# Tivo vs. HR20 Again



## boneskrw (Jan 28, 2006)

What puzzles me about this board is how the TIVO and HR20 are constantly compared, with the HR20 often being criticized as not being "as good" as the TIVO. If this board was about audio components, TV displays, TV antennas, cameras, or most other entertainment devices, the discussions would center around performance of the device. No one ever talks about picture quality, audio quality, signal sensitivity, noise or heat generated by the box, or any other measure of a DVR's performance. The posts are all about "user friendliness" or lack of it. I can't understand how people can get so out of joint over a DVR function that is used less than 1% of the time the unit is running. Both the HR10 and HR20 perform whatever they are designed to do. Neither is lacking in operator friendliness. 

I've watched this board for about three years now. During most of that time I had the HR10-250 which I really liked, but was forced to go to the HR20 DVR when Direct TV decided to change to MPEG4. I've had no issues with the HR20. If my old HR10 was capable of something wonderful that my HR20 can't do, I guess I'm too stupid to miss it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to use the HR10 to play old recorded cartoons for my grandson. After the "digital revolution" in Feb, 2009, I might even use the HR10 as an OTA tuner.


----------



## catfish john (Jul 14, 2004)

I have owned a Tivo, then switched to the HR10-250 and then to the HR20-700. I have never had a problem with any of the above receivers! I also still use my HR10-250 in my office with no problems. So maybe it is time we gave the comparison between Tivo and the DTv receivers!!


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

boneskrw said:


> What puzzles me about this board is how the TIVO and HR20 are constantly compared, with the HR20 often being criticized as not being "as good" as the TIVO. If this board was about audio components, TV displays, TV antennas, cameras, or most other entertainment devices, the discussions would center around performance of the device. No one ever talks about picture quality, audio quality, signal sensitivity, noise or heat generated by the box, or any other measure of a DVR's performance. The posts are all about "user friendliness" or lack of it. I can't understand how people can get so out of joint over a DVR function that is used less than 1% of the time the unit is running. Both the HR10 and HR20 perform whatever they are designed to do. Neither is lacking in operator friendliness...


Well, they used to talk quite heatedly about all of that stuff. Now, not so much. You may have noticed that there are about 3 active threads at a time here, where there used to be 2-3 pages of active threads each day. What that means is, of course, most folks left. Those who left are probably also those who abandoned the HR10 for greener pastures, and correspondingly moved to more-relevant forums.

So who is still here? Mostly those who still have their nose out of joint that Tivo was usurped, and those who are still unable to make the leap of faith to the HR2x (and who can blame them with it being bashed like crazy).

This forum has changed from being the best thing going to the final resting place of a lot of disgruntlement. There are still a few interesting posts, but I expect there numbers to continue to dwindle, not unlike the numbers of HR10 users. It had its day, glorious as it was. Today is a new day.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

There's also those with a foot in each camp, such as myself. I have an HR10, HR20 and HR21. However, the HR10 is fast on its way to becoming a standard-def DVR for the purpose of recording from DirecTV. It still is fine as an OTA recorder if you also have DirecTV service, but no more so than an HR20 or HR21+AM21 (in fact, the AM21 has a far better tuner than the HR10 does.)


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

stevel said:


> There's also those with a foot in each camp, such as myself...


Yes. I am also in that camp. Right now it might be down to just you and me, bud.


----------



## videojanitor (Dec 21, 2001)

boneskrw said:


> No one ever talks about picture quality, audio quality, signal sensitivity, noise or heat generated by the box, or any other measure of a DVR's performance.


That's probably because for the most part, these machines are are pretty comparable as far as PQ and AQ go, with most of that being fixed at the source. I've got a full compliment of machines here: an HR20, HR21, HR10, and a Series 3 (also previously owned Zenith and Sony stand-alone HD-DVRs), and I really can't tell which is which when when I am watching them, assuming the same source. Whatever differences there are, they're minor compared to the compression artifacts that are present on all broadcast and satellite channels to some extent or another. The only thing that looks obviously better to me is Blu-ray. 

I have seen some discussions about noise, heat, and tuner sensitivity, but you're right -- not that much. On the flip side, I used to be able to find huge (to me) differences between VCRs. Go figure.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

videojanitor said:


> That's probably because for the most part, these machines are are pretty comparable as far as PQ and AQ go, with most of that being fixed at the source. I've got a full compliment of machines here: an HR20, HR21, HR10, and Series 3 (also previously owned by a Zenith and Sony stand-alone HD-DVR), and I really can't tell which is which when when I am watching them, assuming the same source. Whatever differences there are, they're minor compared to the compression artifacts that are present on all broadcast and satellite channels to some extent or another. The only thing that looks obviously better to me is Blu-ray.
> 
> I have seen some discussions about noise, heat, and tuner sensitivity, but you're right -- not that much. On the flip side, I used to be able to find huge (to me) differences between VCRs. Go figure.


Good points all (and good to see you're still among the breathing). I guess that's the chief difference between digital and analog--there was a cornucopia of possible things that could goober up analog making VCRs pretty idiosyncratic regarding PQ, while going digital largely removes that possibility.

As a fellow broadcast engineer (and therefore assuming you have a discerning eye) can you tell much difference between the same local channels OTA as compared to MPEG-4? I really can't, and so have pretty-much abandoned OTA for the economy (HDD space-wise) of MPEG-4.


----------



## videojanitor (Dec 21, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> As a fellow broadcast engineer (and therefore assuming you have a discerning eye) can you tell much difference between the same local channels OTA as compared to MPEG-4? I really can't, and so have pretty-much abandoned OTA for the economy (HDD space-wise) of MPEG-4.


Yes, I am still very much alive.  A discerning eye? I guess you could say that -- I have successfully won battles against virtually every major studio because of problems with their feeds -- problems that nobody there ever noticed. I should have a plaque on my wall that reads "but nobody else has complained."

But anyway, I can see the difference between OTA and D*'s MPEG-4 feeds, but it's pretty slight and imagine that to most the difference is too small to care. Mostly what I see is a small loss in low-level detail -- looks like some noise-reduction "coring," resulting in video that appears to have been hit by a belt-sander. To be fair, this seems to vary by channel, so it may have more to do with D*'s encoder on a particular channel than an indictment of the entire MPEG-4 system. I also see some blocking on the MPEG-4 feeds, usually on fades, that is not there OTA. But overall, I think they've done a good job of balancing bandwidth vs. PQ.


----------



## pretzelbag (Mar 12, 2003)

stevel said:


> (in fact, the AM21 has a far better tuner than the HR10 does.)


As one who is resisting the HR20 until football season (i.e., most of the new HD content isn't that interesting to me until Sunday Ticket starts), I'm wondering for which system I should fight when I choose to get the new HD DVR via free upgrade.

I have tons of OTA options here in SF, with numerous subchannels that I actually like (8 PBS ones, for instance, across 3 channels) and excellent reception/PQ.

Is the OTA tuner in the AM21 the same as in the HR20?

I'd prefer an HR20 if I can get one simply because the shelves where I have my components aren't easily or cheaply adjustable and the extra inch or so of the AM21 on top of an HR21 might be too much, especially if I keep the HR10-250.

In other words, I've convinced the wife to give up Tivo (over her objections -- she's used the HR20 at a friend's house and was lost while using it over a full week) but asking for a new armoire to house more gear simply won't fly...

-pretzelbag.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

videojanitor said:


> Yes, I am still very much alive.  A discerning eye? I guess you could say that -- I have successfully won battles against virtually every major studio because of problems with their feeds -- problems that nobody there ever noticed. I should have a plaque on my wall that reads "but nobody else has complained."
> 
> But anyway, I can see the difference between OTA and D*'s MPEG-4 feeds, but it's pretty slight and imagine that to most the difference is too small to care. Mostly what I see is a small loss in low-level detail -- looks like some noise-reduction "coring," resulting in video that appears to have been hit by a belt-sander. To be fair, this seems to vary by channel, so it may have more to do with D*'s encoder on a particular channel than an indictment of the entire MPEG-4 system. I also see some blocking on the MPEG-4 feeds, usually on fades, that is not there OTA. But overall, I think they've done a good job of balancing bandwidth vs. PQ.


I'd like to think I have that skill as well, but I honestly see no difference between MPEG-4 and OTA. Maybe it's simply because my 60" Sony is too old (2004) to be 1080p, and is 768-native. There are folks who most definitely see a difference, however, so I agree that there may be issues with particular local channels in particular areas, or problems with individual providers pre-squashing their signals that makes the secondary MPEG-4 compression look bad, while channels who are more liberal with their original MPEG-2 compression might fare better after secondary MPEG-4 compression. Bottom line, it's unclear.


----------



## videojanitor (Dec 21, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> I'd like to think I have that skill as well, but I honestly see no difference between MPEG-4 and OTA. Maybe it's simply because my 60" Sony is too old (2004) to be 1080p, and is 768-native.


Is that 60-inch Sony a DLP? If so, it has been my experience that it's not as easy to discern minor issues like this on those kinds of displays. I have a 42-inch 1080p plasma, as well as a 23-inch (768) Sony LCD and can see the same artifacts on either one of them. It's gets more difficult to see on my reference display -- a 14-inch Sony PVM-14L5 CRT monitor (which cost me MORE than the 42-inch plasma!) -- but mainly because the screen is small. This is a great monitor though, as it will display anything from 480i to 1080i with no scaling.

I've done blind tests with it, with my wife switching between OTA and D* on the same channel -- I correctly ID'd the source 100% of the time. Then I let her try -- but she could only guess, as she saw no difference. This confirmed what she already suspected ... I'm nuts.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

The two of you may also be seeing the difference simply because you have different locals (I'd assume). One set of locals may be better in MPEG4 then the other set.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

TyroneShoes said:


> Yes. I am also in that camp. Right now it might be down to just you and me, bud.


I'm there. Still have one DirecTivo going, an R10, in the patio. Wife hates to use it because it's slow compared to the HR20/21 and she can't do things on it that she has gotten used to (like one touch record, being able to delete a whole folder of programs). Once MRV is finally here though I'll look to replace it.

As to why I'm still here, don't know. Probably because I refuse to let RS4 run me off but then again, this is just a forum so who cares...


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

pretzelbag said:


> Is the OTA tuner in the AM21 the same as in the HR20?


No - the AM21 has a newer generation tuner than the HR20. General reports are that it outperforms the HR20 and HR10.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 9, 2005)

TyroneShoes said:


> Yes. I am also in that camp. Right now it might be down to just you and me, bud.


I'm in both camps too. I don't post a lot because I don't want to enter into the which one is better arguments. Just try to answer questions when I can.


----------



## 94SupraTT (Feb 17, 2005)

boneskrw said:


> What puzzles me about this board is how the TIVO and HR20 are constantly compared, with the HR20 often being criticized as not being "as good" as the TIVO. If this board was about audio components, TV displays, TV antennas, cameras, or most other entertainment devices, the discussions would center around performance of the device. No one ever talks about picture quality, audio quality, signal sensitivity, noise or heat generated by the box, or any other measure of a DVR's performance. The posts are all about "user friendliness" or lack of it. I can't understand how people can get so out of joint over a DVR function that is used less than 1% of the time the unit is running. Both the HR10 and HR20 perform whatever they are designed to do. Neither is lacking in operator friendliness.
> 
> I've watched this board for about three years now. During most of that time I had the HR10-250 which I really liked, but was forced to go to the HR20 DVR when Direct TV decided to change to MPEG4. I've had no issues with the HR20. If my old HR10 was capable of something wonderful that my HR20 can't do, I guess I'm too stupid to miss it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to use the HR10 to play old recorded cartoons for my grandson. After the "digital revolution" in Feb, 2009, I might even use the HR10 as an OTA tuner.


I had a ton of issues with my HR21 and also had frequent reboots on my HR10. Both the HR10 and HR21 from my experience had their flaws. The HR20 has been quite stable for me and if it had DLB I wouldn't have anything to gripe about.

I'll always have a HR10 though because of all the "underground" stuff that can be done to it.  That is something the HR20 will never have. Etivo makes my Zune a happy camper.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

videojanitor said:


> Is that 60-inch Sony a DLP? If so, it has been my experience that it's not as easy to discern minor issues like this on those kinds of displays...


LCD--I don't think Sony makes DLPs. I don't like the DLPs I've seen, and there are numerous reports of people not being conscious of the rainbowing until the return period is over (and by then they can't NOT see it). The Samsungs I've seen seem to have artifacts in addition to the content artifacts, and if you look away from the screen then you can see the rainbowing out of the corner of your eye, which might explain some of the headaches that people report after viewing DLP for a couple hours.

And it's not that I don't think there are more artifacts in MPEG-4, I accept that there are. It's just that I don't notice them at all. If you take a still of any hard-to-encode video OTA and compare it to the same exact frame in MPEG-4, the difference is quite obvious. It's just not obvious at all in real time casual viewing, and so I seem to tolerate it as if it just wasn't there.

Now if it was as bad as NBC's sports coverage in MPEG-2 HD, where every tiny motion pixellates, and every single frame with any motion at all shows macroblocking in still or slomo, then I would be screaming bloody murder at DTV. I hope NBC realizes the errors of their ways before August 8th.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Correct - Sony never made a DLP set. They DID make a series of LCoS sets (they called it SXRD) and I have one which is wonderful. Sadly, the American public swoons over flat panels and Sony discontinued the SXRD line.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

stevel said:


> Correct - Sony never made a DLP set. They DID make a series of LCoS sets (they called it SXRD) and I have one which is wonderful. Sadly, the American public swoons over flat panels and Sony discontinued the SXRD line.


They killed the SXRD? _Disgraciade!_ That was still the best PQ I've ever seen, with great absolute black levels and gorgeous color (my sister bought one on my recommendation).

But I have noticed the trend. In 2005-2006 you walk into BestBuy and most of what you see is microdisplays, while these days you can't even find one. Maybe they take up too much room in the store, maybe the profit margins aren't great enough, but for a narrow viewing setting scenario they're as good as any flat panel, and much less expensive.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

boneskrw said:


> What puzzles me about this board is how the TIVO and HR20 are constantly compared, with the HR20 often being criticized as not being "as good" as the TIVO.


 Well, could it be because the title of the forum is "Directv HDTIVO", which, AFAIK, the HR10-250 is the only one.


> If this board was about audio components, TV displays, TV antennas, cameras, or most other entertainment devices, the discussions would center around performance of the device. .


You must frequent a different web than I do..


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

boneskrw said:


> What puzzles me about this board is how the TIVO and HR20 are constantly compared, with the HR20 often being criticized as not being "as good" as the TIVO.


That's because ALL DirecTV DVR Users before the R15 / HR20 were TiVo users. Every DVR DirecTV has ever sold prior to that was a TiVo.

So of course the users that are used to TiVo (and are on a TiVo board) are going to compare it....


----------



## pretzelbag (Mar 12, 2003)

stevel said:


> Correct - Sony never made a DLP set. They DID make a series of LCoS sets (they called it SXRD) and I have one which is wonderful. Sadly, the American public swoons over flat panels and Sony discontinued the SXRD line.


Sony still uses SXRD panels in its front projectors, which currently run for $3,000-$15,000 list. But I suspect you lament the end of the non-projector SXRD rear projection TVs, which I agree is a shame.

-pretzelbag.


----------



## videojanitor (Dec 21, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> Now if it was as bad as NBC's sports coverage in MPEG-2 HD, where every tiny motion pixellates, and every single frame with any motion at all shows macroblocking in still or slomo, then I would be screaming bloody murder at DTV. I hope NBC realizes the errors of their ways before August 8th.


Agreed! That kind of problem definitely falls in my "knock you over the head with a large mallet" category.


----------



## Dirac (Oct 18, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> That's because ALL DirecTV DVR Users before the R15 / HR20 were TiVo users. Every DVR DirecTV has ever sold prior to that was a TiVo.
> 
> So of course the users that are used to TiVo (and are on a TiVo board) are going to compare it....


You forgot about UltimateTV.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Dirac said:


> You forgot about UltimateTV.


You're right. I did.

I revise my statement to "MOST" vs. "ALL".


----------



## Dirac (Oct 18, 2002)

Actually that was part of their problem... most people forgot about UltimateTV. 

Especially once TiVo became a household word. Too bad that's gone away--now DVRs are a commodity. I've got to give DirecTV credit for their continual updates and improvements, though. Wish the cable companies would follow suit (they're mostly to blame for the "commodity attitude", I think).


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

pretzelbag said:


> Sony still uses SXRD panels in its front projectors, which currently run for $3,000-$15,000 list. But I suspect you lament the end of the non-projector SXRD rear projection TVs, which I agree is a shame.
> 
> -pretzelbag.


I went to SonyStyle.com, and they don't even make a set over 52" anymore. These guys were leading the league with 60's and 70's not that long ago. My next set is now much less likely to be a Sony (unless OLED prices drop by about 3000%).

UTV was notable as the first dual-tuner DVR, and had a pretty nice UI to boot, so the entire history of DTV DVRs set the bar pretty high, and quite honestly, they are still aguably offering the best DVR you can get in terms of price (although the 2-yr commitment adds a sting), reliability (that's a toss-up), UI (some might not agree), expandability (maybe also a toss-up), and content (absolutely no question). It's not a dream DVR, but in reality about the best you can get, and has become the _de facto _Tivo killer.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> Yes. I am also in that camp. Right now it might be down to just you and me, bud.


I'm not much of a camper, but my HR10-250s still do what they do very well, and my HR21 does what it does really well. (My two Panasonic Showstoppers also still do what they do really well.)


----------



## TSpoonEars (Feb 28, 2002)

If you mean 'the HR21 doesn't record the first minute of half my shows', then yeah it does it really well


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

tucsonbill said:


> ...My two Panasonic Showstoppers also still do what they do really well...


I don't doubt that at all. I had a Replay and liked it so much I bought a SS. Both are sadly dead from failed HDDs by now, though. My worst lament about the industry (other than Tivo and DTV not coming to terms on a new DTivo for MPEG4) would have to be regarding how sad it is that Replay lost its way. I though their original UI was much better than the original Tivo UI (which improved greatly in the DTivos).


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

Dirac said:


> Actually that was part of their problem... most people forgot about UltimateTV.
> 
> Especially once TiVo became a household word. Too bad that's gone away--now DVRs are a commodity. I've got to give DirecTV credit for their continual updates and improvements, though. Wish the cable companies would follow suit (they're mostly to blame for the "commodity attitude", I think).


Actually, I'm not surprised at all about the updates - after all they still have functions that were announced years ago that still don't work, so one would hope that they do in fact continue with the process. Are they at 100 yet?


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> ...
> 
> UTV was notable as the first dual-tuner DVR, and had a pretty nice UI to boot, so the entire history of DTV DVRs set the bar pretty high, and quite honestly, they are still aguably offering the best DVR you can get in terms of price (although the 2-yr commitment adds a sting), reliability (that's a toss-up), UI (some might not agree), expandability (maybe also a toss-up), and content (absolutely no question). It's not a dream DVR, but in reality about the best you can get, and has become the _de facto _Tivo killer.


Well, we know you enjoy *arguing*, so that paragraph was certainly good for a laugh


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

RS4 said:


> Actually, I'm not surprised at all about the updates - after all they still have functions that were announced years ago that still don't work...


Name one. Just one. Provide the record if it being announced and any evidence at all that it is not yet working, if you don't mind.

I thought so.

There is a huge difference between things working the way they are designed or announced and things working the way you might wish they were working.

Everything works on mine and no one other than you, Mr. Credibility, is claiming that announced features still don't work. AFAIK, the only function that was announced but did not ship originally was OTA, which was quickly added. A year and a half ago.



RS4 said:


> ...Are they at 100 yet?


I'm afraid no one there is quite as old as you.

Tell us about your scary-perfect DVR that is 100% and originally shipped that way, why don't you, and then tell us about how much available content it DOESN"T get.

I thought so.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> I don't doubt that at all. I had a Replay and liked it so much I bought a SS. Both are sadly dead from failed HDDs by now, though.


 Sorry, but I just have to tweak you and mention how easy it is to replace the HDD. I won't even mention how cheap HDDs are these days.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

tucsonbill said:


> Sorry, but I just have to tweak you and mention how easy it is to replace the HDD. I won't even mention how cheap HDDs are these days.


Tweak away, I'm certainly in no position to cry about that . But replacing HDDs in 3rd-party equipment is not easy at all if you don't own a PC, something I have never owned (even though I am up to my elbows inside them part of almost every day). I went direct from Commodore 64's to Macs, and never looked back.


----------



## BlueMonk (Oct 8, 2002)

boneskrw said:


> I've watched this board for about three years now. During most of that time I had the HR10-250 which I really liked, but was forced to go to the HR20 DVR when Direct TV decided to change to MPEG4. I've had no issues with the HR20. If my old HR10 was capable of something wonderful that my HR20 can't do, I guess I'm too stupid to miss it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to use the HR10 to play old recorded cartoons for my grandson. After the "digital revolution" in Feb, 2009, I might even use the HR10 as an OTA tuner.


I can't remember how long I have watched this board. Frankly, it was my first experience with forums about a product I really wanted to know more about. The early days when we were all discovering Tivo this board was great. And I am not saying it is bad now, just that I don't check in very often and rarely find useful info. But I am about to take the plunge moving the to the HR20 and a logical mature post like yours makes me feel better about the move. I am ( and I think a lot of people here are too) emotionally tied to Tivo and will hate to lose it. But I am tired of spotty OTA locals and missing more HD channels.


----------



## boneskrw (Jan 28, 2006)

Good move. You won't be sorry. The HR20/21 work just fine, as most posters here agree. As you've seen, there are a few that will hang onto the TIVO HR10 forever.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

boneskrw said:


> Good move. You won't be sorry. The HR20/21 work just fine, as most posters here agree. As you've seen, there are a few that will hang onto the TIVO HR10 forever.


And there are a few who will bash away at the HR2x and its successors forever, although in a number of ways it is already far superior to the HR10 (in other ways, maybe not so much).

I guess in some warped way that is a testament to the strength of the Tivo platform and its success in getting it's owners to become emotionally and even irrationally tied to it, almost like folks get emotionally attached to their cars (or iPhones).

As much as DTV liked the HR10 when it became their workhorse, I'll bet they never dreamed that the success of the DTivo would end up biting them in the ass over such fervent loyalty, or that Tivo could ever set the bar this high. And as good as the HR2x is or may become, I doubt it will ever have the kind of Obama-like cult status the HR10 enjoys. You have to tip your hat to Tivo for that.

That's not to say that the HR2x is not a great DVR. In the world of DVRs, it is comparably one of the best, primarlly because the landscape is littered with failed, disfunctional, and just plain bad DVR platforms.

But sadly, it's time to turn the page on the HR10. It was a great ride, but the ride is over.


----------



## kmill14 (Dec 11, 2006)

And then there are others who realize DTV's content is no better than the cable companies (for a higher price tag) and it makes more $ense to leave them and their mediocre HR series for the REAL TiVo.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Eh - here, at least, DirecTV leaves cable in the dust for content and pricing.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> Tweak away, I'm certainly in no position to cry about that....:


Heck, you're just no fun anymore. I was a late bloomer -- I passed on the Commodore, and although I'd love a MacAir, my wife thinks it costs too much. I did use one Mac at work, but have never owned one. The first PC I really seriously considered was the original IBM PC. Cost $5000 with two floppy drives and 64K of ram, "color" monitor, and a printer. I passed and eventually bought a Gateway 386sx for about the same price in 1987.


----------



## sjberra (May 16, 2005)

kmill14 said:


> And then there are others who realize DTV's content is no better than the cable companies (for a higher price tag) and it makes more $ense to leave them and their mediocre HR series for the REAL TiVo.


/rofl - what pie in the sky cable company are you subscribing to? Directv here is 30 percent cheaper for 80 percent more content. Sorry but content is a lot more critical then some device for recording shows. The HR2X's I am runing now are a lot more reliable then the HR10's that I got rid of and the one that is still in my system. the only TIVO based directv reciever that I have that has been somewhat trouble free is the Panasonic that is in the kids room, and that is SD only, but it is starting to caused headache's. Have a distinct feeling the protection plan will be replacing that unit shortly for me also


----------



## madbeachcat (Jan 31, 2002)

kmill14 said:


> And then there are others who realize DTV's content is no better than the cable companies (for a higher price tag) and it makes more $ense to leave them and their mediocre HR series for the REAL TiVo.


Maybe where you are... but I haven't had any cable that's been better or even close to DirecTv's offerings And I have had experience with a few.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

kmill14 said:


> And then there are others who realize DTV's content is no better than the cable companies (for a higher price tag) and it makes more $ense to leave them and their mediocre HR series for the REAL TiVo.


I would have to consider that a valid POV, but the content question really comes down to personal choice. IOW, if cable or FIOS or whoever has the content you want, then they are just as good as DTV. But with 130 HD channels and as Steve says "[DTV] leaves cable in the dust", yours is not a widely-held opinion while his probably is, even though both are valid. For the average consumer, odds are DTV is going to have a better choice of what they want, simply because there is more to choose from.

Of course if cable DOES have what you want, that reopens Tivo as an option, which is a good thing, except that the HR2x is really not mediocre by comparison anymore, which is quickly becoming another widely-held opinion.

My strategy for moving to the HR2x was "when there is HD content I can't get with the HR10, I might give it a try". That was blown out of the water early by the fact that one of my HR10's blew up, but I probably still would have made the choice by mid-spring (rather than in December) as that is when the content question was answered for me.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

How many awards has the D* dvr's won? I see Tivo just got another one from PC World. 

All D* has going for it at the moment is the supposed number of HD channels. That means they have many niche channels that a few people may watch, but can probably do without.

My guess is however that many folks who are using cable are like me. I have plenty of HD video - usually 20 - 25 shows sitting in my HD folder at any point in time, so the argument of 'content' is rapidly disappearing for a whole lot of viewers.

The quality of the SD channels on my cable system is so good compared to D* that many times we don't even notice the difference. I find we don't even need to change our TV to the SD setup like we used to do when we were with D*.

As for pricing, I'm paying less (including Tivo) total charges then I did before I switched from D* and all without a commitment. I could even save more by signing up for a year and also by adding more services. Imagine that, actually getting something of value for signing on for a longer term - what a novel idea.

So, I ended up staying with the award-winning Tivo, getting tons of HD, vastly improved SD, plus other stuff from the internet, all for a lesser price without any comittment.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

RS4 said:


> How many awards has the D* dvr's won? I see Tivo just got another one from PC World.
> 
> All D* has going for it at the moment is the supposed number of HD channels. That means they have many niche channels that a few people may watch, but can probably do without.
> 
> My guess is however that many folks who are using cable are like me. I have plenty of HD video...


Your incorrect guess is just that, a guess, and is not supported by any of the facts, just by your unwaveringly-consistent pattern of delusional wishful thinking. If you actually want the facts (oh, that's right, you're scared to death of the facts), go to www.whereishd.com and it is plainly evident that DTV still leads by a mile in core HD channels offered, well outpacing cable, FiOS and DISH. They probably do also have more niche channels, but they are still the clear way-out-front leaders in core HD channels as well.

The fact that DISH just had a major HD sat blow up and that changing cable plant infrastructure takes a lot of time indicates that this is not at all "quickly" changing. DTV will probably be significantly in the lead for some time. Denial is not your friend, and not just a river in Egypt. You are just going to have to accept the way things really are.

You imply that Tivo has won awards before, which I have never seen any evidence of, although that would not surprise me, as it is the gold standard and has been for the entire history of DVRs. But Tivo winning some nebulous award from a questionable source does not invalidate the quality of the HD DVR whatsoever, not even comparitively speaking, which is ALSO what DTV has going for themselves.

And not everyone agrees that Tivo is the be-all and end-all. There are fervent Replay, UTV, and even DISHPro supporters that greatly prefer those earlier platforms over Tivo. CNet considers Tivo a second-tier DVR. You can look that fact up, also.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

TiVo won an Emmy. I've seen it.


----------



## sjberra (May 16, 2005)

RS4 said:


> How many awards has the D* dvr's won? I see Tivo just got another one from PC World.
> 
> All D* has going for it at the moment is the supposed number of HD channels. That means they have many niche channels that a few people may watch, but can probably do without.
> 
> ...


Awards from magazines and 50 cents will purchase you a cup of coffee in some parts of the world. they tend to hand them out to the highest bidder.

Granted you maybe paying less for the unit and cable charges but the quality of content and availablity of content for your providers lags greatly why bother having HD when you have little or nothing to record?

Only reason you would be saving if you sign up for more services is a little thing called bundling - they discount you for paying them more money for more services, not because you have a tivo.

Again you venture a opinion - you feel you are getting something of value - now can you quatify that value - is it the value in the belovedTivo or in the content? Almost hase to be the Tivo as the precieved value, have seen their HD channel lineup and personally I find it lacking alot of the basic HD channels that myself and my family watch, but this is a personal opinion and not meant to relfect anyone else thoughts.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

RS4 said:


> The quality of the SD channels on my cable system is so good compared to D* that many times we don't even notice the difference.


Oh, now you are spinning to yourself now, too? There is NO SD anywhere that is as good as HD. Period.


RS4 said:


> I find we don't even need to change our TV to the SD setup like we used to do when we were with D*.


What the hell does that mean? I don't change any setups for SD or HD channels for any source. What kind of crap TV do you have?


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

stevel said:


> TiVo won an Emmy. I've seen it.


Hell, _I've _won Emmys (well, regional Emmys). I'm looking at one on my mantle right now (which proves the nebulousness of awards).


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Oh, now you are spinning to yourself now, too? There is NO SD anywhere that is as good as HD. Period...


Well, Tony, I have to take issue technically with that one, but your point that the assertion that he "can't tell the difference" is both outrageous and ludicrous is still well taken. There is bad HD that doesn't really rate up there with excellent SD, but it's extremely rare and certainly not the norm for any cable system or DBS system anywhere in the free world.

Two examples: If the video of the 2004 Olympics were simply converted to SD _before _being compressed into the pixellated mess NBC brought us (barring the losses that SD normally faces getting from point A to point B) I would have much rather seen the pristine SD copy. Better luck next week, NBC, but your lack of improvements in HD sports coverage since 2004 doesn't present much hope that the 2008 games will fare any better.

Regardless of the value of the content itself, a really good DVD copy of "Charlies Angels" (first movie that comes to mind that had really-great SD production values--thanks McG) also looks much better than any HD episode ever broadcast of "The West Wing".

I think you have to consider _who _is claiming that they can't tell the difference.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

BTW, one huge advantage of the TiVo is Kidzone.

Apparently DirecTV's parental controls are horrible. From DBStalk...



Ken S said:


> You can set parental controls to do the following:
> 
> 1. Block the Adult PPV channels - This removes these channels from the guide and I believe from searches as well. There is a bug, however if you have this active all TV-M show titles on any channel are blocked no matter what your rating limit is set to. This function only blocks a few specific Adult PPV channels. It won't block someone from buying an R rated PPV movie from the regular PPV channels. This function is password protected.
> 
> ...





DonHac said:


> You can apply age appropriate ratings limits which prevent viewers from seeing guide data (name is replaced with "Blocked Title"), but the HR-21 often doesn't actually block access to the show itself, just the guide data. Your kids can watch smut, but at least they won't know what it's called.
> 
> You cannot explicitly mark specific shows or season passes as kid-acceptable. Everything is driven by the ratings.
> 
> You can flip a setting and block "adult" channels, which makes the porno channels in the 590s disappear completely. All other adult (TV-MA) shows will still appear in the now playing list and in search results, even if you have the channel marked as one you don't receive.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> BTW, one huge advantage of the TiVo is Kidzone...


How is that of any advantage at all if I have no kids? It means they wasted a lot of energy on features I don't need instead of features and stability I do need. That sounds like a disadvantage.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> How is that of any advantage at all if I have no kids?.


It isn't.

Did the op post that he had no kids?


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> It isn't.
> 
> Did the op post that he had no kids?


No, he didn't. He also didn't post :

"BTW, one huge advantage of the TiVo is Kidzone.".

Could it be that this is what Tyrone responded to. (I mean, just because he quoted it in his response, why would we think that?)


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

tucsonbill said:


> No, he didn't. He also didn't post :
> 
> "BTW, one huge advantage of the TiVo is Kidzone.".
> 
> Could it be that this is what Tyrone responded to. (I mean, just because he quoted it in his response, why would we think that?)


Is it not obvious that *KID*zone would only be an advantage if you have *KIDS*?

We're comparing features of two DVR's. I really didn't think people would think Kidzone is a huge advantage for adults with no kids....


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Is it not obvious that *KID*zone would only be an advantage if you have *KIDS*?
> 
> We're comparing features of two DVR's. I really didn't think people would think Kidzone is a huge advantage for adults with no kids....


Adam, I would completely agree with you that for them, it is. But your post did not say or qualify that it was for them, it said it was a "huge advantage", which implies that it must be so for everybody. It's not.

I'm not saying that every post must qualify every instance or disclaim when not applicable, but once a post is made it is not just for the OP, it becomes "community" property (hehe...get the pun?) for all of us, and I guess my post was really just a passive-aggressive way of pointing out how arrogant it might be to assume that Kidzone was a "huge advantage" to everyone when really, to me, it's a huge waste of resources that might have been targeted into better features or even stability. One could also arrogantly say that one "huge advantage" of the HD DVR was that they didn't put a lot of resources towards parental controls and instead put that energy towards something useful (for me, of course).

You made a good point, I made a point. Maybe they aren't quite congruent with each other. I'm sorry if mine was not the height of politeness. That's just kind of the way this forum and most others work, and what the word "forum" implies. But really, it's all good.

You have your POV, I have mine. Both are valid. But I apologize for messing with you when all you were trying to do was help the rest of us. Your heart was in the right place, while mine probably wasn't. My bad. I'm a work in progress.

Peace,

Ty


----------



## technojunkie (Mar 15, 2000)

I was forced into making the transition to the HR20-700 and everytime I use it I miss my TiVo. They forced me to make the change when they turned on the Mpeg4 and I wanted more HD. TIme Warner has a really poor package here and Dish, well are the still in business?

So what do I miss? Favorites!!!! Despite all of D's hype this dumb machine has no idea what I like and does find programs for me. Dual buffers you bet. Don't give me the nonsense about putting both tuners into record first. I just want to make a quick change and then get back to where I was. And the annoyance of having my machine freeze up while watching an OTA recording is not much fun.

Is the HR20 junk? Not quite, I like being able to check schedules and what I have in my List and still being able to watch the show I started. But as for the schedule list, it is not as nice as TiVo's and the remote is not nearly as responive to say nothing about the lousy layout of the buttons. Yeah I could get a universal one for $100 plus but why should I have to?

Oh yeah and did I mention that despite promises by the D agent that I would see no additional committment I am now locked in for another 18 mos. 

But one thing I do feel is abandoned by TiVo since they refuse to make a Series 3 that can handle an HDMI source let alone an external SD input. 
If the had one I could get a D HD receiver and record their programming in HD. Maybe I's only have one channel recorded at a time but I'd prefer the interface and remote!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

technojunkie said:


> But one thing I do feel is abandoned by TiVo since they refuse to make a Series 3 that can handle an HDMI source let alone an external SD input.
> If the had one I could get a D HD receiver and record their programming in HD. Maybe I's only have one channel recorded at a time but I'd prefer the interface and remote!


I like Tivo. I have one for cable but I don't like it more than my HR2x's (in fact even though I would like dual buffers, I actually like the HR2x's better than Tivo...the HD Tivo is a bit balky in normal operation).

I say all that to let you know that I am not a Tivo basher nor a Tivo lover when I say that it is difficult to blame Tivo for not making a DVR that would process HDMI. For one thing, it is a huge technical challenge. For another, I seriously doubt they would get it past the folks who have to approve such devices. If they insisted on putting HDMI input onto the Tivo, you would probably have no HD Tivo at all.

Oh, and if they did develop one, you would need TWO tuners to create dual buffers. So you wouldn't really get that anyway.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 12, 2000)

stevel said:


> Eh - here, at least, DirecTV leaves cable in the dust for content and pricing.


Maybe for some people... Granted it has way more sports and HD feeds than my local cable, but both have all the channels I use and cable is dramatically cheaper. I would save $72/month if (or when) I converted to cable with the comparable (again less HD and I don't subscribe to the premium sports) programming, and that price is inclusive of getting their (admittedly lame) DVR's. If I got a a pair of Series 3's instead it would eat into that margin but not most of it.

Not looking to get into a new agrument over which is better but just clarifying that price is a definite disadvantage for DirecTV in some markets.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 12, 2000)

TyroneShoes said:


> But with 130 HD channels and as Steve says "[DTV] leaves cable in the dust", yours is not a widely-held opinion while his probably is, even though both are valid.


Not sure I agree. Since there are more cable subscribers than DirecTV subscribers, more people have decided the combo of price and offerings from their cable company is a better choice. So the opinion is "widely-held," just not on a sat TV forum perhaps. A vast majority of people (even among those who can get them) don't watch most of these HD channels. Most people aren't valuing them as a significant criteria in their decision. Ultimately it's quality that matters over quanty. Most people don't regularly watch 10 channels, let alone 200+. There is no doubt a subset of people who love the IDEA of tons of channels to surf, but that isn't even close to the majority.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Citivas said:


> Not sure I agree. Since there are more cable subscribers than DirecTV subscribers, more people have decided the combo of price and offerings from their cable company is a better choice. So the opinion is "widely-held," just not on a sat TV forum perhaps. A vast majority of people (even among those who can get them) don't watch most of these HD channels. Most people aren't valuing them as a significant criteria in their decision. Ultimately it's quality that matters over quanty. Most people don't regularly watch 10 channels, let alone 200+. There is no doubt a subset of people who love the IDEA of tons of channels to surf, but that isn't even close to the majority.


One must remember that cable less then 15 years ago had 100% of the pay TV market. That has gone down every year since sat has been introduced. DirecTV keeps growing, cable keeps losing, especially now with the telcos in the mix. People are starting out with cable as the default with sat or telco as an option. Been that way forever. 

As for your previous post on cable cost, cable costs *more* then sat in the vast majority of cases. Very rare is it cheaper and when it is it's usually due to a triple play package. You are the one that is lucky to have a great cable option. But you are in vast minority. Around here all 3 cable companies (TW, Charter, Comcast) are more expensive then DirecTV by far.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> One must remember that cable less then 15 years ago had 100% of the pay TV market. That has gone down every year since sat has been introduced. DirecTV keeps growing, cable keeps losing, especially now with the telcos in the mix. People are starting out with cable as the default with sat or telco as an option. Been that way forever.
> 
> As for your previous post on cable cost, cable costs *more* then sat in the vast majority of cases. Very rare is it cheaper and when it is it's usually due to a triple play package. You are the one that is lucky to have a great cable option. But you are in vast minority. Around here all 3 cable companies (TW, Charter, Comcast) are more expensive then DirecTV by far.


With regarding growth, we have seen Dish actually go negative in the last quarter and D*'s growth was about 40% of what they had in the first quarter, while FIOS has taken the lead in new additions, so both are having troubles.

With regard to cable pricing, I believe cable companies are far more competitive then they used to be, so that will continue to put pressure on D*. I ended up getting a 20% boost in my broadband speed, and pay less (including Tivo) then what my previous D* and cable bills were before I switched to Comcast. All without any commitment.

I think the real competitors for these video suppliers is the internet. As broadband speeds increase, and more internet to TV offerings are made, I think a lot of people will bypass their current pay tv supplier and switch to OTA and internet only. I look forward to the next few years because I think a revolution is coming soon that will drastically change the way a lot of us get our TV entertainment.


----------



## jnelaine (Dec 31, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> As a fellow broadcast engineer (and therefore assuming you have a discerning eye) can you tell much difference between the same local channels OTA as compared to MPEG-4? I really can't, and so have pretty-much abandoned OTA for the economy (HDD space-wise) of MPEG-4.


Interesting - I never thought about the fact that OTA recording may take up more space than MPEG-4 recordings, but that makes perfect sense. Does anyone know how much bigger the OTA recordings are?

Also, it sounds like many people keep their old HR10-250 when they "upgrade" to the HR2x. I have to move to HR2x soon, but I need to get a SWM. I assume that this means that I won't be able to use my HR10 anymore. Thoughts?

Thanks


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

RS4 said:


> With regarding growth, we have seen Dish actually go negative in the last quarter and D*'s growth was about 40% of what they had in the first quarter, while FIOS has taken the lead in new additions, so both are having troubles.
> 
> With regard to cable pricing, I believe cable companies are far more competitive then they used to be, so that will continue to put pressure on D*. I ended up getting a 20% boost in my broadband speed, and pay less (including Tivo) then what my previous D* and cable bills were before I switched to Comcast. All without any commitment.
> 
> I think the real competitors for these video suppliers is the internet. As broadband speeds increase, and more internet to TV offerings are made, I think a lot of people will bypass their current pay tv supplier and switch to OTA and internet only. I look forward to the next few years because I think a revolution is coming soon that will drastically change the way a lot of us get our TV entertainment.


I actually agree with everything you just said.  :up:


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Citivas said:


> Not sure I agree. Since there are more cable subscribers than DirecTV subscribers, more people have decided the combo of price and offerings from their cable company is a better choice. So the opinion is "widely-held," just not on a sat TV forum perhaps. A vast majority of people (even among those who can get them) don't watch most of these HD channels. Most people aren't valuing them as a significant criteria in their decision. Ultimately it's quality that matters over quanty. Most people don't regularly watch 10 channels, let alone 200+. There is no doubt a subset of people who love the IDEA of tons of channels to surf, but that isn't even close to the majority.


A couple things I see wrong with your reasoning.

First, most people who opt for cable do it because it is the easy choice, not because it is the better choice. Easy in the sense that the local infrastructure is in place up to and including most new housing already connected thanks to compliance of local governments and years of cable being the only choice in town.

Second, not everyone can have satellite. There are millions of people who do not have southern sky exposure.

Third, no one *needs* 200 channels but good luck finding 10 channels that 10 people can agree on.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

jnelaine said:


> Interesting - I never thought about the fact that OTA recording may take up more space than MPEG-4 recordings, but that makes perfect sense. Does anyone know how much bigger the OTA recordings are?...


The math is pretty easy to do. If the MPEG-4 channels are 30% more efficient as DTV says, then that implies that they are 30% smaller than their OTA equivalents, and that you should be able to get 30% more recording into an equivalent HDD.

Of course that is a comparison of a MPEG-2 DTV channel to a MPEG-4 DTV channel, but one could assume that DTV uses the same formula for OTA channels that they backhaul.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Citivas said:


> ...Since there are more cable subscribers than DirecTV subscribers, more people have decided the combo of price and offerings from their cable company is a better choice. So the opinion is "widely-held," just not on a sat TV forum perhaps...Ultimately it's quality that matters over quanty. Most people don't regularly watch 10 channels, let alone 200+...


That's a false analogy and an Olympic-quality leap to a false conclusion. There are a number of reasons why there are more total cable subscribers, including the facts that cable has been around for 30 years, that multi-room is problematic for DBS, and that not everybody has LOS, so there is no conclusion to be drawn from any of that regarding how widely-held the opinion might be.

I can give you a couple of other false analogies. DTV has more subscribers than any single cable company has in all of its cities combined. SiriusXM has more subscribers than DTV, also. Neither one of those facts actually imply anything about how widely-held the opinion might be, either. They are just meaningless factoids, like your observation that cable has more total subs than DTV.

How about this one: all heroin addicts drank milk as infants. True, but does that mean milk is a gateway drug? Probably not.

And I disagree that quality matters over quantity. If that were so, we'd have half the channels and twice the quality, and bit starving would be a concept rather than an everyday reality on DBS. Same at satellite radio, which has tons of channels but sounds like hammered dog $#!+.

Whether we have the time to watch more than 10 channels is a misdirect, another false analogy, and sounds like sour grapes thinking from cable (and now DISH). Content is king, not quality OR quantity. And if a vendor has more HD channels, that implies both more quality AND quantity.

But if the vendor doesn't have that one channel I want in HD and the other does, which do you think I might sign with? Having more channels than the next guy implies that there are better odds of that service having what you want. Since folks can't be bothered to take the time to actually figure out who has what and whether they actually have what's most important to them, that gives the guy with the most HD channels a significant advantage, not to mention bragging rights. They earned it.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 12, 2000)

I agree everyone has a different 10 channels. But most people can see if the channels they have are on the service providers they have available to them -- they don't have to get the service with the most channels "just in case." I think most people, all things being equal, would still opt for more channels. In the same sense that Dish is busy promoting 1080p when a majority of people can't play it. It's a value-add. But that becomes only one factor in many in their selection decision. The ratings on these channels show that there are a handful that are watched by vastly more people than most of the others.

I totally agree there are many reasons people end up with cable including some having no choice and many finding it "easier" or staying by "default." But keeping it because it is easy is still a choice. There are many people who will tell you that cable is "good enough" and has everything they need and they are devaluing the advantages of satellite for them. In any event, there is no proof or basis behind the original claim of a vast majority's opinion above so it really doesn't matter because both were assertions of opinion.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> The math is pretty easy to do. If the MPEG-4 channels are 30% more efficient as DTV says, then that implies that they are 30% smaller than their OTA equivalents, and that you should be able to get 30% more recording into an equivalent HDD.


Funny thing about the math --- the actual ratio would be 100/70 which yields 1.43 or, if you wish 30/70 which would give you 0.43. Basically a 43% increase, not 30. That of course assumes that 30% more efficient means what you think it does -- and since it's a marketing blurb, who the hell knows that it really means. The math mistake you made is a really common one. The ratios are one way -- consider this which I read yesterday -- if you lose 50% on an investment, it takes a 100% gain to get back to where you started! There are lots of poor investors who didn't understand this simple fact.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

tucsonbill said:


> Funny thing about the math --- the actual ratio would be 100/70 which yields 1.43 or, if you wish 30/70 which would give you 0.43. Basically a 43% increase, not 30. That of course assumes that 30% more efficient means what you think it does -- and since it's a marketing blurb, who the hell knows that it really means. The math mistake you made is a really common one. The ratios are one way -- consider this which I read yesterday -- if you lose 50% on an investment, it takes a 100% gain to get back to where you started! There are lots of poor investors who didn't understand this simple fact.


Sorry, but you're not exactly dealing with a chimp here. I understand all too well that a 30% increase is much different in size than a 30% decrease, that is IF you are referencing the same original number (which in this case might be a fact that is not actually in evidence). I think I learned that in between spitball fights in the 4th grade, so I could be a candidate for "Are You Smarter Than a Cheese Grater".

It was not that I made a mistake, it is that the claim from DTV is nebulous, in that they don't really specify if MPEG-4 is 30% more efficient (in their application of it) than MPEG-2, or if MPEG-2 is 30% less efficient than MPEG-4, which as you painfully point out, are two different things mathematically speaking, and as I point out, is only if referencing the same number, which is still in question. I was just using their numbers, which probably aren't all that precise in the first place.

So for those of us who could only get into community college, let me speak v e r y s l o w l y: How you interpret "30%" depends upon whether you are speaking about 30% compared to the starting number or compared to the resultant number (which is something I assumed was understood so universally that I never expected to have to actually point that out).

The bottom line is that *DTV didn't specify,* so how could I? They also gave conflicting information. Not only do they claim "30% more efficient", they claim that a drive that you can get 30 hrs of M2 on will hold 50 hrs of M4. That's not 30%. That's not even 43%, which was your number. It's either 40%, 60%, 33%, or 67%, depending on which number you start from and which you end with. It all depends on the point of reference, which is not really known. DTV doesn't really specify, and neither did I, because for me to specify would imply that I know what they mean by "30% more efficient", and I don't, and neither does anyone else. I was only trying to report what THEY said, not parse it for precise meaning.

That means that since I couldn't and therefore didn't precisely specify that M4 vs. M2 means "30% more than you could before with M2" and that M4 vs. M2 means "30% less than you can now with M4", that I'm really not going to allow anyone to paint me into that corner. Not quite enough evidence to convict. Nice try, tho.

But thanks for splitting that hair for us, that's a sidebar contribution none of us could have lived without.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> Sorry, but you're not exactly dealing with a chimp here.


 I neither said nor intended that. I'm sorry that you would think that.


> ...the claim from DTV is nebulous,


 Hence my dislclaimer: :"That of course assumes that 30% more efficient means what you think it does...". Here is what I responded to:


> If the MPEG-4 channels are 30% more efficient as DTV says, then that implies that they are 30% smaller than their OTA equivalents, and that you should be able to get 30% more recording into an equivalent HDD."


I responded purely to what you wrote. You stated your interpretation pretty clearly. The key words are "smaller" and "more". You very clearly indicated an equivalence between 30% "smaller" and 30% "more". This ain't about you. It's about the math. It was not intended as a personal attack.

As someone who did attend community college, I tried to find some way to respond to the community college crack. I couldn't., You're better than that.


----------

