# Any plans for DVR that can output HD to 2 TVs?



## jumpyg2 (Jan 24, 2006)

I'm going to upgrade from my 625 to an HD DVR probably sometime this year. I noticed that the 622/722 only output SDTV to the 2nd TV. That would be fine at first, since I'll probably have a SDTV in the basement for a little while. Eventually, I want to upgrade that TV, too. 

So, is Dish working on a DVR that will feed an HD signal to two TVs? Seems like a lot of people would want that.


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

jumpyg2 said:


> I'm going to upgrade from my 625 to an HD DVR probably sometime this year. I noticed that the 622/722 only output SDTV to the 2nd TV. That would be fine at first, since I'll probably have a SDTV in the basement for a little while. Eventually, I want to upgrade that TV, too.
> 
> So, is Dish working on a DVR that will feed an HD signal to two TVs? Seems like a lot of people would want that.


Yes they would want that but the cost on the additional HD tuner would probably be somewhat prohibitive. I have seen Dish VIP 722 retail for about $400 to $500 or more so that means their cost will be about $700-$800 or more. If you put two live HD outputs that would probably add about $100-$200 to a receiver which means more cost to Dish. I am not saying it would happen but start up costs rise or existing customer costs rise and programming rates typically do the same.


----------



## klegg (Oct 31, 2006)

convem24 said:


> Yes they would want that but the cost on the additional HD tuner would probably be somewhat prohibitive. I have seen Dish VIP 722 retail for about $400 to $500 or more so that means their cost will be about $700-$800 or more. If you put two live HD outputs that would probably add about $100-$200 to a receiver which means more cost to Dish. I am not saying it would happen but start up costs rise or existing customer costs rise and programming rates typically do the same.


Actually, there are already at least 2 HD tuners in these boxes. The outputs just aren't there.


----------



## theoak (Nov 5, 2007)

It makes me wonder if this is a software limitation only for the TV2 output.

HD can be passed over coax. I can hook up my OTA antenna via coax for example and get HD.

It would be way cool if all they had to do was give us a software update that allowed 1080i to go out on the TV2 coax.

( Not sure on the hardware limitations though ... so with that being said, I am sure that there is someone out there that is just eager to dash my hopes to pieces  )


----------



## jumpyg2 (Jan 24, 2006)

Oh, yeah, I hadn't thought about the cable to get the signal from the DVR to the 2nd TV. I'm surprised that coaxial will carry HD signals. Interesting.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

theoak said:


> It makes me wonder if this is a software limitation only for the TV2 output.
> 
> HD can be passed over coax. I can hook up my OTA antenna via coax for example and get HD.
> 
> ...


Love dashing hopes. HD RF generators currently cost more than a $1000. The cost will come down, but for now don't look for one unless you've got money to burn.

It's frustrating, but you can hook up two HD tv's by just using the HDMI for one and component/optical to the other, but both have to be watching the same program. Otherwise, your only option is a "two box" household.


----------



## theoak (Nov 5, 2007)

Doh!!!

Gun shot to the chest ... gasp ... roll over ... yell in pain ... see my life flash before my eyes ...

wait ...

pull a Rambo ... found some bullets ... put gun powder on wound ... light flesh on fire ...

There ... all better now


----------



## digital223 (Dec 19, 2002)

_phrelin said:
It's frustrating, but you can hook up two HD tv's by just using the HDMI for one and component/optical to the other, but both have to be watching the same program. Otherwise, your only option is a "two box" household_.

am i missing something here................what about incorporating an HDMI box. 1 cable is better then 5.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Read somewhere that this will be under $200 retail

Pulse-Link Demos HD-Over-Coax

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=cdn&doc_id=142381


----------



## digital223 (Dec 19, 2002)

HobbyTalk said:


> Read somewhere that this will be under $200 retail
> 
> Pulse-Link Demos HD-Over-Coax
> 
> http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=cdn&doc_id=142381


Plus-Link looks good, but costly.
if it works i bet E* & D* will find some way to put a price tag on it .


----------



## kstevens (Mar 26, 2003)

theoak said:


> It makes me wonder if this is a software limitation only for the TV2 output.
> 
> HD can be passed over coax. I can hook up my OTA antenna via coax for example and get HD.
> 
> ...


Even if HD can be carried over coaxial cable, it will never happen. There is no way to protect it so the RIAA would never allow it.

Ken


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A DVR from the company that owns SlingBox and now Slings HD to remote users around the world? I think something will be figured out. Not this week though.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

James Long said:


> A DVR from the company that owns SlingBox and now Slings HD to remote users around the world? I think something will be figured out. Not this week though.


I just love your subtle sense of humor............. :hurah: 
Made my day.


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

klegg said:


> Actually, there are already at least 2 HD tuners in these boxes. The outputs just aren't there.


I understand that, I meant the additional output. I was talking about two live HD outputs. That cost would cost Dish probably around $50-$100 a box. Costs are costs.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Wouldn't just be easier to just have 2 Vip612's instead?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Tech Chat said they are working on one but it is quite a bit in the future.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

jumpyg2 said:


> Oh, yeah, I hadn't thought about the cable to get the signal from the DVR to the 2nd TV. I'm surprised that coaxial will carry HD signals. Interesting.


How do people with cable get HD? 

-JB


----------



## klegg (Oct 31, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> How do people with cable get HD?
> 
> -JB


I'm not sure, but was thinking they have a box on each tv. In other words, it seems this issue is distributing the "converted" signal rather than the raw feed from the host. It's the same with E*...get another receiver...:grin:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Cable distributes the digital HD signal to more than one box for $$, at least that's what Comcast told me, which is the same as getting a second box from Dish. But from the Tech Forum Recap thread:


Rob Glasser said:


> *Josh*: I was looking for an HD DVR that outputs HD to both TVs, do you know when one of those will be coming out?
> *Answer*: We've been talking about this, but not sure how we would get that signal to your second TV. We need to figure out to do that with the wiring in your home. We are working on it, product in development, just started, but do not have a timeline yet.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

klegg said:


> I'm not sure, but was thinking they have a box on each tv. In other words, it seems this issue is distributing the "converted" signal rather than the raw feed from the host. It's the same with E*...get another receiver...:grin:


Well we use coax to get the feed from the Dish. Coax has a ton of bandwidth and it could work but as someone else pointed out can they?

We are allowed HD via DVI cables
We are allowed HD via component cables
We are allowed HD via HDMI

Are we allowed HD via Coax?

Right now we get a downconverted stream of HD via Coax on the second output of the 622/722 and we know the 622/722 does have multiple HD tuners so what is keeping them from sending us "true" HD via the coax we already have?

Legal issues?
Now it seems that we have a HD source inside the 622/722 and they seem to have the means to convert the HD to SD on the fly and send it down the coax to our set so why not leave the HD signal intact?

I'm guessing one of two reasons

1. Legal - they are not allowed to send a pure HD signal over unprotected coax
2. Technical - it would take too much CPU time and not allow the recording of 2-3 sources while playing back 2 at the same time.

Any thoughts?

-JB


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> I'm guessing one of two reasons
> 
> 1. Legal - they are not allowed to send a pure HD signal over unprotected coax
> 2. Technical - it would take too much CPU time and not allow the recording of 2-3 sources while playing back 2 at the same time.
> ...


Agree on both counts. Legal because of rights management issues. And from a technical standpoint I do think it would take what would essentially be another computer (or a quad processor with lots of RAM) to generate the HD output signal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> We are allowed HD via DVI cables
> We are allowed HD via component cables
> We are allowed HD via HDMI
> 
> Are we allowed HD via Coax?


Considering DRM, I would not expect DVI and component to remain options. Look for HDMI/HDCP for protected content.



> Right now we get a downconverted stream of HD via Coax on the second output of the 622/722 and we know the 622/722 does have multiple HD tuners so what is keeping them from sending us "true" HD via the coax we already have?


NTSC modulators are trivial. ATSC modulators are not. The challenge remains out there to find an ATSC modulator that doesn't cost more than $50 ... let alone the current prices which are more than the cost (non-discounted) of a second receiver.

How are you going to put that signal on coax? And can you do it in a way that works with DRM so you're not just wasting your time when "ATSC out" joins the list of "disabled for content protection" outputs?



> Now it seems that we have a HD source inside the 622/722 and they seem to have the means to convert the HD to SD on the fly and send it down the coax to our set so why not leave the HD signal intact?


It's more complicated than that. Coax cables are stupid. All they can do is pass electrons. In order to carry anything of value (other than electricity) you need a modulator. To carry HD you need a HD modulator - preferably an ATSC modulator that standard ATSC TVs can tune. That missin (in the industry) modulator is the key.



> 1. Legal - they are not allowed to send a pure HD signal over unprotected coax
> 2. Technical - it would take too much CPU time and not allow the recording of 2-3 sources while playing back 2 at the same time.


The CPU will do fine. Thinks like up/downconverting and modulating signal can be handled by components that simply take whatever the CPU is sending and do with it as needed. Adding a third or fourth output stream would tax the CPU. But that's beyond the request.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

A couple of companies have announced at CES HD via coax adapters (HDCP compliant). From reading it will require an encoder at one end and a decoder at the other. Price is rumored at about $200.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Cool.

Obviously any physical solution would require E* to redesign their receivers. A second HDMI for for TV 2 would be a minimum. If they are going to spend the money on that redesign they might as well to go to a complete solution.

I mentioned Sling earlier in the thread ... a current SlingBox would be external and suffer from the same problems as the HDMI via coax box mentioned (gotta have an HD output!). The comment at CES about integrating Sling into E* receivers was basically "not this year". But if they can do something in software (which would require more CPU work) and use the existing ethernet connection to Sling the content out to a HD SlingCatcher with DRM it could be a cheaper way.

The discussion of the TR-50 ATSC tuner with a ethernet port for E* to send you content last night on the Tech Chat might give some insight. I expect that what they were referring to was using the TR-50 to use DISH Online technology to download movies. But it would make a nice, likely cheap, "catcher" for a HD feed.

I wouldn't mind seeing the 211 and 222 being used as "catchers" as well (along the lines of media sharing between secure E* receivers). There are possibilities.

Most of the possibilities I can think of don't involve coax.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

The HD via coax is obviously not an ATSC modulator becuase you need both an encoder and decoder. In the end, not much different that just using a 2nd E* box other then a 2nd E* box could give you a lot more function.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> Cool.
> 
> Obviously any physical solution would require E* to redesign their receivers. A second HDMI for for TV 2 would be a minimum. If they are going to spend the money on that redesign they might as well to go to a complete solution.
> 
> ...


James they almost spilled the beans last night when they stated such a receiver is being worked on. The hope is to have such receiver ready to roll out by March of 2009.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Considering DRM, I would not expect DVI and component to remain options. Look for HDMI/HDCP for protected content.


Since my old Pany only has component, I've been trying to guess when I'll have to spring for a new one. I suppose the "when" is as speculative as more HD....


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Lets take this is a different direction if I can sidetrack this excellent discussion for a minute.

It's been suggested that you can have long runs of HMDI cables over the typical 6'ish that we are used to. While I would not venture to guess that these runs can be the same distance as Coax I do wonder if this "might" be an easier fix for some people.

Now having said this we cannot do this now because the second TV2 output of the 622/722 is Coax only but could a second HMDI out be much easier than trying to add a Coax HD output?

How long can an HDMI cable be before the signal degrades?

Is there anything "technically" preventing Dish from releasing a 732, for example, with HDMI outputs for both TV1 and TV2?

Thanks for all the great input to this thread. I like the tech stuff LOL

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

tomcrown1 said:


> James they almost spilled the beans last night when they stated such a receiver is being worked on. The hope is to have such receiver ready to roll out by March of 2009.


This would be a nice addition.

My personal ideal setup would be:

1. One DVR with multiple streams and a large hard drive that could "feed" 3-4 slave boxes.

2. The slaves would do nothing but serve as decoders (or whatnot) so we can have HD via coax.

I love the idea of having a main library of recorded DVR programs that could be viewed on multiple sets. Adding another set would be lower cost because you would just need to add another slave box to the system instead of another DVR.

Now a bonus would be to be able to have all the TV's on the same daisy chain of Coax. Why run separate runs to each set. Have them feed off each other and have the main DVR be able to address each box separately.

Now I'm not sure if I got the technical names correct but I could see this being a nice solution to the question of multiple sets and boxes.

-JB


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

This post


HobbyTalk said:


> Read somewhere that this will be under $200 retail
> 
> Pulse-Link Demos HD-Over-Coax
> 
> http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=cdn&doc_id=142381


ultimately led me to the Pulse~LINK Coax Technology web page which indicates along with their other pages that their technology can send an HDMI signal through coax alongside everything else, and that their technology meets the requirements for HDTV. Now if one could buy a pair of HDMI boxes from them....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> Is there anything "technically" preventing Dish from releasing a 732, for example, with HDMI outputs for both TV1 and TV2?


Nothing that I know of. It is one of those features I wish they would have added to the 722. The expense is unknown ... they would need output chips inside the box.

Here's a thought:
ViP-211 ... one output? Actually two outputs of the same content with separate processing for "HD" vs "SD". The HD and SD outputs have different aspect ratio settings.
ViP-612 ... one output but the same as the 211 ... "HD" and "SD" are split. SD outputs are not a downconvert of the HD output ... it is processed separately.
ViP-622 ... two outputs, but the split is TV1 vs TV2 instead of HD vs SD (even in Single Mode.  ) The TV1 SD outputs simply downconvert whatever is on the HD outputs.

If the chipset is set up so that only output one (TV1 on a 622 or "HD" on a 211/612) can output HD (with separate downconversion on the 622) then E* needs a new chipset. If the chipset does the TV2/"SD" output downconversion separately then tapping into that feed and adding a HDMI and other ports should be possible (although not a software upgrade).

Points to ponder!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> Nothing that I know of. It is one of those features I wish they would have added to the 722. The expense is unknown ... they would need output chips inside the box.
> 
> Here's a thought:
> ViP-211 ... one output? Actually two outputs of the same content with separate processing for "HD" vs "SD". The HD and SD outputs have different aspect ratio settings.
> ...


Another thing that may be possible...

The 622/722 has component and HMDI outputs that are currently linked to TV1.

Are these hardwired or could the 622/722 be programmed to:

TV1 = HDMI
TV2 = Component / Composite / Coax

Now this would allow two "true" HD outputs.

Right now we have:

TV1 = HDMI / Component / Composite
TV2 = Coax

The drawback, of course, is that those who lack a HMDI jack on their HD set would lose an output. A solution could be to allow this to be toggled as a selection.

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd say hard wired ... chipset out one (called TV1 on a 622/722) is one output that is sent to the component and HDMI ports in HD and downconverted "externally" to composite/S Video with the downconvert fed into the NTSC modulator.

Chipset out two (called TV2 on a 622/722) is one output that is either SD only or downconverted "externally" to composite/S Video and fed into the NTSC modulator.

On the similar 211 and 612 "out one" isn't downconverted for the SD outputs. "Out two" feeds the SD stages.

What we (apparently) need is for E* to tap on to "out two" and add a HD output board (if it is capable of HD on the chipset).


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> I'd say hard wired ... chipset out one (called TV1 on a 622/722) is one output that is sent to the component and HDMI ports in HD and downconverted "externally" to composite/S Video with the downconvert fed into the NTSC modulator.
> 
> Chipset out two (called TV2 on a 622/722) is one output that is either SD only or downconverted "externally" to composite/S Video and fed into the NTSC modulator.
> 
> ...


Yeah.... if they did this then we could at least have two separate HD outputs in rooms about 50 feet from each other. I think I heard of 50' HDMI cables. Not 100% sure thou.

I wonder how much this DRM crap plays into all of this. If not for all this DRM stuff I wonder if it would be alot easier to set up multiple systems. Could even feed the signals via ethernet CAT5 through the entire house.

-JB


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

jumpyg2 said:


> I'm going to upgrade from my 625 to an HD DVR probably sometime this year. I noticed that the 622/722 only output SDTV to the 2nd TV. That would be fine at first, since I'll probably have a SDTV in the basement for a little while. Eventually, I want to upgrade that TV, too.
> 
> So, is Dish working on a DVR that will feed an HD signal to two TVs? Seems like a lot of people would want that.


Jumpy,

On the Tech Chat last night they hinted that Dish could offer a Dual HD Output DVR in the future. With that said it's likely at least 12 months or more away.

John


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

JohnL said:


> Jumpy,
> 
> On the Tech Chat last night they hinted that Dish could offer a Dual HD Output DVR in the future. With that said it's likely at least 12 months or more away.
> 
> John


Anyone know how the Uverse "whole house" DVR is supposed to work?

I'm wondering if it's a setup like was suggested... one DVR that feeds slave boxes.

-JB


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

jrb531 said:


> Anyone know how the Uverse "whole house" DVR is supposed to work?
> 
> I'm wondering if it's a setup like was suggested... one DVR that feeds slave boxes.
> 
> -JB


JB,

If you want to use Uverse service for HD then you will be VERY disappointed, Uverse is only capable of using ONE HD stream at a time. This means you can NOT connect to more than one HD Stream at a time, in fact you can NOT record an HD Channel and watch another HD channel at the same time.

John


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Dual HD streams are planned for 2Q '08. Of course that has nothing to do with a whole house dvr distribution system


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

jrb531 said:


> Is there anything "technically" preventing Dish from releasing a 732, for example, with HDMI outputs for both TV1 and TV2?


This isn't going to happen for one important reason: installation. Currently, techs in the field all carry RG6 and can terminate the cable, making custom lengths out to several hundred feet. Also, cable is built into many homes that is usable, but no additional cable can be run to or from those locations.

How are techs going to deal with running HDMI cables? Terminating those cables? Certifying them? Drilling holes big enough for connectors to fit through? Etc.

100' of RG6 costs, on the high end. $7-8 with connectors. A 100' HDMI cable probably won't work unless it is active, and is going to cost several hundred dollars at minimum, up to nearly $1000 for an active cable.

Dish isn't going to offer a feature that most customers simply won't be able to use due to cabling/installation issues. If they did, customers would insist on impossible installations, and of course, they are trained to expect everything for free.

The only practical solution is going to be one that uses coax for distribution, and as mentioned, an ATSC modulator currently costs more than a whole 722.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

JohnL said:


> JB,
> 
> If you want to use Uverse service for HD then you will be VERY disappointed, Uverse is only capable of using ONE HD stream at a time. This means you can NOT connect to more than one HD Stream at a time, in fact you can NOT record an HD Channel and watch another HD channel at the same time.
> 
> John


While I will give Uverse consideration when it's installed in Chicago (more due to the internet) I was speculating more how Dish could copy such a setup "if" it works. I hear they will eventually have more than one HD stream.

I sure would like to have one main DVR serving the entire house. Even if I was limited to two HD streams at a time I could live with that providing it was on any HD set I happened to be sitting at.

Yes I also know that recording counts as one stream but for me the issue is that I do not need more that two HD streams as long as they go to the TV I happen to be watching 

If I'm in the bedroom, basement or living room it would matter not to me but right now my only choice is to have 3 622/722's with rentals and BS DVR fees for each one when I only want to watch one at a time.

Sure having 3 622/722's would allow people to watch all three at the same time but I don't want that. I want to be able to watch HD in the room I happen to be in and right now Dish does not really have an option for that aside from having an expensive box in each room.

Considering that I would never use more than one set at a time it sure would be a total waste to have to have multipel boxes.

So having 2 streams (when Uverse gets the bugs out) will be just fine for me. Perhaps not others and perhaps they will never get the bugs out but if they do and I can get high speed internet and phone service from one line and one bill I will "consider" it.

Meanwhile I was specualating if Dish could come up with an "entire house" solution because as people add more and more HD sets they are going to want their HD DVR's on each and how long will dish be able to get away with charging that made up BS "per box" DVR fee?

Now if Dish wants to move to a "per account" BS made up DVR fee then NP... I'll get a separate 622/722 for each set.

-JB


----------



## dtvgone (Jul 21, 2007)

I use an ATI TV Wonder 650 USB combo for TV2 in my home office, with analog signal from one of my 722s (in single mode). 

The home distribution RF output is connected to the analog cable input on the ATI, which is tuned to the appropriate channel. However, the ATI box also has a digital input for either OTA antenna or Clear QAM (no cable card needed) to use with its onboard ATSC tuner. Cable providers are supposed to eventually be sending locals unencrypted with Clear QAM.

How much would the additional electronics cost to have the home distribution be HD with Clear QAM, with an adapter (like the federally mandated converters) only to be used for those connecting an analog TV to the second set output?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

dtvgone said:


> How much would the additional electronics cost to have the home distribution be HD with Clear QAM, with an adapter (like the federally mandated converters) only to be used for those connecting an analog TV to the second set output?


Content providers will never allow any type of RF modulation output from a digital box - too easy to copy.

That is what DRM is all about.


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

Is there such a thing as a hdmi hub? I mean run the hdmi cable from the dvr into this hub that would allow you to connect several tv's.........the drawback would be having to watch the same channel


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Isn't HDMI is based on a hand shake between two devices?

I don't believe a hub would work.


----------



## JimK (Dec 13, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> Well we use coax to get the feed from the Dish. Coax has a ton of bandwidth and it could work but as someone else pointed out can they?
> 
> We are allowed HD via DVI cables
> We are allowed HD via component cables
> ...


Tech chat Mark Jackson has said copyright protection issue over coax and to much strain on the Hard Drive


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

theoak said:


> It makes me wonder if this is a software limitation only for the TV2 output.


TV2 is downconverted because that's the only way it can be viewed.


> HD can be passed over coax. I can hook up my OTA antenna via coax for example and get HD.


HD can be passed over coax, but ATSC cannot be modulated by consumer gear. Without ATSC, there can be no HD via RF.


----------



## scottrell (Jan 4, 2006)

Yes, you'd need to modulate the ATSC signal over coax, and the 2nd HDTV would have to have a ATSC tuner--tuned to UHF channel 69 for example--similar to how TV2 currently tunes to modulated NTSC channel. Agree with harsh that this is not currently consumer gear...yet.

About the other way of sending HDTV2 output, no need to bother with HDMI or some kind of coax modulation. You can deliver component output over long lengths (I've done 100 feet) using Cat5e cable. An RJ45 connector can be used to clip into a "converter" to either component or a 15-pin (VGA-type) connector if your TV accepts RGB singals on this type of input--my projector does this. (This would really upset the Monster cable fan-boys though.)

As far as I know, Component signals are not a concern by the the copyright police.

It would require additional hardware to add to the 2nd output option, and to make it more economical they'd need to add it to all HDTV 2-output receivers. But I'd expect component output would be easier/cheaper to add than HDMI or some proprietary connection.

-sc


----------



## digital223 (Dec 19, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> Isn't HDMI is based on a hand shake between two devices?
> 
> I don't believe a hub would work.


Has anyone tried this :

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10113&cs_id=1011303&p_id=2522&seq=1&format=1#largeimage


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

scottrell said:


> Yes, you'd need to modulate the ATSC signal over coax, and the 2nd HDTV would have to have a ATSC tuner--tuned to UHF channel 69 for example--similar to how TV2 currently tunes to modulated NTSC channel. Agree with harsh that this is not currently consumer gear...yet.
> 
> About the other way of sending HDTV2 output, no need to bother with HDMI or some kind of coax modulation. You can deliver component output over long lengths (I've done 100 feet) using Cat5e cable. An RJ45 connector can be used to clip into a "converter" to either component or a 15-pin (VGA-type) connector if your TV accepts RGB singals on this type of input--my projector does this. (This would really upset the Monster cable fan-boys though.)
> 
> ...


How would this been accomplished with cat5 cable? Wouldn't the problem with component be that you would still have to run additional cables for audio?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

While I have never done it I would suspect the the grounds are common so you would only need 4 wires for video and 3 wires for audio.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Just an interesting note about Uverse that I just found out. Apparently that need to set your line to "Interleave" mode which substantially increases your latency (lag) on the line.

They do this to allow a more stable line that is able to support higher speeds. If all you do is surf the net then no biggie but gamers (yes I admit it LOL!) will never accept this as it puts you back into "modem like" latency.

For those not in the know, latency is the delay from the time you hit a key to the time the other computer all the way on the other end "sees" that you hit the key.

Most "gamers" want under 150ms (1000ms = 1 second) and serious gamers want well under 100ms. Modems are in the 200-250ms range and Internet from Sats is about 1000ms which is why it's darn near impossible to play games on a Sat connection (laws of physics... it takes so long for a signal to traval 22,000 miles in orbit and back)

So as long as U-Verse or any other Pay TV by the phone companies use Interleave mode it's a deal breaker for me. I was just on the Uverse page and we compared latency on my DSL vs their Uverse connection (me on FAST and Uverse on Interleaved mode) and the difference was amazing.

So if you game (1st person shooters, EQ, WoW, Lotro etc...) then Uverse will work but you may notice that everything seems just a bit more sluggish than you may have been used to before.

-JB

P.S. Interleave mode adds extra error checking from what I have been told. You do not need this extra error checking if your line is good but the faster they make your line the more errors you get thus why with a Pay TV internet line they pump up the speed to the max (to accomidate Pay TV) and turn on the extra error checking mode that seriously adds to your latency. 

With regular internet you have the option (you have to ask them) to turn down your speed a notch if you want to run in FAST mode. With UVerse you do not have this option because the line needs all the bandwidth for Pay TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bnewt said:


> How would this been accomplished with cat5 cable? Wouldn't the problem with component be that you would still have to run additional cables for audio?


It is done with a transceiver like this: http://www.svideo.com/1080i.html.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

harsh said:


> It is done with a transceiver like this: http://www.svideo.com/1080i.html.


Have you used one of these? Does it work well?


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

If I understand the drawings correctly, the digital audio from the satellite receiver would have to be conneted also, & there would have to be something to decode this signal at the terminating end, which wouldn't be practical if your were trying to get the hd signal to a kitchen tv or something of that nature.


----------



## chi_ray (Feb 17, 2008)

I would think the easiest way to get HD DVR to multiple TV's would to utilize existing RG6 cable or, if available, ethernet. You would need 1 master DVR with the ability to record 2-3 HD streams (like the 622/722) and then HD boxes with no DVR at other TVs. These would connect to the dish like a normal receiver and also leverage the RG6 to send ethernet traffic via HomePlug type technology over RG6 (think Uverse) or if available existing ethernet.

We know what the slingbox can do, so I think this would be entirely feasible.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

The Slingbox does not send HD over it's network. It can accept an HD signal but it downconverts it to other receivers.


----------



## chi_ray (Feb 17, 2008)

HobbyTalk said:


> The Slingbox does not send HD over it's network. It can accept an HD signal but it downconverts it to other receivers.


The main reason for the down conversion is to send the signal via the internet. Uverse will be able to send HD signals to any non-DVR box in the house. My point was that Dish/Slingbox has the technology available and it would not be much of a stretch to make this happen.

<EDIT>

It looks like the upcoming SlingCatcher will be able to stream HD:

http://gizmodo.com/341340/slingcatcher-the-ultimate-hd-streamerfile-player
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9843528-7.html


----------



## scottrell (Jan 4, 2006)

bnewt said:


> How would this been accomplished with cat5 cable? Wouldn't the problem with component be that you would still have to run additional cables for audio?


To be honest, I didn't think about the audio piece--I had to make a really long run to keep the projector cable hidden.

But again, running a digital audio cable would also be easier than dealing with an ultra long HDMI cable.

I would think you could manage the audio portion with a little imagination--the required cables are not nearly as "black box" as HDMI. The options could include a multi-zone receiver, speaker wire runs, or a second reciever.

-sc


----------

