# Another HR24 report--Not using Broadcom



## sarhaynes (Dec 10, 2006)

I found this article today.

http://www.eeherald.com/section/news/nw100010272.html



> Television service provider, DIRECTV has adopted the HR24, a new High Definition (HD) digital video recorder (DVR) satellite system on chip (SoC) solution from NXP Semiconductor to develop the HD DVR satellite receivers.
> 
> The HR24 DVR enables to easy share high-quality, high-definition digital entertainment and data throughout the home over the existing coax cable infrastructure.
> 
> ...


This sounds like the DECA capability will be built into the box for new installs instead of having to buy extra equipment.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Great find! sarhaynes (and also RAD who also pointed this out to me.)

Very amazing that DIRECTV moved from Broadcom.

By the way, NXP bought out Conexant's set top box division.

(One other note, this article is a nearly full copy of a press release from NXP http://www.nxp.com/news/content/file_1671.html so we've left it in it's entirety.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Yes, we have been expecting the HR24 to have built-in DECA.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

texasbrit said:


> Yes, we have been expecting the HR24 to have built-in DECA.


With the DECA supplied via Entropic.


----------



## dpfaunts (Oct 17, 2006)

So would the HR-24 provide the DECA connectivity to HR-2[0-3], or would the still unreleased DECA device be required?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

DECA is not inside an HR20, HR21, HR22 or HR23 hence the need for an external adapter.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Sad news for those folks at Broadcom, but competition is good for an industry.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dpfaunts said:


> So would the HR-24 provide the DECA connectivity to HR-2[0-3], or would the still unreleased DECA device?


A DECA, built in or external, will talk to all the other DECA's on the DECA network. The HR20-23 will still need external DECAs to talk to the DECA network.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> With the DECA supplied via Entropic.


The NXP announcement explains things. I was wondering why they needed the Entropic MoCA support when it was already a feature of the BCM7410/BCM7420.


----------



## ericspacebar (Aug 1, 2007)

Found a PDF on the NXP website:

http://www.nxp.com/documents/other/75016685.pdf

The CPU architecture is ARM, doesn't Broadcom use MIPS?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

It's always interesting to see new documented information on future plans.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

sarhaynes said:


> I found this article today.
> 
> http://www.eeherald.com/section/news/nw100010272.html
> 
> This sounds like the DECA capability will be built into the box for new installs instead of having to buy extra equipment.


Built in DECA has always been the speculation of a lot of people here. I suspect that there will also be a very low cost client box with built in DECA too, possibly without any satellite tuners at all, so the HR24 might be able to serve live video from one of it's tuners in addition to serving recorded content.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

ericspacebar said:


> Found a PDF on the NXP website:
> 
> http://www.nxp.com/documents/other/75016685.pdf
> 
> The CPU architecture is ARM, doesn't Broadcom use MIPS?


From what I recall the broadcom processors do you mips. Definitely means a different firmware for the hr-24s but if they have been doing things properly it shouldn't be too hard to recompile for a new target architecture.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

ericspacebar said:


> Found a PDF on the NXP website:
> 
> http://www.nxp.com/documents/other/75016685.pdf
> 
> The CPU architecture is ARM, doesn't Broadcom use MIPS?


That's probably a good bet, although NXT also announced a next-generation DVR SoC with 50+% greater performance last fall.

http://www.nxp.com/news/content/file_1609.html

This SoC is based on the ARM Cortex-A9 CPU architecture, like that found in the nVidia Tegra and the Apple A4 SoC (i.e. Apple iPad).


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, if it delivers Faster Performance than I am all for it. Built in Deca was expected as that is the announced direction of Directv so hopefully it will be Faster and not just meant to save Money!!!


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

cartrivision said:


> Built in DECA has always been the speculation of a lot of people here. I suspect that there will also be a very low cost client box with built in DECA too, possibly without any satellite tuners at all, so the HR24 might be able to serve live video from one of it's tuners in addition to serving recorded content.


It seems like there would have to be cheap client boxes since they keep touting this system will save you so much money. Maybe the fee that everyone keeps going on about will exist to cover these boxes since the box might replace a $5 receiver charge.


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

What about a HR24 upgrade for CErs ? Ok..Ok.. off topic...


----------



## johnp37 (Sep 14, 2006)

All I care about is speed, reliability and a great picture. I really could care less about all this technical stuff. For Pete's sake, its only TV!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

EXACTLY!!!

And be careful where you point that gun as I have an exact Nickel Plated Colt Python 357 Magnum with an 8" Barrel that just looks AWESOME but I don't point it at anyone unless they come in my house unannounced!!! :lol:


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

johnp37 said:


> All I care about is speed, reliability and a great picture. I really could care less about all this technical stuff. For Pete's sake, its only TV!


Usually it's the technical stuff that determines if you will have speed, reliability and a great picture.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

So will this new chip support PIP?


----------



## chuckyvt (Jan 30, 2008)

Little dissappointing on the processor. Its lists an ARM11 processor. Its fairly old, but is dirt cheap and still widely used. This runs original iPhone and iPhone 3G among others. I've read that it is roughly comparable to a 486 that has some improvements. Would have liked for them to step up to the ARM Cortex A8, this runs the newer smart phones such as the iPhone 3GS, Palm Pre, etc. The Cortex A9 would be awesome, but is probably a stretch, and may even be overkill.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

cartrivision said:


> Usually it's the technical stuff that determines if you will have speed, reliability and a great picture.


But not always, and possibly not even often.

*"Great Picture": *There is no way technology can improve an HD picture on the decoder side, as all decoders already output a perfect replica of what was encoded at the uplink site, and D/A is so nearly-perfect that the difference between that and "perfect" is indistinguishable. It takes an analog portion of the signal chain to degrade quality. So you can "improve technically" all day and night long at a digital STB, and not ever see a difference. Digital locks quality firmly to the input level, which is why we use it. This is also why the reports of the HR-23 having a better picture than previous DVRs were completely bogus and were quickly shot down.

*"Reliability"* of newer technology is often less than that of older, proven technology (HR20 users know what I am talking about, as they have no "speed" issues as do the other HR2x DVRs). Time is the only way to make that determination in the _ad hoc _case of a particular STB.

And *"speed"* of a processor may not translate to the end-user snappiness of a GUI. Clever and elegant programming is the keeper of that gate. This is an especially-bogus consideration when the manufacturers are more interested in "cheaper" rather than "faster", and I think it is obvious what camp DTV is in. The odds that it will improve speed are probably not really much better than 60-40, even if you throw out those lofty goals.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TomCat said:


> This is also why the reports of the HR-23 having a better picture than previous DVRs were completely bogus and were quickly shot down.


Actually, they weren't but by a few people.


> *"Reliability"* of newer technology is often less than that of older, proven technology (HR20 users know what I am talking about, as they have no "speed" issues as do the other HR2x DVRs).


Using the word often in that statement makes it false.


> The odds that it will improve speed are probably not really much better than 60-40, even if you throw out those lofty goals.


Without knowing how code ctually utilizes a processor, that assumption is unfounded.

Those statements almost sound like "Agenda" items.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Looking into currently spooling code - those HR24s still based on *Broadcom* chips. Perhaps it will be HR24-900 based on different core?


----------



## chambers_62918 (Sep 5, 2006)

richierich said:


> Well, if it delivers Faster Performance than I am all for it. Built in Deca was expected as that is the announced direction of Directv so hopefully it will be Faster and not just meant to save Money!!!


Please pardon my ignorance. Could someone explain Deca? This is a new term to me. Thank you.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

chambers_62918 said:


> Please pardon my ignorance. Could someone explain Deca? This is a new term to me. Thank you.


DECA is DIRECTV's version of MoCA. MoCA is networking over coax rather than twisted pair.

MoCA is designed to give home owners a very easy way to run networks in their house, using the existing coax cabling used for TV or cable. Very cool stuff.

Since MoCA uses some of the same frequencies that satellite signals are on, DIRECTV had the MoCA engineers design a version that uses another frequency range for DIRECTV equipment. That is DECA.

DECA is only meant for use with DIRECTV Single Wire Multiswitched satellite service--tho it can be used on any empty coax as well between any two network devices if needed. 

And it works great! 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Looking into currently spooling code - those HR24s still based on *Broadcom* chips. Perhaps it will be HR24-900 based on different core?


Any chance you are seeing strings from modules that aren't active in the HR24?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Zero - only Broadcom and nothing about Conexant or NXP. Perhaps different manufacturers.


----------



## ejjames (Oct 3, 2006)

So, does any of this mean I will eventually see more than 6 channels and 90 min. blocks of shows in my guide?

HD GUI!


----------



## chambers_62918 (Sep 5, 2006)

Outstanding! Clear and pretty thorough. Thank you very much, sir!


----------



## stilen621 (Dec 18, 2009)

johnp37 said:


> All I care about is speed, reliability and a great picture. I really could care less about all this technical stuff. For Pete's sake, its only TV!


I couldn`t agree more. I say make the existing equipment work first. Someone here has been after me to remove the heatsink off the processor on the H24 I have. Maybe that would help with identifying ? I`m not sure how to do it without damaging the unit and putting it back correctly. Any sugestions ?


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Found some specs on the NXP H.264 HD/VC-1 HD video decoder CX24501 that may be used [link]. It does show that it will have PIP capability:


> Supports video plane re-sizing for format conversion,
> picture-in-picture, or picture-in-graphics


.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> Found some specs on the NXP H.264 HD/VC-1 HD video decoder CX24501 that may be used [link]. It does show that it will have PIP capability: .


Good find!


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

what does the H24 have that the H23 don't have? [email protected]


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

ATARI said:


> Good find!


That does not mean there will be PIP. If you notice, the capability for picture-in-graphics is mentioned and I assume this capability will be used.


----------



## bdcottle (Mar 28, 2008)

RACJ2 said:


> Found some specs on the NXP H.264 HD/VC-1 HD video decoder CX24501 that may be used [link]. It does show that it will have PIP capability: .


WOW, shows it has a 64 bit flash rom interface vs 8 bit flash rom interface in BCM7401 used in HR21-3.

i think that is what makes the HR21-3 so slow is running the OS and programs from the flash rom with an 8 bit interface.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

wmj5 said:


> what does the H24 have that the H23 don't have? [email protected]


Outside of an integrated DECA, nothing else I can really see at this point.

And if there are any alleged improvements in performance of the H24 (and HR24) in implementing the same features of previous models remains to be seen of course.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

texasbrit said:


> That does not mean there will be PIP. If you notice, the capability for picture-in-graphics is mentioned and I assume this capability will be used.


Correct - having it available and activating that capability are two different things.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

And I guess it is technically wrong to say the H/HR24s will have an "integrated DECA" anymore than saying the H/HR23s have "integrated BBCs," since the "A" in "DECA" actually refers to the adapter dongle or module itself.

So I suppose it should simply be the H/HR24s will be "MoCA capable" for ethernet networking over coaxial cable even though it operates on different frequencies than the actual MoCA standard specifies.



HoTat2 said:


> Outside of an integrated DECA, nothing else I can really see at this point.
> 
> And if there are any alleged improvements in performance of the H24 (and HR24) in implementing the same features of previous models remains to be seen of course.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

evan_s said:


> From what I recall the broadcom processors do you mips. Definitely means a different firmware for the hr-24s but if they have been doing things properly it shouldn't be too hard to recompile for a new target architecture.


I would suspect that along with processor change will come the change to using a CE core for the OS. I imagine that firmware for these boxes will be new from the gound up.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

bdcottle said:


> WOW, shows it has a 64 bit flash rom interface vs 8 bit flash rom interface in BCM7401 used in HR21-3.
> 
> i think that is what makes the HR21-3 so slow is running the OS and programs from the flash rom with an 8 bit interface.


Why you think that ?

Flash chip using for store compressed OS (CRAMFS, SQUASHFS, etc) and affect only initial [boot] time when the code loading into RAM and executing from it.

BTW, dish did attempt to engage with Conexant, but come back to ST and Broadcom. There are more important factors for choose manufacturer then 64 bit bus to flash.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

TomCat said:


> *"Great Picture": *There is no way technology can improve an HD picture on the decoder side, as all decoders already output a perfect replica of what was encoded at the uplink site, and D/A is so nearly-perfect that the difference between that and "perfect" is indistinguishable.


Is this something you have exhaustive testing results to support or have you just decided that it must be because you don't understand how it might not be?


> It takes an analog portion of the signal chain to degrade quality. So you can "improve technically" all day and night long at a digital STB, and not ever see a difference. Digital locks quality firmly to the input level, which is why we use it. This is also why the reports of the HR-23 having a better picture than previous DVRs were completely bogus and were quickly shot down.


You're arguments leave out any possibility of problems like "judder" and other bad behaviors that afflict many digital systems (or so say those who are trying to market >$300 Blu-ray players). You also seem to neglect that there is usually some sort of digital post-processing in most systems that attempt to remove undesirable "artifacts". Other modifications include digital transformation of a signal from one format (1080i) to another (720p, 480p or 480i).

How many arguments have we seen about whether to use the internal format conversions versus the TV's built-in conversions? Some theorize that digital displays never have to leave the digital domain until the "shutter" flips yet the resultant PQ can vary widely. The digital world is quite filled with approximations and compromises and different devices use different compromises.


> The odds that it will improve speed are probably not really much better than 60-40, even if you throw out those lofty goals.


If they're smart, they will start from scratch. If they're cheap, they will port and pray that the hardware makes up the difference (the Microsoft "progress" model).


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

texasbrit said:


> That does not mean there will be PIP. If you notice, the capability for picture-in-graphics is mentioned and I assume this capability will be used.


Doesn't mean it will, and doesn't mean it won't. But at least the capability will be there.


----------



## dvrblogger (Jan 11, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Sad news for those folks at Broadcom, but competition is good for an industry.


DIRECTV usually has multiple suppliers so some maybe NXP and others use broadcom ST or others.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

harsh said:


> Is this something you have exhaustive testing results to support or have you just decided that it must be because you don't understand how it might not be?


I'm not sure why I would want to continue to entertain baseless unprovoked attacks on my honor, but here we are, aren't we?

If you actually understood even a little bit about what I was talking about you would understand that there is no need to test, exhaustively or otherwise, what are the basic laws of physics, at least not expecting to disprove them, which would be pretty much a fool's errand. But then maybe that's a job that you are uniquely qualified for. Ironic that _you _accuse _me_ of making something up because _I _might not understand it. You've got some set on you.



harsh said:


> ...You're arguments leave out any possibility of problems like "judder" and other bad behaviors that afflict many digital systems...You also seem to neglect that there is usually some sort of digital post-processing in most systems that attempt to remove undesirable "artifacts". Other modifications include digital transformation of a signal from one format (1080i) to another (720p, 480p or 480i)...


First, I did not present any "arguments", I only presented facts.

What you post here reveals that you do not understand much of anything regarding digital processing, not even the most basic concepts, hardly anything at all.

Judder (and I narrow the definition here only to fit the scope of how it affects consumers) is an _artifact_ caused by a processing _technique_. Artifacts are not a part of the processing chain itself, they are instead observed phenomena only visible in the analog domain and they only begin to exist after processing is already over. It's not that subtle of a distinction, and most people easily understand that.

Judder is not a manifestation of some sort of "flaw" in the digital domain, or of digital processing. Judder is an artifact originally inherent in analog film, ferchrissake. Digital processing only brings it to you without compromising it or degrading it the way analog processing might.

It is therefore not relevant to the processing chain or a discussion of what happens in the digital domain. Not even a little bit. Whether you have it in the end or not is dependent solely on whether there is original pulldown, and whether there is an end-user compensation _technique _to remove it. It has nothing at all to do with the processing chain, which is gigo, meaning if you put it in one end it will come out the other. So none of this sideshow belongs anywhere in any argument challenging my earlier statements.

And yes, of course consumer equipment has techniques to minimize digital artifacts. My 6-year-old DVD recorder has them. What is your point? I did not say digital is perfect, I said that what is decoded is a perfect replica of what is encoded. And that is as true a statement today as it was when I originally stated it.

What is encoded is typically far from perfect, compared to the analog source it is digitized and compressed from. Again, so what? Why would we want to mention this issue at all? It also has no relevance to the points I made.

Same goes for rescaling. Totally irrelevant. The fact that you are so pitifully confused about all of this is very telling regarding whether you are actually up to this or not. I really don't think you are.



harsh said:


> How many arguments have we seen about whether to use the internal format conversions versus the TV's built-in conversions? Some theorize that digital displays never have to leave the digital domain until the "shutter" flips yet the resultant PQ can vary widely....


I have no earthly idea what you are getting at here. Is there some sort of point being made in all of this? PQ can vary widely, but so what? How is that in any way relevant? My point is that while in the digital domain, it varies not at all, and none of what seem to be weak attempts at arguments challenging that can change that. Your arguments are in fact so weak as to be mostly unidentifiable. For a DBS system, that means the PQ remains locked from at least some point before it is uplinked (many times even much further back than that) until it reaches the inner workings of your TV set (assuming HDMI connection), and guess what...your DVR is smack dab in the middle of that digital processing chain, the same digital processing chain that is _completely incapable of degrading (or improving) PQ_ by its very nature.



harsh said:


> The digital world is quite filled with approximations and compromises and different devices use different compromises...


I had to excise some of the mental-patient ramblings, and I still don't have a clear idea what you are trying to say here. But the digital domain is _absolutely not _"quite filled with approximations and compromises". Some of the techniques might be, in fact MPEG compression is based on approximation and compromise. I never said it wasn't, if you would take the time to actually read and comprehend.

But what happens _inside the digital domain _is exactly precise and by design, not something that varies like snow flakes, or that can be compromised and degraded by environmental factors.

Inside the digital domain everything exists as perfectly-defined binary coefficients _only_. All information is known and fully represented, and can't vary or change on its own. There is no way for a number to spontaneously change into another number, and no way for any force of nature to change it either, much unlike what happens in the analog domain.

That is why what is decoded is a perfect replica of what is encoded. The only way to manipulate those coefficients is by performing mathematical operations on them. By design. And BTW, nothing of the sort happens in any DVR on the planet inside that digital domain. And since what is decoded is already perfect in relationship to what was encoded, any sort of mathematical manipulation moves the resultant image further away from perfect, further away from what was encoded, and what was original. You just can't gold-dip any perfect turd and hope to make it "better" in some way. If you do, it's not a "better" perfect turd, its just a gold-dipped perfect turd.

This is _exactly_ why newer DVRs will not have "better" PQ than current DVRs. The only way to do that is change the entire encoding/decoding system, from one end all the way through to the other. That is exactly what DBS did, changed the system from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4. That actually changed the PQ-to-bandwidth ratio, delivering virtually the same PQ in less bandwidth. They also had the option to provide better PQ in the same bandwidth, could they have begun with source material not already compromised by MPEG-2, but of course there was no economic sense in doing that anyway.

The world is no longer analog. It's digital, and it's completely different in how it works and in what can affect it. Back in the day, better analog stereo equipment implied better sound than before. But this is digital, and things work a completely different way. It's a total paradigm shift, and sadly, you seem to have been left behind by that.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

dvrblogger said:


> DIRECTV usually has multiple suppliers so some maybe NXP and others use broadcom ST or others.


I cannot see that being the most cost effective route. Supporting two different code bases would be more time consuming and take longer to roll out new features/services due to testing purposes.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

TomCat said:


> The world is no longer analog. It's digital, and it's completely different in how it works and in what can affect it. Back in the day, better analog stereo equipment implied better sound than before. But this is digital, and things work a completely different way. It's a total paradigm shift, and sadly, you seem to have been left behind by that.


No STB or DVR outputs the pure, unaltered data from the decoder through HDMI to your TV. High-definition from DirecTV and OTA uses YCbCr 4:2:0, just like DVD. HDMI doesn't carry that format, so chroma must be upsampled to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, and not all decoder manufacturers do that in the same way or with the same quality. Stacey Spears and Don Munsil have demonstrated chroma upsampling errors in a number of MPEG-4 decoders.

The SoCs found in STBs and DVR are also more than simple decoders; they are video processors too. The video processing on SoCs cannot be bypassed, so there's the question of what processing is applied and how it affects the picture. Modern DVR SoCs support a number of different parameters that affect output quality (sharpness filters, noise reduction, color precision, etc). When two Broadcom DVRs vary slightly in their video output quality with the same source, it is often because the manufacturer and/or operator selected different parameters in their drivers/firmware.

There is a reason why magazines and review sites run Blu-ray players through a battery of different "benchmark" tests. Excluding the deinterlace tests that are only relevant if you use fixed 720p, many of the same issues affect DVR output. Pixel cropping, clipping of peak white and BTB, and poor chroma upsampling were all issues for DVR HDMI output at one time or another.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

TomCat said:


> I'm not sure why I would want to continue to entertain baseless unprovoked attacks on my honor, but here we are, aren't we?
> 
> If you actually understood even a little bit about what I was talking about you would understand that there is no need to test, exhaustively or otherwise, what are the basic laws of physics, at least not expecting to disprove them, which would be pretty much a fool's errand. But then maybe that's a job that you are uniquely qualified for. Ironic that _you _accuse _me_ of making something up because _I _might not understand it. You've got some set on you.
> 
> ...


Good Lord! A little OT maybe?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken_F said:


> The SoCs found in STBs and DVR are also more than simple decoders; they are video processors too. The video processing on SoCs cannot be bypassed, so there's the question of what processing is applied and how it affects the picture. Modern DVR SoCs support a number of different parameters that affect output quality (sharpness filters, noise reduction, color precision, etc). When two Broadcom DVRs vary slightly in their video output quality with the same source, it is often because the manufacturer and/or operator selected different parameters in their drivers/firmware.


All true, and good information.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ndole_mbnd said:


> Good Lord! A little OT maybe?


Certainly not as much of an affront as quoting the entire long-winded explanation.

It might be OT if the thread didn't involve discussions of "differences" between architectures and how they might impact PQ; something that will always come with a chipset change. To me the post was along topic, if not entirely accurate in its "facts".


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Seems the topic is going off in a tangent though .. So while it may not yet be entirely off topic, it's certainly heading down that path. Let's curve it back to the original topic a bit more. Wanna discuss digital v. analog .. perhaps better served in another thread.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I guess if your into Deca and the possibility that it might be the only way to do MRV then the HR24 is a big deal.

The Pattern that seems to be ignored in this thread is that Directv is always striving to cut the production cost of each new HR model! The Best made most reliable model is still the HR20-700.
Everything since then has been designed and made using the moto "Build it cheaper". The lower costing processor in the HR24 is a dead giveaway of what is to come.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> I guess if your into Deca and the possibility that it might be the only way to do MRV then the HR24 is a big deal.
> 
> The Pattern that seems to be ignored in this thread is that Directv is always striving to cut the production cost of each new HR model! The Best made most reliable model is still the HR20-700.
> Everything since then has been designed and made using the moto "Build it cheaper". The lower costing processor in the HR24 is a dead giveaway of what is to come.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that analysis. Since we're guessing how about this?

The HR21/HR22/HR23 have the same processor; the BCM7401. However, HR23 has wide band tuners. Further, my HR23-700 is faster than my HR21-100. Does any of this make the HR23 cheaper to build than the previous versions? I don't know the answer to that one. :shrug:

Additionally, the HR21 & HR22 are effectively the same DVR so it would seem that the HR23 is an upgrade in performance and capability. I think the cost savings is in installation. It doesn't use BBCs and as such is quicker to install...less equipment & less work.

I'm guessing, just as you are, but it would seem that you're hypothesis that each successive HR2x is a cheaper version of the previous is a little off the mark. :grin:

Mike


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

MicroBeta 
The HR21 seems to be a case of D cutting so many corners that they ended up with hardware that IMHO is under powered for the software features D want's to run. The HR23 was simply an adjustment, a case of "we went too far in cost cutting lets reverse a bit".

Comparing my HR20-100 to my HR23-700 the HR20 is faster in every possible way and not just by a hair but the difference between a guide or menu command taking 1 second versus 2.5 seconds, thats a huge difference in performance! 
Only realy nice thing about the HR23 is the Picture looks slightly better with HD sources.

BTW I am not sure about the chasis design of the final HR24 but if it is what I have seen in the released pictures, it seems they have cheapend the outer casing design with featureless easier to mold and assemble plastic.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> Found some specs on the NXP H.264 HD/VC-1 HD video decoder CX24501 that may be used [link]. It does show that it will have PIP capability: .


That doesn't mean anything. The data sheet for the Broadcom chip that the current line of HR2xs uses also says that it has PIP capability.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cartrivision said:


> That doesn't mean anything. The data sheet for the Broadcom chip that the current line of HR2xs uses also says that it has PIP capability.


IIRC, the chipset in the HR20 (BCM7038 et al) counted PIP as a feature but the chipset used in later Plus HD DVRs (BCM7401 et al) lacks the dual video decoding facility necessary to generate the live video for PIP.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> IIRC, the chipset in the HR20 (BCM7038 et al) counted PIP as a feature but the chipset used in later Plus HD DVRs (BCM7401 et al) lacks the dual video decoding facility necessary to generate the live video for PIP.


Which reaffirms what I said back in post #39....that, of course, could always change as time goes on....but no evidence it has.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

TomCat said:


> If you actually understood even a little bit about what I was talking about you would understand that there is no need to test, exhaustively or otherwise, what are the basic laws of physics, at least not expecting to disprove them, which would be pretty much a fool's errand.


The fool's errand here is assuming that digital systems are able closely enough simulate analog physics.


> First, I did not present any "arguments", I only presented facts.


You presented theories that may not have direct application in the digital domain. All digital devices have transition rates and thresholds and those limitations will effectively prevent a perfectly consistent rendition from one chip to the next.


> What you post here reveals that you do not understand much of anything regarding digital processing, not even the most basic concepts, hardly anything at all.


You mention this several times without showing much in the way of examples.


> Judder is an artifact originally inherent in analog film, ferchrissake. Digital processing only brings it to you without compromising it or degrading it the way analog processing might.


Judder is an artifact that is typically addressed with varying success in the digital domain. Some equipment handles it better than others. The final output will necessarily vary with the goodness of the processing equipment.


> And yes, of course consumer equipment has techniques to minimize digital artifacts.


You proclaim repeatedly that digital has no inherent artifacts and then you note that consumer equipment has measures to address digital artifacts. Which is it?


> I did not say digital is perfect, I said that what is decoded is a perfect replica of what is encoded.
> 
> 
> > We don't get to see what was decoded. We get to see it only after it has been processed in multiple ways. What comes out does differ from what goes in.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

:backtotop

Thanks.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Why can't Harsh and TomCat do their arguing in offline PMs???

We don't need to see a Proliferation of their Verbal Sparring!!!


----------



## 2dogz (Jun 14, 2008)

richierich said:


> Why can't Harsh and TomCat do their arguing in offline PMs???
> 
> We don't need to see a Proliferation of their Verbal Sparring!!!


+1


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Folks .. back to topic .. let's stop talking about each other.


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

If all it offers is DECA, then I'm not getting excited about it. I have no use for DECA. Cat 6 is already ran everywhere the coax is (other than to the dish itself) and I'm not using SWM.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> Found some specs on the NXP H.264 HD/VC-1 HD video decoder CX24501 that may be used [link]. It does show that it will have PIP capability: .
> 
> 
> cartrivision said:
> ...


The BCM7401 chip used in the HR21s and beyond was supposed to have combined the functionality of the BCM7411 and BCM7038 onto a single chip, so the lack of PIP in the HR2x line had nothing to do with differences between chipsets used in the later models.... All HR2xs can obviously can do PIP. They all do a PIP display of live video inside the GUI graphic video. The real question was if they could decoded two MPEG video streams at a time and feed them both to that PIP function, and there has been unconfirmed speculation that it was probably a limitation in that area which prevented a 2 "live video source" PIP presentation from being implemented in the HR2x line.

The point of all this being.... even with this new chip in the HR24, it's not enough to just have a chip that says it that has a PIP capability, other capabilities may or may not be in that chip or in the other supporting chips being used in the device which would be needed in order to implement a live program-in-program PIP display.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cartrivision said:


> All HR2xs can obviously can do PIP. They all do a PIP display of live video inside the GUI graphic video.


PIP is not graphic overlay. That's an entirely different block of the chip and needs to be available on top of PIP. PIP is two live feeds.


> The point of all this being.... even with this new chip in the HR24, it's not enough to just have a chip that says it that has a PIP capability, other capabilities may or may not be in that chip or in the other supporting chips being used in the device which would be needed in order to implement a live program-in-program PIP display.


The numbering scheme suggests that the HR24 is probably not going to be a huge functional departure from its immediate predecessors.

Yes, I realize this is like saying that the removal of OTA tuners was not a radical departure, but that's the way DIRECTV sees it.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

harsh said:


> PIP is not graphic overlay. That's an entirely different block of the chip and needs to be available on top of PIP. PIP is two live feeds.


The HR2x "Picture in Guide" is a PIP function, not a graphic overlay function. PIP is resizing one of the video sources and showing it on top of or in combination with another video source which is exactly what Picture in Guide is. Just because it's not what PIP typically is in a TV where both video sources are live TV channels doesn't mean it's not PIP. The HR2x uses the PIP function of the Broadcom chip to resize the video of a live (or recorded) TV channel and place it on top of the full screen video frames coming from the GUI/graphic generator.

On the other hand, graphic overlay is displaying keyed portions of a video source's frames (the graphics) on top of the full frame of another video source and it doesn't involve resizing the underlying "non-graphic" video source. There _are_ times when the HR2x GUI is only using graphic overlay (like to display the main menu when the menu button is pushed) in addition to the times when the PIP function is used.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cartrivision said:


> PIP is resizing one of the video sources and showing it on top of or in combination with another video source which is exactly what Picture in Guide is.


Scaling and compositing are part of the "Video" block of the chip. The "Video Decoder" and the "Advanced 2D Graphics Display Engine" are the two sources to the "Video" block.

The guide is created using the "Advanced 2D Graphics Display Engine" to create the static text (and some simple graphic elements) and the "scaler" to create an image from the "Video Decoder" that the text can be "composited" with.

http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/175170/BOARDCOM/BCM7401.html


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

So what's the opinion on this based on the hardware specs? Faster/slower/same speed as the HR20?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

kevinturcotte said:


> So what's the opinion on this based on the hardware specs? Faster/slower/same speed as the HR20?


We don't know what a chip it's using ...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Scaling and compositing are part of the "Video" block of the chip. The "Video Decoder" and the "Advanced 2D Graphics Display Engine" are the two sources to the "Video" block.
> 
> The guide is created using the "Advanced 2D Graphics Display Engine" to create the static text (and some simple graphic elements) and the "scaler" to create an image from the "Video Decoder" that the text can be "composited" with.
> 
> http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/175170/BOARDCOM/BCM7401.html


Some of the early data sheets for the Broadcom processors indicated a single MPEG-4 decoder on chip. That "fact" was omitted in revisions to the data sheet, but I don't believe it was ever stated that 2 decoders were available. There are dual MPEG-2 decoders, though. Additionally, there are multiple video output channels.

The problem really was converting the data on disk (or in the stream) into a watchable format. With only one decoder, only one MPEG4 show can be decoded at any given time. A combination of either 2 MPEG2 shows or 1 MPEG4 and 1 MPEG2 show could (in theory) be decoded at the same time and a PIP version generated. But, not two MPEG4 programs. So, do you allow oddball combinations of sometimes available PIP or do you simply disable it completely? :shrug:

DIRECTV apparently chose to not even make it available which is probably the right choice. It would get very confusing for a customer to wonder why PIP works sometimes but other times it doesn't.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

P Smith said:


> We don't know what a chip it's using ...


Even if we did, they have different architectures and different code, so it's an apples and oranges comparison.

For D* to switch like this midstream, it is clear they have placed the majority of blame on their DVR troubles on Broadcom, and Broadcom's roadmap didn't match what D* wanted. It's possible that Broadcom didn't want to add DECA to its chip, but D* could have easily made a chipset with two ICs. That would have been simpler than what they are doing now.

It's very difficult to switch mid-stream like this. It takes a lot of time and energy. D* must have been really mad at Broadcom to do this. It's a gamble.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Oh, and as a slight followup, here's the current word from Broadcom on the BCM7411:
Broadcom.com


> The BCM7411 is a dual-channel AVC/MPEG-2 decoder chip capable of full HD realtime decoding.


If you look at other data sheets (like the BCM7400B for example), it will say "Dual AVC/MPEG-2/VC-1/MPEG-4 Part 2/DivX® HD Digital Video SoC Solution for Satellite, IP and Cable" .. Note the inclusion of MPEG-4.

Broadcom changed their data sheet at some point to NOT be explicit in it's lack of dual MPEG-4 support. Perhaps a Marketing spin, but it does make it unclear. Reading exactly what it says about the BCM7411, though, it does not explicitly say that it supports Dual MPEG-4. One can only assume that it doesn't.

So, lack of Dual MPEG-4 decoding support effectively renders PIP impossible on the HR2x line (well, at least the ones with the BCM7411 decoder).

Here's a link to my original diagnosis from 3 years ago: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=830102#post830102

Unfortunately the Broadcom links in that post are now broken.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

bobcamp1 said:


> Even if we did, they have different architectures and different code, so it's an apples and oranges comparison.
> 
> For D* to switch like this midstream, it is clear they have placed the majority of blame on their DVR troubles on Broadcom, and Broadcom's roadmap didn't match what D* wanted. It's possible that Broadcom didn't want to add DECA to its chip, but D* could have easily made a chipset with two ICs. That would have been simpler than what they are doing now.
> 
> It's very difficult to switch mid-stream like this. It takes a lot of time and energy. D* must have been really mad at Broadcom to do this. It's a gamble.


I see things a whole different way.

First, I can't relate to what "troubles" your are referencing pertaining to the Broadcom chips to date. They have been workhorse units for years now, and issues could just as much be firmware related as chip related, if one even agrees seeing any "troubles".

Second - perhaps this is not a "gamble" at all, rather, a simple step upward toward supporting future new capabilities and features in next generation devices. That is neither unusual nor that risky to do - it happens all the time in consumer electronics.

Third - a change in manufacturers does not necessarily reflect anything negative towards the current chip provider. "New and Improved" *does not have to* infer any previous version was "old and inferior". Hardware advances all the time.

Fourth - we already know that any future generation unit will run vastly similar DirecTV code - so that has likely all been thought out ahead of time before making this kind of hardware commitment.

Finally - the new chip adds nice new expanded capabilities - a sign that the investment in the future is more than small talk or rumors.

I guess my glass is half full instead of half empty on this new commitment to new technology.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

kevinturcotte said:


> So what's the opinion on this based on the hardware specs? Faster/slower/same speed as the HR20?


I don't know Kevin, what do you think?


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

harsh said:


> Scaling and compositing are part of the "Video" block of the chip. The "Video Decoder" and the "Advanced 2D Graphics Display Engine" are the two sources to the "Video" block.
> 
> The guide is created using the "Advanced 2D Graphics Display Engine" to create the static text (and some simple graphic elements) and the "scaler" to create an image from the "Video Decoder" that the text can be "composited" with.
> 
> http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/175170/BOARDCOM/BCM7401.html


First you said it's a graphic overlay. Then when I pointed out what a graphic overlay was and how that was incorrect (you didn't even understand the basic idea of what a graphic overlay and PIP was and the basic differences between the two functions), you change your story and now you are claiming that it's still not done by the chip's PIP function but by it's scaling function, which further demonstrates your lack of knowledge about what basic video functions of the chips are used to do what.

The video scaling capability listed in the chip's functional description and diagrams refers to the ability to upconvert or downconvert from one resolution to another (for example, display a 480i source at 1080i). When they talk about the chip's video scaling capabilities, they are talking about the ability to output full video frames at various resolutions, not about the scaling that is done as part of the chip's PIP function... that's why they mention PIP capability separately. A chip that can do scaling may or may not have a PIP capability also.

Your inability to recognize that the Picture in Guide uses the chip's PIP capability is rather silly... as is your tendency to misunderstand and misstate what the other basic video functions that are provided by the chips are and what they are used for, and then take that misunderstanding and use it to claim how some other basic video function is used to do the PIP functionality for the Program in Guide display... instead of using the chip's PIP capability.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> Even if we did, they have different architectures and different code, so it's an apples and oranges comparison.
> 
> For D* to switch like this midstream, it is clear they have placed the majority of blame on their DVR troubles on Broadcom, and Broadcom's roadmap didn't match what D* wanted. It's possible that Broadcom didn't want to add DECA to its chip, but D* could have easily made a chipset with two ICs. That would have been simpler than what they are doing now.
> 
> It's very difficult to switch mid-stream like this. It takes a lot of time and energy. D* must have been really mad at Broadcom to do this. It's a gamble.


Wrong on all accounts.

Do you say the same about Apple switching processors?

If something better and less expensive comes along, why wouldn't you switch?

And with properly written drivers, there shouldn't have to be that much of a code change to port your application.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cartrivision said:


> Your inability to recognize that the Picture in Guide uses the chip's PIP capability is rather silly... as is your tendency to misunderstand and misstate what the other basic video functions that are provided by the chips are and what they are used for, and then take that misunderstanding and use it to claim how some other basic video function is used to do the PIP functionality for the Program in Guide display... instead of using the chip's PIP capability.


Perhaps you could point out on the diagram where this all-important PIP block is. I can't seem to locate any mention of PIP (or PIG or PBP) as I trace from the tuner inputs to the video outputs.

I think you'll find that things work pretty much as I've described.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ATARI said:


> If something better and less expensive comes along, why wouldn't you switch?


For some companies, the only thing that is better is that which is less expensive. I'm not seeing any functional advantages of the HR23 over the HR20 save the chronological progression of what hard drive is least expensive at the time.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> For some companies, the only thing that is better is that which is less expensive. I'm not seeing any functional advantages of the HR23 over the HR20 save the chronological progression of what hard drive is least expensive at the time.


True. My HR20-700 with upgraded 750 GB internal hard drive (Let's not deviate the conversation lol) is better than any newer HD DVR. You'd think it would be the other way around. HR20 should be "Bottom of the barrel".


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> [...] improved tuner technology [...]


:scratchin How so?

Let's be honest here. The HR21 was a bit of a step _backwards _in terms of performance (memory management) and functionality (OTA moved to an optional adapter). It was designed to get manufacturing costs down to under $200, IIRC. Chase spoke about that at one of the investor presentations at the time.

I'm not sure what the point of the HR22's and 23's were, unless it was to reduce manufacturing costs even further. The only design change was to integrate the BBCs into the 23, AFAIK. HDD capacity _could_ have easily been increased in the 20's and 21's, if that was the ultimate goal.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> :scratchin How so?


Ask anyone with an HR23-700 what kind of image quality they get.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Ask anyone with an HR23-700 what kind of image quality they get.


I believe that Directv Tweaked the Audio and Video in the HR23-700 which is why I have 3 of them. This was verified by the Lead Directv Manager in Charge of DVR Development that I spoke to at the CES Show in January.

There is a Slight Improvement in Audio and Video for sure as I bounce back and forth between my HR21-700 and the HR23-700 and there definitely is a difference in quality.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Here are my Tuner Levels for the HR21-700 & the HR23-700.

HR21 - Sat 101
97,100,96,91,95,100,96,100
HR23 - Sat 101
98,100,96,92,95,100,96,100

HR21 - Sat 99(c)
88,86,88,88,85,85,87,89
HR23 - Sat 99(c)
88,86,88,89,85,85,87,89

So the Tuner Levels are Basically the Same for Both DVRs on Sats 99 & 101


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I guess you'd have to use one as a subscriber to recognize the differences.


One doesn't need to be a subscriber to make qualitative judgements. Sometimes it helps to have a wider knowledge of what's available to understand how a device stacks up against other devices.


> They start with standard larger storage capacity, improved tuner technology, and continue from there.


I'm not sure anyone has claimed that the HR23 tuner is functionally "better" than that of the HR20. It approaches the task a little differently, but the goal is the same.

I've heard claims of better PQ, but many have spent considerable effort on bilious diatribes aimed at shooting down those claims. One of those cases of eating one's own, I guess.

I covered the HD size angle by explaining that they use to best value hard drive of the period and as we know that's always increasing in size. It isn't a faster drive, able to record more programs at once or support larger series record lists; its just larger.

I'm intrigued by how other improvements "continue from there" and how they impact the user's experience in a perceptible (and hopefully positive) way.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

For future reference and comparisons of models both past and future, perhaps someone can explain how signal strength, as reported by the receiver, has anything to do with the quality of the receiver's tuner.

My understanding is that it has everything to do with the dish assembly and its orientation with respect to the satellites and little or nothing to do with the Intermediate Frequency tuner in the receiver.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

ATARI said:


> Wrong on all accounts.
> 
> Do you say the same about Apple switching processors?
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree with you. Based on my experience, coding for embedded processing is vastly different than coding for a CPU. When coding for embedded processors, you have to take full advantage of the chip's features while trying to figure out workarounds for its shortcomings. Not to mention that your analogy is flawed: FreeBSD was already ported to the Intel platform long before Apple made their decision to switch.

You also say "properly written drivers". That's a large task to rewrite a good chunk of those drivers using brand new software and development tools. With their own set of problems and workarounds. And the interface to those drivers might change, which means changes to the "higher level" code. Tricks and other utilizations that worked for the old chipset and tools won't work with the new ones. There is a fairly steep learning curve here.

One other comment to make is that when you buy a chipset, you don't just buy the chip. You're buying support and all the tools necessary to make your device work. Maybe D* had simply had it with Broadcom in those areas. It would help explain why they continue to roll out bad software after all these years.

D* can switch, but it's not a decision to be taken lightly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Assuming that a proper Hardware Abstraction Layer exists for a platform, porting could be trivial. If the HAL isn't there or is incomplete, there will be much sorrow.

The danger here is that based on the model number being a simple sequence, many direct comparisons will be made and that puts the new device with its new software at an automatic disadvantage. Another CE manufacturer might use a different numbering scheme (ie HR200) to diffuse that bomb.

On the other hand, if DIRECTV wishes to continue considering all of the boxes functionally equivalent, it is up to them to make it so.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Ask anyone with an HR23-700 what kind of image quality they get.


I did some searching, and the only thing concrete I could come up with was Rich's observation that the image seemed to be a little "brighter". If so, I don't think that was a design goal, but probably a result of which output components were selected by the HR23's manufacturer. (And I don't want to get into the whole "digital is digital" discussion.)

Can't find the post right now, but I also thought I read recently that the HR23-700 is discontinued and DirecTV is only shipping HR22's as "new". Can anyone else confirm that?


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Steve said:


> Can't find the post right now, but I also thought I read recently that the HR23-700 is discontinued and DirecTV is only shipping HR22's as "new". Can anyone else confirm that?


I recall those posts too. I don't know if discontinued is the right word or just simply no longer being produced. It does make sense tho. The only improvement, from directv's perspective anyway, was the inclusion of wide-band tuners that made BBC's un-needed. Assuming those wide-band tuners are more expensive then the hr22's could be a less expensive design and the wide-band tuners advantage goes away in a SWM system which is what they are moving heavily to.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Maybe the HR23 is being discontinued and Replaced by the HR24 which is coming out and will have Deca installed internally and be the desired DVR of the Future!!!


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Steve said:


> ....Can't find the post right now, but I also thought I read recently that the HR23-700 is discontinued and DirecTV is only shipping HR22's as "new". Can anyone else confirm that?





evan_s said:


> I recall those posts too. I don't know if discontinued is the right word or just simply no longer being produced. It does make sense tho. The only improvement, from directv's perspective anyway, was the inclusion of wide-band tuners that made BBC's un-needed. Assuming those wide-band tuners are more expensive then the hr22's could be a less expensive design and the wide-band tuners advantage goes away in a SWM system which is what they are moving heavily to.





richierich said:


> Maybe the HR23 is being discontinued and Replaced by the HR24 which is coming out and will have Deca installed internally and be the desired DVR of the Future!!!


I think this post by *BattleZone* is what you guys are referring to. HR23 "out of production" and HR22 is the only current mass produced receiver.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Go Beavs said:


> I think this post by BattleZone is what you guys are referring to. HR23 "out of production" and HR22 is the only current mass produced receiver.


Thanks! *BattleZone *would be in a position to know, since he's in the business.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> I did some searching, and the only thing concrete I could come up with was Rich's observation that the image seemed to be a little "brighter".


The idea was put in motion by the observations of reweiss in the "HR23-700 First Look".

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=144256


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> The idea was put in motion by the observations of reweiss in the "HR23-700 First Look".
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=144256


Ya. I saw that lone comment in the "final words" section of the report.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

harsh said:


> Assuming that a proper Hardware Abstraction Layer exists for a platform, porting could be trivial. If the HAL isn't there or is incomplete, there will be much sorrow.
> 
> The danger here is that based on the model number being a simple sequence, many direct comparisons will be made and that puts the new device with its new software at an automatic disadvantage. Another CE manufacturer might use a different numbering scheme (ie HR200) to diffuse that bomb.
> 
> On the other hand, if DIRECTV wishes to continue considering all of the boxes functionally equivalent, it is up to them to make it so.


Most embedded systems don't have a HAL. There's simply not enough room for one. So there will be some sorrow. Hopefully it's worth it. It's a positive sign anyway that D* is trying to improve things.

Usually increasing model numbers mean more and better features. In D*'s case though, the opposite is generally true. So it'll be interesting to see how the HR24 performs.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2010)

Will the channels and grid guide change faster and will the HR-24 have PIP? Thanks.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

We are waiting for the answers ... when it will be on sale


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2010)

P Smith said:


> We are waiting for the answers ... when it will be on sale


I wonder if it would be worth it replacing my HR-22 with the HR-24?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

May be.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> I wonder if it would be worth it replacing my HR-22 with the HR-24?





P Smith said:


> May be.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves here .. DIRECTV has not announced an HR24 to this point .. Well, not directly. There has been some literature mentioning an HR24. This article is from a supplier of chips to DIRECTV. They are the only real announcement of an HR24 as far as I know.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2010)

P Smith said:


> May be.


I guess if it did change channels and the grid guide faster and had PIP it would be worth it changing to the HR-24. Maybe that Broadcom chip, if they use it, will make the video and audio quality even better than the HR-22?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

CraigerCSM said:


> I guess if it did change channels and the grid guide faster and had PIP it would be worth it changing to the HR-24. Maybe that Broadcom chip, if they use it, will make the video and audio quality even better than the HR-22?


but the thread about HR24 with DIFFERENT chip, not from Broadcom !:nono2:


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2010)

P Smith said:


> but the thread about HR24 with DIFFERENT chip, not from Broadcom !:nono2:


I thought that was just a rumor?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> I thought that was just a rumor?


The first post has a link to NXP's press release stating that they will be in the HR24. That is the information we are going by.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

CraigerCSM said:


> and will the HR-24 have PIP? Thanks.


I sure hope it does, if it wants to compete with E* and c*.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> The first post has a link to NXP's press release stating that they will be in the HR24. That is the information we are going by.


Oh so NXP's chipset will be in it instead of Broadcom's? Is NXP's better? I guess they allow for ethernet over coax and Broadcom doesn't?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> Oh so NXP's chipset will be in it instead of Broadcom's? Is NXP's better? I guess they allow for ethernet over coax and Broadcom doesn't?


Have you read the press release?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Nope.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> Have you read the press release?


It didn't say if Broadcom did the same thing as NXP. I am not sure which of those companies is the better of two. From the sound of things it looks like NXP is.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I don't think we have enough data to really say "Broadcom is better" or "NXP Rocks!" 

It might be that NXP went after DIRECTV's business with a chipset tuned to DIRECTV's particulars. 

Or undercut Broadcom significantly.

Or Broadcom didn't have a chip ready in time.

Or ... (Insert your logical business reason here.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## chepag24 (Oct 16, 2009)

The new model numbers are coming I am an installer and model numbers for hr24 and h24 are listed in my hand held I will double check tomorrow which numbers are listed with those models whether its like a 700 or something else.


----------



## lockeal (Jan 27, 2009)

chepag24 said:


> The new model numbers are coming I am an installer and model numbers for hr24 and h24 are listed in my hand held I will double check tomorrow which numbers are listed with those models whether its like a 700 or something else.


Do you have an estimate for how long it typically takes for the new units to show up once they are in your hand-held?


----------

