# Multi-Room Viewing



## dngrant (Aug 25, 2006)

Other than the it's done when it's done cliche, does anyone have any reliable information as to when Multi-Room viewing will be available at the national level? I know it is in CE. What are some of the remaining issues? Replay TV figured this out over a decade ago, so I am surprised that it has taken D* so long. 

Any info? I am not trying to start a flame war.


----------



## mattgwyther (May 22, 2007)

Multi-Room Viewing (MRV) has not been enabled in the CE's yet.


----------



## jeffwltrs (Apr 2, 2006)

MRV? Not that I am aware of!


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

dngrant said:


> Other than the it's done when it's done cliche, does anyone have any reliable information as to when Multi-Room viewing will be available at the national level? I know it is in CE. What are some of the remaining issues? Replay TV figured this out over a decade ago, so I am surprised that it has taken D* so long.
> 
> Any info? I am not trying to start a flame war.


MRV isn't available for CE.. There is DIRECTV2PC which will allow you to watch what you ahve on mutiple DVR's through a program on your PC but there is no actual MRV option. It seems like we're headed in that direction, but I wouldn't hold my breath..Add DLB to that list as well....


----------



## dngrant (Aug 25, 2006)

Then I stand corrected....Guess I wrong. I vaguely remember seeing something about in a CE forum. I read, but don't participate....Thanks.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

dngrant said:


> Then I stand corrected....Guess I wrong. I vaguely remember seeing something about in a CE forum. I read, but don't participate....Thanks.


If you look every Thursday and Friday, you'll see a CE anticipation thread in whcih all CE'rs pray and hope that this week will be the week of MRV...Kind of like waiting for the Messiah


----------



## dtrell (Dec 28, 2007)

bruinfever said:


> If you look every Thursday and Friday, you'll see a CE anticipation thread in whcih all CE'rs pray and hope that this week will be the week of MRV...Kind of like waiting for the Messiah


not only that, but for MRV i want to be able to view and control an HR21's recording on an H21....i dont want to have to use two DVRs


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

dtrell said:


> not only that, but for MRV i want to be able to view and control an HR21's recording on an H21....i dont want to have to use two DVRs


That has been speculated about, but there is no credible source (at least that I have seen) which indicates it will be possible.

Would be awesome if it did work, but first we have to see MRV work between DVRs.


----------



## Qooop (Oct 2, 2005)

I have an MRV hybrid. I have the DVR in the back room. There it connects to a non HDTV w 420p "yellow" RCA. Then, I use a component to CAT5 converter to take the long way to the living room HDTV. I use the Digital Coax for living room (another long run) and the Digital Optical in the back room. You have to watch the same thing at the same time so I know this isn't exactly what you want But it does allow viewing the same recording or single purchase OnDemand from either room. Actually, it is pretty nice as I have other means of watching other things so I am not DTV dependent (modified Xbox for streaming 480p, Roku Netflix, PopCorn Hour for streaming HDTV, 360, Wii).


----------



## Dirac (Apr 24, 2007)

bruinfever said:


> If you look every Thursday and Friday, you'll see a CE anticipation thread in whcih all CE'rs pray and hope that this week will be the week of MRV...Kind of like waiting for the Messiah


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Dirac said:


>


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## IcedOmega13 (Mar 3, 2008)

just get a dvr in every room, Mr. Lazy lol


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

IcedOmega13 said:


> just get a dvr in every room, Mr. Lazy lol


I have a DVR in every room that has a TV, but it's still a pain to record everything you might want to watch on all of them, or have to go from room-to-room to find a movie you recorded.

EDIT--After I typed this, I remembered that my HD receiver in the kitchen is not a DVR. So I'll have to say "almost every room," but the point is still the same. I'd like to be able to watch things recorded in the bedroom on the big TV, and things recorded in the living room, after bedding down.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> my HD receiver in the kitchen


HD in the kitchen. Sweet. 

Actually the kitchen is the only SD holdout I have and that is because I didn't have the foresight to run enough cable. Plus the TV is a 4:3 ED, so not sure it would make that much difference.

And before I get suggestions to replace the TV, the problem is it was bought because it fit so well between the cabinets and the counter and not take up much room. So the WAF or replacing it would be VERY low.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

IcedOmega13 said:


> just get a dvr in every room, Mr. Lazy lol


I do, and it gets to be pain remembering which DVR recorded what.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

IcedOmega13 said:


> just get a dvr in every room, Mr. Lazy lol


That would only increase the need for MRV.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

dngrant said:


> Then I stand corrected....Guess I wrong. I vaguely remember seeing something about in a CE forum. I read, but don't participate....Thanks.


Join in, is all I can say since CE land should not be discussed outside of Ce land......
Participate in it, new people with fresh ideas is always a plus.
They are great over there, it's a little heavily moderated but it needs to be. And it is exciting.


----------



## jerseyreef (Jun 9, 2007)

At least I now know what MRV stands for, took me a while to figure that one out. 
:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Does anyone know how Fios is currently getting this done?

Thanks,

JerseyReef - Mike


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I have DVR in every room, but I'm not going to record everything everywhere.

MRV is coming, everyone knows that. 

And there have been several steps toward MRV along the way:
1) Play video from another source (client)
2) Serve video to another client (DIRECTV2PC, announced at CES)

The next step is to add some User Interface to link step 1 and step 2 together and we have MRV 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I have DVR in every room, but I'm not going to record everything everywhere.
> 
> MRV is coming, everyone knows that.
> 
> ...


I can practically taste it. 

Whatever MRV tastes like. :scratchin


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> I can practically taste it.
> 
> Whatever MRV tastes like. :scratchin


Tastes like chicken?


----------



## bigboyman2 (May 6, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Tastes like chicken?


Nope. It tastes like woodchucks. Fresh, live woodchucks. I should know, I happen to be an expert in this subject


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

bigboyman2 said:


> Nope. It tastes like woodchucks. Fresh, live woodchucks. I should know, I happen to be an expert in this subject


Chacun à son goût


----------



## jerseyreef (Jun 9, 2007)

jerseyreef said:


> Does anyone know how Fios is currently getting this done?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> JerseyReef - Mike


So, does anybody know how Verizon accomplishes MRV?


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

jerseyreef said:


> So, does anybody know how Verizon accomplishes MRV?


They apparently don't (well not really - at least not in a manner I would recognize as MRV)

From their product brochure:


> *
> • Programs recorded in Hi-Def cannot be played back on remote
> Set Top Boxes.*
> • Remote Set Top Boxes cannot pause or rewind live TV.
> ...


taken from : Home Media DVR Brochure

From what I was able to glean from their site - they maybe employing some sort of HPNA network ?

And on the subject of woodchucks:
Maybe you should try CUY CHACTADO (cuy is a guinea pig)


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

bhelton71 said:


> They apparently don't (well not really - at least not in a manner I would recognize as MRV)
> 
> From their product brochure:
> 
> ...


Actually, this is no longer accurate. Verizon is in the process of rolling out their latest guide s/w (already out to one market and all remaining markets will have it within the next few weeks). One of the features of this version is that it will allow the use of HD STBs on other TVs, and will allow the feeding of HD recorded content to those STBs.

Also the bullet about the number of TVs that can access the programming concurrently, I don't believe, is correct. I believe that 3 TVs can access recorded content at the same time (granted one of those may be the TV actually containing the DVR - so if I have 4 TVs, one of which has the MR DVR, and no one is watching recorded stuff off the DVR on that TV, then 3 OTHER TVs can access recorded content at the same time).

The rest of the bullets, I believe, are accurate. For purposes of disclosure - I have FiOS, and I have their HD Multi Room (aka Home Media) DVR. I only have one other TV hooked up, though (with a standard set top box). We're supposed to get the s/w update in late September, and when that happens, I'll likely swap out my SD STB on my second TV to an HD version.

To answer the question of how the MRV works with FiOS - it's all handled through your computer router. So, if I'm on my second TV, and I watch something recorded off the DVR, the programming is going from DVR -> router -> SD STB. The one down side to this approach - latency on trick play operations from that SD STB. If I hit ffwd on that TV, e.g., the command has to go SD STB->router->DVR, and the response has to follow the same path back. As a result, on all your other TVs, there is a bit of a latency when hitting one of those buttons.

Overall, though, the MR feed on FiOS works amazingly well. What you see in the Kevin Garnett commercial is (largely) accurate - the only part that wasn't accurate until now is that it's clear he's watching HD content from all his TVs. But the rest of it was totally accurate - you can stop/pause playback on one TV and resume play on one of your others. And the PQ is really impressive. I thought that you would see some degredation of PQ going to another TV - you don't. Not at all.

To make all this work, you need set top boxes that are IP-addressable. Verizon uses the Motorola QIP (QAM / IP hybrid) series of boxes, since their live programming comes in via QAM, but stuff like VOD comes in via IP.

One last thing - with the Home Media DVR, I can also feed digital music and pictures from my computers to the TV with the DVR - and that will soon (again, with this s/w release) also include streaming video, and internet video feeds (e.g. You Tube).


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

Back in the day when I still had DirecTV I was able to hack my DirecTivos for MRV using the superpatch (included in the Zipper or as a standalone hack). Granted, it still isn't available on current DirecTV DVRs and it was never available for the HDTivos in any form (i.e., hacked or unhacked) but it's been a hacking option on standard def DTivos for several years. Life's too short to wait for for DirecTV to get off their a$$es and offer the good stuff so the hacking community had to take matters into their own hands. The bottom line is that MRV is available oni DirecTV DVRs today if you want to roll up your sleeves and take the plunge. Otherwise, you can sit on the sidelines and gripe about it not being available on stock DVRs until you turn blue in the face. Your choice.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

captain_video said:


> Back in the day when I still had DirecTV I was able to hack my DirecTivos for MRV using the superpatch (included in the Zipper or as a standalone hack). Granted, it still isn't available on current DirecTV DVRs and it was never available for the HDTivos in any form (i.e., hacked or unhacked) but it's been a hacking option on standard def DTivos for several years. Life's too short to wait for for DirecTV to get off their a$$es and offer the good stuff so the hacking community had to take matters into their own hands. The bottom line is that MRV is available oni DirecTV DVRs today if you want to roll up your sleeves and take the plunge. Otherwise, you can sit on the sidelines and gripe about it not being available on stock DVRs until you turn blue in the face. Your choice.


Since the receivers are leased and not owned, by all means you go first.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

If you really can't wait for MRV try this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Wireless-UHF-Au...39:1|66:2|65:12|240:1308&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

I use it to watch my R12 in the kitchen and computer room and save $10.00 bucks in mirror fees, I just bout it and 2 sets of amplified "rabit ear" type antennas


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

captain_video said:


> Back in the day when I still had DirecTV I was able to hack my DirecTivos for MRV using the superpatch (included in the Zipper or as a standalone hack). Granted, it still isn't available on current DirecTV DVRs and it was never available for the HDTivos in any form (i.e., hacked or unhacked) but it's been a hacking option on standard def DTivos for several years. Life's too short to wait for for DirecTV to get off their a$$es and offer the good stuff so the hacking community had to take matters into their own hands. The bottom line is that MRV is available oni DirecTV DVRs today if you want to roll up your sleeves and take the plunge. Otherwise, you can sit on the sidelines and gripe about it not being available on stock DVRs until you turn blue in the face. Your choice.


I've got 5 hacked Tivos sitting on the shelf in my garage. The MRV was great, but I need an HD solution. I still have one SD Tivo in my son's room and an unsubbed box in the kitchen that works as a client. Allows my son to watch Tom and Jerry while he eats his cereal.

When all is said and done, the best solution will be with the HRxx series doing MRV and allowing you to use a standalone/unsubbed device to watch elsewhere. The reason I don't have a subbed box in the kitchen is there is no RG6 in there. I do have Cat 5, so hooking up the box was a breeze.

As for the UHF transmitter...I bought one of those several years ago. Couldn't get a decent picture if I was more than 15 feet away. Also.. there's that darned issue of HD....


----------



## R8ders2K (Sep 11, 2006)

dngrant said:


> ...Replay TV figured this out over a decade ago, so I am surprised that it has taken D* so long...


FWIW, D* purchased the *ReplayTV* technology. 

I'm just hoping that once D* decides to implements the ReplayTV technology that they will allow ReplayTV owners to access their ReplayTVs on their home networks.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> If you really can't wait for MRV try this:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Wireless-UHF-Au...39:1|66:2|65:12|240:1308&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
> 
> I use it to watch my R12 in the kitchen and computer room and save $10.00 bucks in mirror fees, I just bout it and 2 sets of amplified "rabit ear" type antennas


Too bad it is not HD.

In fact, my experience with a similar system from RCA gave me pretty bad SD.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

My original D* systems was a pair of Sony SAT-A3's. I also bought a multi-room video distribution modulator:

http://www.smarthome.com/7717.html

Any TV in the house could tune to either of the satellite receivers. I also bought a few extra RF remotes. Of course there was no DVR capability, but it was a cheap (around $1,000, ten years ago) way to have multi-room viewing of DirecTV.


----------



## jerseyreef (Jun 9, 2007)

jpl said:


> Actually, this is no longer accurate. Verizon is in the process of rolling out their latest guide s/w (already out to one market and all remaining markets will have it within the next few weeks). One of the features of this version is that it will allow the use of HD STBs on other TVs, and will allow the feeding of HD recorded content to those STBs.
> 
> Also the bullet about the number of TVs that can access the programming concurrently, I don't believe, is correct. I believe that 3 TVs can access recorded content at the same time (granted one of those may be the TV actually containing the DVR - so if I have 4 TVs, one of which has the MR DVR, and no one is watching recorded stuff off the DVR on that TV, then 3 OTHER TVs can access recorded content at the same time).
> 
> ...


JPL - Interesting. So basically, they've configured the HD DVR as a microsoft media center and use the other set top boxes as microsoft media extenders. Prolly explains why the standard set top boxes can't access recorded material, if the DVR is actually playing the material at that location.

But the standard set top boxes have no functional control over what get's recorded at the DVR location, correct?

Thanks,

JerseyReef - Mike


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

jerseyreef said:


> JPL - Interesting. So basically, they've configured the HD DVR as a microsoft media center and use the other set top boxes as microsoft media extenders. Prolly explains why the standard set top boxes can't access recorded material, if the DVR is actually playing the material at that location.
> 
> But the standard set top boxes have no functional control over what get's recorded at the DVR location, correct?
> 
> ...


That's pretty close description, yeah. Although the standard boxes are tuners in and of themselves. I can watch a live feed on that box like I can with any other set top box. I don't understand what you mean by:

"the standard set top boxes can't access recorded material, if the DVR is actually playing the material at that location"

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.

To answer your last question, though - your understanding is correct. The 'satellite' set top boxes can't control recordings - I can't schedule a new recording from one of those boxes, or delete an existing one, e.g. All I can do is watch one that's already been recorded.

From a functionality perspective, it's pretty easy. I just hit the DVR button on my remote on my secondary TV, and I'm given a pared down DVR menu - instead of seeing the normal options of 'Series Manager', 'Set Up Recording', 'View Schdule', 'View Recordings', etc. I'm just given the one option of 'View Recordings'. So that's all I can select off the DVR menu from that TV.


----------



## stephenC (Jul 18, 2007)

jpl said:


> That's pretty close description, yeah. Although the standard boxes are tuners in and of themselves. I can watch a live feed on that box like I can with any other set top box. I don't understand what you mean by:
> 
> "the standard set top boxes can't access recorded material, if the DVR is actually playing the material at that location"
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.


My interpretation would be if I had recorded a movie on the DVR and started watching it say 10 minutes ago on that DVR, then someone in a different location in my house could not start watching that same movie from a client STB. They may be able to watch the movie from the same point that I'm viewing it, but not from the beginning. I'm not sure I've stated this very well, but I bet someone more articulate than I will fill in the gaps.


----------



## jerseyreef (Jun 9, 2007)

stephenC said:


> My interpretation would be if I had recorded a movie on the DVR and started watching it say 10 minutes ago on that DVR, then someone in a different location in my house could not start watching that same movie from a client STB. They may be able to watch the movie from the same point that I'm viewing it, but not from the beginning. I'm not sure I've stated this very well, but I bet someone more articulate than I will fill in the gaps.


Stephen - that was what I trying to say.

jpl - does that make sense?

Thanks,

JerseReef - Mike


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

stephenC said:


> My interpretation would be if I had recorded a movie on the DVR and started watching it say 10 minutes ago on that DVR, then someone in a different location in my house could not start watching that same movie from a client STB. They may be able to watch the movie from the same point that I'm viewing it, but not from the beginning. I'm not sure I've stated this very well, but I bet someone more articulate than I will fill in the gaps.


Ah, I see. That makes sense. To be honest, I don't know the answer to that. I can try it out when I get home from work, though.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The ability to watch a single recording from multiple clients seems like it very well might be supported. Obviously overall system performance will dictate how many clients can attach to both a server and to a particular episode (though that might not matter.)

And we'll have to see what happens when the final product is released.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

R8ders2K said:


> FWIW, D* purchased the *ReplayTV* technology.


Yes like a year or so ago. Interesting that we haven't seen it yet, or have we?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Unless ReplayTV used DLNA compatible protocols and a software structure similar to the HR20, don't expect a single line of ReplayTV code to fit into an HR2x. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

dtrell said:


> not only that, but for MRV i want to be able to view and control an HR21's recording on an H21....i dont want to have to use two DVRs


MRV should let any networked DVR (and possibly any non-DVR receiver) schedule a recording on any available tuner of any DVR on the network while maintaining just one prioritizer list and one todo for the entire network of available DVRs/tuners.

It will be kind of pathetic if after taking two years to roll out MRV, all they provide is some half-baked implementation that does little more than letting remote DVRs or receivers browse and play stuff from other networked DVR's playlists.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> MRV should let any networked DVR (and possibly any non-DVR receiver) schedule a recording on any available tuner of any DVR on the network while maintaining just one prioritizer list and one todo for the entire network of available DVRs/tuners.
> 
> It will be kind of pathetic if after taking two years to roll out MRV, all they provide is some half-baked implementation that does little more than letting remote DVRs or receivers browse and play stuff from other networked DVR's playlists.


Like they've had nothing else whatsoever to do during last two years, eh?


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> Like they've had nothing else whatsoever to do during last two years, eh?


The waiting has far less to do with the ability of any provider to be able to produce the code to make this stuff work. From what I read, the implementation of DRM to keep Hollywood happy must be a majority of what takes so much time.

I'd have to believe the ability to hack Tivos to a non-DRM state must have something to do with DirecTV's caution before releasing anything on the MRV front.

Controlling the recording of a different DVR seems like such a moot point. While it would be nice, I certainly wouldn't complain that it doesn't exist.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

MikeW, I think you are very likely right. I don't know if there are DLNA libraries available to add to a linux system, especially ones that have DTCP (the copy protection encryption) as well.

Plus one has to test for compatibility against a relatively new standard, where interoperability is still not worked out thru experience.

So...it's coming


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I have DVR in every room, but I'm not going to record everything everywhere.
> 
> MRV is coming, everyone knows that.
> 
> ...


Please tell me you are not saying a PC is required to enable MRV when it is rolled out.

I am a MAC household. The only active PC I have is the laptop from my company. Even if I have a spare PC for this, I still resent the idea of using a PC for MRV.

I actually prefer using VoD infrastructure for MRV to using Media Share. It's simple and don't need DLNA. Give me a channel to browse the contents in other DVR. If I want to watch anything from other DVR, I queue it on my current DVR.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Dusty said:


> Please tell me you are not saying a PC is required to enable MRV when it is rolled out.
> 
> I am a MAC household. The only active PC I have is the laptop from my company. Even if I have a spare PC for this, I still resent the idea of using a PC for MRV.
> 
> I actually prefer using VoD infrastructure for MRV to using Media Share. It's simple and don't need DLNA. Give me a channel to browse the contents in other DVR. If I want to watch anything from other DVR, I queue it on my current DVR.


No thats not what he's saying... Directv2PC is what is the first step in creating servers and clients to be able to watch and control units from other units...

I hate the idea of VOD for using MRV. Its NOT MRV. It wouldn't allow you to start watching something in one room, hit pause, walk to the other, and hit play... and then later, hit pause, walk to a third room or back to the original and watch the rest... Without having multiple copies of the same program on several machines. The whole point of MRV is to only have one copy of a program and be able to access it from any location in the house at any given time... no waiting...


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

With the current PC application, you can navigate the time bar to the point you want to view. I don't know how they'd implement this on the DVR, but they are much more creative than me


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> MRV should let any networked DVR (and possibly any non-DVR receiver) schedule a recording on any available tuner of any DVR on the network while maintaining just one prioritizer list and one todo for the entire network of available DVRs/tuners.
> 
> It will be kind of pathetic if after taking two years to roll out MRV, all they provide is some half-baked implementation that does little more than letting remote DVRs or receivers browse and play stuff from other networked DVR's playlists.


I have 3 HR20s. I should be able to choose to cluster them for MRV. This would then provide the functionality cartrivision states.

You could still provide the ability to display the same content from room to room. The steps would be List and Resume.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> MRV should let any networked DVR (and possibly any non-DVR receiver) schedule a recording on any available tuner of any DVR on the network while maintaining just one prioritizer list and one todo for the entire network of available DVRs/tuners.
> 
> It will be kind of pathetic if after taking two years to roll out MRV, all they provide is some half-baked implementation that does little more than letting remote DVRs or receivers browse and play stuff from other networked DVR's playlists.


I look at MRV as a set of features:

remote scheduling
Playing content on a remote server
Serving content to a remote viewing station

This just happens to coincide with features already out or being tested now. Remote DVR scheduling has been around for some time now. This ability to send a scheduled item from DirecTV's website should get us a long way towards adding items to the schedule from a different receiver. If implemented correctly it could also be used for tuner management. For example:


Request item to be scheduled
Get list of DVRs on account
Request item to be scheduled on DVR 1
If not successful, request item to be scheduled on DVR 2, etc.

The ability to view items remotely stored is already in heavy testing and has been for some time. The DLNA code in MediaShare allows you to see content on a different server. Likewise, the ability to serve content to a remote client is available through the other beta test now, making content from an HR2x viewable on a PC.

If an HR2x can act as a server and client for content and can be remotely scheduled, there are only a few items to remain. First is the integrated playlist. This should not be a huge step with MediaShare where it is because DirecTV controls the format on the other server (also an HR2x). The second is the global bookmark (which lets you pause in one room and pick up the programming in another room). As long as the bookmark resides on the server with the content, this should not be overwhelming.

In short, I think the majority of the pieces are there. If I had to guess, I would imagine that the first pass would be MRV among HR2x boxes only. Then I would hope that the non-DVR models would join in.

Anyhow, that's my guess.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Greg, I believe you have outlined that quite well. Personally, I’d be satisfied just to be able to play a program recorded on one receiver through another one in my home. Remote scheduling and an integrated playlist would be fine, but not really must-have for me. 

The only issues I can think of are the contingencies, such as how many tasks can an HR2x be expected to do at one time? For example, an HR2x can simultaneously record shows on two different tuners and playback a previously recorded show. Would there be a limit on how many programs it can serve to other clients simultaneously? Or, would playing a show as client of another server affect its ability to record two other shows simultaneously? What happens when network bandwidth or contention issues cause pauses? Would that work like VOD does now? Can a program be transferred from one DVR to another (i.e. an intranet DOD service)?

Really, this comes down to network bandwidth and processor multi-tasking capabilities.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Greg, I believe you have outlined that quite well. Personally, I'd be satisfied just to be able to play a program recorded on one receiver through another one in my home. Remote scheduling and an integrated playlist would be fine, but not really must-have for me.
> 
> The only issues I can think of are the contingencies, such as how many tasks can an HR2x be expected to do at one time? For example, an HR2x can simultaneously record shows on two different tuners and playback a previously recorded show. Would there be a limit on how many programs it can serve to other clients simultaneously? Or, would playing a show as client of another server affect its ability to record two other shows simultaneously? What happens when network bandwidth or contention issues cause pauses? Would that work like VOD does now? Can a program be transferred from one DVR to another (i.e. an intranet DOD service)?
> 
> Really, this comes down to network bandwidth and processor multi-tasking capabilities.


I think we're ok on processor multi-tasking. Keep in mind that moving a stream takes very little processor as long as you are neither encoding or decoding it. The only thing that would botch that up from a CPU contention standpoint would be an extremely poor OS. Luckily, the OS for the HR2x series wasn't developed in Redmond so it is a fully-preemptive multitasking variety.

As far as networking, I am slightly less optimistic. I know everyone and their brother loves having that wireless bridge for their HR2x. I think we are going to see a much higher failure rate for these users when MRV is opened up. If we assume a 10Mbps stream, this will become problematic for 802.11g networks. I know everyone is going to point out that 802.11g is theoretically a 54Mbps transport, but those numbers are never seen in the real world. Add in signal degradation and other network traffic and you start seeing an issue with delivering packets. The 85 Mbps powerline adapters (in most residential uses) have significantly less signal degradation and more room for errors. But the best way, again, is our old friend 100BaseT.

If you disagree, have a friend on the PC client beta setup two clients streaming different programs from the same HR2x over an 802.11g connection.

I am a little concerned about hard drive operation and streaming the contents out to multiple clients. I fully expect them to limit how many total streams they allow from one HR20 (write to disk, read local and read to network). Just to clarify, the HR20 does support three write streams as it stands now (two tuner recordings and VOD). Be thankful that those are SATA drives. That will help some. I also expect they will be doing a heavy amount of read-caching for distribution to the clients.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Well …I really used to think it was mostly a case of a “satisfy Hollywood/DRM” issue for DirecTV’s seeming indeterminable delay in developing a MRV solution. But that excuse now appears hollow in light of TIVO and FIOS’ recent systems which have obviously managed to mollify the greedy Hollywood moguls. 

So what’s the real hold-up here then? I can’t believe the DirecTV engineers are this incompetent (comparatively speaking to TIVO and FIOS) that they simply do not know how to design such a feature.

The only other possible reason which has been suggested in another thread on this issue, but still doesn't bode well for DirecTV's technical competence, is that they probably don't feel the HR-2x series is a stable enough platform to support the advanced networking capabilities for SD/HD MRV streaming as of yet. But this answer still makes DirecTV look technically unqualified in comparison to the competition.

Whatever the true reason(s) though, I still must give DirecTV a historical grade of “D” or maybe “C-“ at best for their performance (or lack thereof), what with only a IRD-to-PC in CE beta testing to show for progress on the MRV front thus far. :nono2:


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

gregjones said:


> I think we're ok on processor multi-tasking. Keep in mind that moving a stream takes very little processor as long as you are neither encoding or decoding it.


Ah, good point.



> As far as networking, I am slightly less optimistic. I know everyone and their brother loves having that wireless bridge for their HR2x. I think we are going to see a much higher failure rate for these users when MRV is opened up. If we assume a 10Mbps stream, this will become problematic for 802.11g networks. I know everyone is going to point out that 802.11g is theoretically a 54Mbps transport, but those numbers are never seen in the real world. Add in signal degradation and other network traffic and you start seeing an issue with delivering packets. The 85 Mbps powerline adapters (in most residential uses) have significantly less signal degradation and more room for errors. But the best way, again, is our old friend 100BaseT.
> 
> If you disagree, have a friend on the PC client beta setup two clients streaming different programs from the same HR2x over an 802.11g connection.


No arguments there on the virtues of 100BaseT over Wifi. Luckily, I have my whole house wired with Cat5e so that's not an issue in my case. I do have WiFi, but just as a convenience for using the laptop around the house (patio, poolside, etc.). I have definitely noticed when copying large amounts of data, even between two networked PC's in the house that WiFi is far slower than wire.



> I am a little concerned about hard drive operation and streaming the contents out to multiple clients. I fully expect them to limit how many total streams they allow from one HR20 (write to disk, read local and read to network). Just to clarify, the HR20 does support three write streams as it stands now (two tuner recordings and VOD). Be thankful that those are SATA drives. That will help some. I also expect they will be doing a heavy amount of read-caching for distribution to the clients.


I have a gut feeling that this is going to be the weakest link and that MRV may be limited to one stream. In fact, I would not be surprised (but I would be disappointed) to see the HR2x disk limited to four streams - any combination of tuner 1 recoding, tuner 2 recording, DOD recording, local playback reading, MRV server playback reading. I know the SATA bus can handle many streams in terms of raw data throughput, but the issue will be the drive's throughput combined with seek latency.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Like they've had nothing else whatsoever to do during last two years, eh?


This sort of explains why they didn't activate MRV on HR10's which they could have very easily have done.

Had they done so, can you imagine the clamoring that would have taken place if the HR20 still didn't have it two years after release?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I hate the idea of VOD for using MRV. Its NOT MRV.


But I would be very happy to test any system that had that capability until they had true MRV working.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

gregjones said:


> As far as networking, I am slightly less optimistic. I know everyone and their brother loves having that wireless bridge for their HR2x.


Gigabit ethernet here.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

swans said:


> Gigabit ethernet here.


Same here, unfortunately the HR2Xs only have 100Mb.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> Same here, unfortunately the HR2Xs only have 100Mb.


I believe that is good enough.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

swans said:


> Gigabit ethernet here.


I am discussing minimum requirements for functionality, not preference. Keep in mind that gigabit ethernet will be somewhat useless since the interface on the HR2x is not gigabit. Other traffic might make use of it, but 100BaseT is fast enough for multiple streams in and out of the HR2x. Using a switch instead of a hub is vastly more important that 100BaseT versus gigabit in this case.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

Cat 6 cabled here.



gregjones said:


> I am discussing minimum requirements for functionality, not preference. Keep in mind that gigabit ethernet will be somewhat useless since the interface on the HR2x is not gigabit. Other traffic might make use of it, but 100BaseT is fast enough for multiple streams in and out of the HR2x. Using a switch instead of a hub is vastly more important that 100BaseT versus gigabit in this case.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

swans said:


> Cat 6 cabled here.


But did you use Gigabit-certified Cat6 connections?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

jerseyreef said:


> JPL - Interesting. So basically, they've configured the HD DVR as a microsoft media center and use the other set top boxes as microsoft media extenders. Prolly explains why the standard set top boxes can't access recorded material, if the DVR is actually playing the material at that location.
> 
> But the standard set top boxes have no functional control over what get's recorded at the DVR location, correct?
> 
> ...


Just to follow up, I finally got a chance to run my test on the FiOS MR DVR. I started playback of a show on my DVR. I waited a minute and went to my second TV. I started playback of the same show. It started up just fine, and started from the beginning on that TV too. I had both TVs showing the same show, about a minute apart. There's no issue with watching the same show concurrently on different TVs. I stopped playback at different spots on both TVs. Now I don't know what happens if I go back to my second TV to restart playback. Will it restart where I left off on THAT TV? I somehow doubt it. I believe it'll pick up where I left off on the DVR, but I don't know for sure (not without further experimentation).


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

rudeney said:


> But did you use Gigabit-certified Cat6 connections?


How much will it cost to have you come do that?

Actually I bought them premade from: http://www.cat5ecableguy.com/


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

jpl said:


> Just to follow up, I finally got a chance to run my test on the FiOS MR DVR. I started playback of a show on my DVR. I waited a minute and went to my second TV. I started playback of the same show. It started up just fine, and started from the beginning on that TV too. I had both TVs showing the same show, about a minute apart. There's no issue with watching the same show concurrently on different TVs. I stopped playback at different spots on both TVs. Now I don't know what happens if I go back to my second TV to restart playback. Will it restart where I left off on THAT TV? I somehow doubt it. I believe it'll pick up where I left off on the DVR, but I don't know for sure (not without further experimentation).


I would take just being able to watch it somewhere other than where it was recorded! That is without moving the box.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Dusty said:


> Please tell me you are not saying a PC is required to enable MRV when it is rolled out.
> 
> I am a MAC household. The only active PC I have is the laptop from my company. Even if I have a spare PC for this, I still resent the idea of using a PC for MRV.
> 
> I actually prefer using VoD infrastructure for MRV to using Media Share. It's simple and don't need DLNA. Give me a channel to browse the contents in other DVR. If I want to watch anything from other DVR, I queue it on my current DVR.


Dusty, rest assured, Inkahuts has described the scenario.

DIRECTV is making the HR2x family DLNA compliant (with DTCP security, an optional part of DLNA). Meaning that any DLNA client, that supports DTCP, can connect to the HR2x--including other HR2x. That is the part that isn't there yet--connecting the two together. 

As soon as a MAC DLNA client exists (again with the DTCP component), you'll be able to access HR2x content. Someday, I wouldn't be surprised to see AV receivers as DLNA clients.

I'd love to see Sony add a DTCP activation mechanism to the PS3. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

gregjones said:


> I look at MRV as a set of features:
> 
> remote scheduling
> Playing content on a remote server
> ...


Yes some of the pieces are there, but some of it is just barely there and needs significant improvement before it can be part of a decent MRV implementation.

For instance, the remote scheduling that we have now is a joke...... you can pick a program and select from two choices: Record if possible or definitely record.... both with no feedback to tell what happened as a result of that request. You don't know if the "if possible" request failed, so to make sure that you record something you have to risk overriding a conflict recording without knowing if or what recording that request will override.

Web based remote scheduling should look just like what you see when you schedule a recording on your TV screen.... you make a request, and if there are any conflicts, you are told what they are and asked if you want to resolve the conflict by cancelling the request or cancelling one of the listed scheduled recordings.

If remote scheduling under MRV operates like the web based remote scheduling does now, that would be unacceptable.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Dusty, rest assured, Inkahuts has described the scenario.
> 
> DIRECTV is making the HR2x family DLNA compliant (with DTCP security, an optional part of DLNA). Meaning that any DLNA client, that supports DTCP, can connect to the HR2x--including other HR2x. That is the part that isn't there yet--connecting the two together.
> 
> ...


Hi Tom, Thanks for the kind reply. It is very encouraging.

If DTV enables this, I will be a loyal customer without any loyal customer perks. Nothing is more important than this. my wife likes to start a show in the family room. She likes to move into the bedroom when she feels like it. Once she gets to do this, I will lose the liberty to leave D*.

I hate that she records the same shows on every DVR, because she doesn't know where she will feel like watching it.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Yes some of the pieces are there, but some of it is just barely there and needs significant improvement before it can be part of a decent MRV implementation.
> 
> For instance, the remote scheduling that we have now is a joke...... you can pick a program and select from two choices: Record if possible or definitely record.... both with no feedback to tell what happened as a result of that request. You don't know if the "if possible" request failed, so to make sure that you record something you have to risk overriding a conflict recording without knowing if or what recording that request will override.
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that the current scheduler is almost always on the other side of a firewall from the HR2x. The request to schedule is not real-time. If it were, people would need to have made a pathway through their firewall. This means that the HR2x is getting the request through the sat stream or through polling the DirecTV server.

An MRV setup should have significantly less restrictions and could be real-time largely because they would exist on the same network. I agree that today's implementation is lacking in a number of respects. But a number of the limitations are imposed by the placement of the user interface in respect to the hardware. On MRV, this would be a push model instead of a pull. They key step forward that the current implementation does take into account is the inclusion of external scheduling requests into the to do list.


----------

