# Quality of MRV recordings



## gator1234 (Jul 21, 2007)

The quality seems to be slightly less when viewing a program from a connected DVR when the program was recorder on a different unit. When I watch a program on DVR #2 that was actually recorded on DRV#1 it seems to affect the quality. Also when playing back the program the response is slower when using fast forward, skip, etc. 

Is this normal for MRV?


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

Do you have DECA?


----------



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

The response time you mention is normal. I have not noticed any less quality. Maybe you could provide information on your set up and someone might be able to help you.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

gator1234 said:


> The quality seems to be slightly less when viewing a program from a connected DVR when the program was recorder on a different unit. When I watch a program on DVR #2 that was actually recorded on DRV#1 it seems to affect the quality. Also when playing back the program the response is slower when using fast forward, skip, etc.
> 
> Is this normal for MRV?


I've been using MRV since it first became available for testing and I never saw a problem with PQ being any different while viewing a program via MRV then on the server. Will there be a little difference in the speed on how DVR controls perform, yes, and IMHO that's expected since you now have two STB's involved and the network connection.

BTW, what is your network connection? Using DirecTV's DECA system is best, followed by hardwired 100Mbps/1Gbps ethernet and while some folks have wireless/powerline working it's hit or miss and not recommended for MRV.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

I agree with shedberg. I have experienced a slightly increased time in executing trickplay with MRV, but have never noticed a decrease in PQ.

Detail your setup for us. How MRV is hooked up, how your TV's are hooked up, etc.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

It is simply not POSSIBLE to have a decrease in picture quality, as that would require recoding/transcoding of the recorded data, and the HRs simply don't have the CPU power to do that. The HRs simply record the data stream right of the satellite and store it on the hard drive. Playing it back, whether locally or streamed to another H or HR, is watching those same bits, unchanged.

The only way your PQ could be affected is if you're using the analog outputs and the D/A converter on your remote box is bad.


----------



## taylorhively (Nov 29, 2006)

Yeah, I was going to say pretty much exactly what Battlezone said. You're just playing the same exact video file over the network instead of off the local hard drive, and are the same bits that come off the satellite. Nowhere is it re-encoded which is what would be necessary to reduce the quality.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

if by PQ you mean pixelation that is possible. with deca you should not see it, if using your own network and wireless it might.


----------



## Shaqdan (Jan 24, 2009)

Response time slower = yes
Picture quality lower = no


----------



## gator1234 (Jul 21, 2007)

MountainMan10 said:


> Do you have DECA?


Yes.


----------



## gator1234 (Jul 21, 2007)

taylorhively said:


> Yeah, I was going to say pretty much exactly what Battlezone said. You're just playing the same exact video file over the network instead of off the local hard drive, and are the same bits that come off the satellite. Nowhere is it re-encoded which is what would be necessary to reduce the quality.


OK you have convinced me. Quality has to be the same. I just thought it may be degraded due to the streaming from another DVR.


----------



## Pamela Tex Gal (Mar 29, 2010)

RAD said:


> I've been using MRV since it first became available for testing and I never saw a problem with PQ being any different while viewing a program via MRV then on the server. Will there be a little difference in the speed on how DVR controls perform, yes, and IMHO that's expected since you now have two STB's involved and the network connection.
> 
> BTW, what is your network connection? Using DirecTV's DECA system is best, followed by hardwired 100Mbps/1Gbps ethernet and while some folks have wireless/powerline working it's hit or miss and not recommended for MRV.


I don't really know yet I doubt there is any trans-coding the digital stream that is recorded when it streams to another receiver. These DVR's clearly do not have the processor power to spare for that. I expect MRV simply streams the same digital stream it recorded off the sat. Thus any issues with PQ in another room are likely due to the TV/Monitor its resolution and image adjustments (get a pair of THX blue glasses and adjust the TV's)

My MRV works great wireless on 5ghz N. I'm using a dual band N router and 5ghz bridges as long as the wireless connection to the router is >121M it is no different than the wired trial I made for comparison. If you have the only 2.4ghz wireless N network (no wireless neighbors) you might get this to work on the common overlapping band. I now have over a dozen wireless SSID's in range all 2.4ghz band. My 5ghz SSID is the only one in that band, someday I may have to string a wire or switch to DECA for now it works flawlessly.

I did have to upgrade the firmware on my DIR-825b to the newest 2.03NA and turn multicast streams OFF in the router. The later was only needed for wireless connections; when connected via wire on the same gigabit switch multicast streams on/off made no difference. This also affected MediaShare Which now works from either the MCE machine or the Windows Home Server w/either HR2x.


DIR-825
--- Wired --- WHS 
~~5ghz~~
DAP-1522 (243-*270M*) ---
HR21-200
BluRay
MCE 2005 PC


DAP-1522 (243-*270M*) ---
HR23-700




Wondering what is the transfer rate DECA operates. If all 15 nodes on a cloud were actively watching something on another DVR it seems that bandwidth on a say gigabit cloud would be stressed at best.

Yes, I know my current configuration wouldn't handle that either, it would fall far short in very short order. I'm not going to have 15 TV's though.

Wondering if a gigabit wired switch couldn't actually out preform a larger cloud. Just posing the question; out of curiosity???


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Pamela Tex Gal said:


> Wondering what is the transfer rate DECA operates. If all 15 nodes on a cloud were actively watching something on another DVR it seems that bandwidth on a say gigabit cloud would be stressed at best.
> 
> Yes, I know my current configuration wouldn't handle that either, it would fall far short in very short order. I'm not going to have 15 TV's though.
> 
> Wondering if a gigabit wired switch couldn't actually out preform a larger cloud. Just posing the question; out of curiosity???


The cloud bit rate is higher than the DECA to ethernet is. We have yet to hear from a "fully loaded" DECA cloud user, "but" since each DVR can only stream one in & one out at the same time, it would take an all DVR setup to max out the cloud and "if" the average bit-rate is 10 Mb/s, then the cloud wouldn't reach its max rate.


----------



## SBacklin (Sep 14, 2005)

Sorry to dig up a month old thread but, it fits exactly to what I want to ask about. Anyway, I have also noticed a slight degradation in PQ when viewing a show recorded on a networked DVR. In my case, I am on my HR24 watching something stored on my HR22 and the PQ issue almost reminds me of a mis-aligned print head or dirty print head. Its really obvious on text. The text on the screen isn't smooth. What do you all think?


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

SBacklin said:


> Sorry to dig up a month old thread but, it fits exactly to what I want to ask about. Anyway, I have also noticed a slight degradation in PQ when viewing a show recorded on a networked DVR. In my case, I am on my HR24 watching something stored on my HR22 and the PQ issue almost reminds me of a mis-aligned print head or dirty print head. Its really obvious on text. The text on the screen isn't smooth. What do you all think?


As said earlier in the thread unless you are using an analog output or doing something hinky with the output on your H24 it is not possible.

Data from satellite
101010101011001
Data written to DVR
101010101011001
Data transferred digitally to your H24
101010101011001

Exactly the same as the original, its a DIGITAL copy of the data there is no way for degradation outside of the 'blocking' previously mentioned which would indicate a bandwidth shortage.


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

SBacklin - Have the exact same setup as you. The only difference that I have noted is that when I "call up" a recording from my HR22 to watch on my HR24, there is approx a 10 sec. lag until it starts showing. PQ, FF, ETC. are all the same. MRV was installed this past Monday.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

usnret said:


> SBacklin - Have the exact same setup as you. The only difference that I have noted is that when I "call up" a recording from my HR22 to watch on my HR24, there is approx a 10 sec. lag until it starts showing. PQ, FF, ETC. are all the same. MRV was installed this past Monday.


So you are using DECA and still have the long delay? When using FF on your HR24 does it jump back an incorrect amount of time?

The delay is annoying but the inconsistent jump back after a FF makes FF difficult to use.

I suspect the delay and the screwed up trick-play is not because I'm using Ethernet but because my HR22s are too slow to respond. My HR22s are now slower than ever before.

Anyone using an HR24 with MRV and an older receiver with or without DECA that is not having the delay? FF that works correctly?


----------



## SBacklin (Sep 14, 2005)

usnret said:


> SBacklin - Have the exact same setup as you. The only difference that I have noted is that when I "call up" a recording from my HR22 to watch on my HR24, there is approx a 10 sec. lag until it starts showing. PQ, FF, ETC. are all the same. MRV was installed this past Monday.


When initially starting a program from my HR24 that is recorded on the HR22, there is a slight delay but, the FF and RW performance is A LOT better. The initial slight delay doesn't really bother me.

As for the PQ, I do realize its the exact same info. Its just that I had never noticed it before. Maybe my mind is being more sensitive to details because I have a newer box and I just don't really realize it. I got something I'm going to try and I will let you guys know.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

SBacklin said:


> Sorry to dig up a month old thread but, it fits exactly to what I want to ask about. Anyway, I have also noticed a slight degradation in PQ when viewing a show recorded on a networked DVR. In my case, I am on my HR24 watching something stored on my HR22 and the PQ issue almost reminds me of a mis-aligned print head or dirty print head. Its really obvious on text. The text on the screen isn't smooth. What do you all think?


As others have said, _impossible._ :nono2:

The only things that will affect PQ on the remote player are the TV connected and connection type/resolution (which, of course, could be different than on the 'native' DVR).


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Anyone using an HR24 with MRV and an older receiver with or without DECA that is not having the delay? FF that works correctly?


I see virtually no difference, DECA-DECA, DECA-Ethernet, Ethernet-Ethernet or Ethernet-Deca. I don't do a lot of FF, but a lot of 30SKIP.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

dwcolvin said:


> I see virtually no difference, DECA-DECA, DECA-Ethernet, Ethernet-Ethernet or Ethernet-Deca. I don't do a lot of FF, but a lot of 30SKIP.


Thanks for the info. So do you have the startup deley when playing a recording on one HR24 to the other HR24?

30Skip seems ok for me but coming out of FF or 'instant reply' always has trouble over MRV.

Seems that all the back and forth about DECA and Qos blah blah comes down to it doesn't make much of a difference if any difference at all!


----------



## SBacklin (Sep 14, 2005)

Thanks for the feedback people. No surprise...you were right. I determined it to be the HR24. While I notice it now, its now worth giving up the HR24, lol. I use HDMI. I just had never noticed it on the HR23. Thanks.


----------



## judson_west (Jun 15, 2006)

I have noticed a PQ difference, but in the positive... Shows that I had, before MRV, watched on the bedroom TV (32" Sony Bravia EX) look so much more vivid when I watch them on the living room set (52" Sony XBR9). Trick play, while a bit sluggish during remote viewing, is none the less effective.


----------



## SBacklin (Sep 14, 2005)

Well, I finally figured out what exactly is the problem. I did mention above that it was the HR24 causing this. I found out last night it was the up-conversion to 1080i from 480. I usually have "native" turned off and its always on 1080i. That way, channel switching doesn't take as long. However, the HR24 doesn't seem to up-convert that well. I turned "native" off and the issue I mentioned before is gone. My HR22 and the HR23 I had never had the issue. So I wonder why the HR24 does.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

SBacklin said:


> Well, I finally figured out what exactly is the problem. I did mention above that it was the HR24 causing this. I found out last night it was the up-conversion to 1080i from 480. I usually have "native" turned off and its always on 1080i. That way, channel switching doesn't take as long. However, the HR24 doesn't seem to up-convert that well. I turned "native" off and the issue I mentioned before is gone. My HR22 and the HR23 I had never had the issue. So I wonder why the HR24 does.


You might want to get some screen shots of this and post them in the issues thread for the HR24.
Early in testing we found the scaler going from 480 to 1080 did look like crap, but there was an update that improved this.
I use native so once it looked "better" I stopped even checking for this.
Good screen shots with detail would help.


----------



## SBacklin (Sep 14, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> You might want to get some screen shots of this and post them in the issues thread for the HR24.
> Early in testing we found the scaler going from 480 to 1080 did look like crap, but there was an update that improved this.
> I use native so once it looked "better" I stopped even checking for this.
> Good screen shots with detail would help.


Below is a link to the thread I started. I posted a couple of pics. The one with pink is 480 and the one with blue is the upconverted to 1080i.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2519485#post2519485


----------

