hopper, the facts speak for themselves.

Back OT, the "Hopper" is not in any way "reducing" space you would otherwise have available. And even if it were, have you actually done the math? A 1TB HDD can hold 235 hours of MPEG-4 content. Holding the previous 8 days of prime takes 114 hours of storage for 6 of 7 days of the week, and 118 hours on the remaining day of the week when two of the previous 8 days fall on Sunday (from Sunday just after prime to Monday just before prime ).

This means that if they want to build a partition for this, it would only take about 500 GB, just over half and not anything even close to 1 TB. The conclusion then must be that it is NOT the Hopper/Joey algorithm that led them to the completely arbitrary decision to make that partition 1 GB, and that they are making that partition that large for OTHER REASONS, which implies that DTV both does not have to and might not choose to take such a large piece of that pie.

But whether or not they have is somewhat beside the point, since it does not appear that they build non-Hopper DVRs that allow a larger user partition than 1 TB. This means that the "penalty" everyone seems to be hiding behind the trees over is that _you will be able to record only the same amount of content in the user partition on a Hopper than you can right now_ on their top-of-line DVR. IOW, you can only record with a Hopper the same exact amount that you always could. What a terrible price to pay!

Bottom line, if you are not actually giving up what would otherwise be user space for the Hopper partition to build a Hopper DVR, then not having that space in either the regular or Hopper DVR can't really be considered a penalty on the Hopper. And the more you want to record big-4 prime, the more space you GAIN in the user partition that you otherwise would have had to use for that. So the "penalty" is that you actually gain up to 100 hours or more of space. What a terrible idea that is!

So while that explains what is actually happening at DISH, what of the HR34? Well, that's a different story, and one that has not been told yet. So, speculation rules, and since you can either connect externally or install originally a 2 TB drive in/to a HR34, if you give up 1 TB for a "Hopper" algorithm (and we have no idea whatsoever how DTV might want to implement that) what might that leave as a user partition, and how might that compare to the user partition on DISH DVRs? There's that troublesome math again, but IF DTV might choose to do it the same way (and that is one gargantuan IF), I think logic says they might come out just about exactly the same.

So while I really was not speculating about DTV and was referring to how the "Hopper" is being implemented at DISH, have I defined "no penalty" clearly enough? And even so, isn't there a good chance that any "penalty" would be the same or even less on DTV?

It's really not all that complicated to understand. Try it.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

P Smith said:


> There is also aggressive dish "Push VOD" feature in XiP813 - hundred*s* VOD movies silently downloaded to the drive. And question is - how much space reserved for that ? PTA is 400-500 GB...


 Well, there you go. A DVR that covers all of prime and most of regularly downloaded popular non-prime content without the user lifting a finger? Not such a bad concept. And with 1 TB left over for sports and movies and cable shows you might also want? Starting to sound even better, and starting to sound like less of a niche product and more of a mainstream product.

If done right this could take a bite out of Netflix and the download sites by providing a comprehensive content platform that has significant advantages over cable, normal DBS, download, and OTA while taking a lot of the hassle out of getting the most popular of that content. As a loyal DTV sub, I'm starting to feel a little disenfranchised already.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Out of curiosity does "anyone" read a post as long as the one two posts up was?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Out of curiosity does "anyone" read a post as long as ^^^^ was?


I stopped after the first paragraph. If Directv wants to implement a "hopper" scheme, all they need to do is write the software to enable it if the DVR sees a 2TB hard drive upon bootup. Those that want it, could order the "Hopper Drive" from DirecTv for $300 and plug it in. Weaknees will sell an internal version for $900.


----------

