# HR-20 vs HR-10 Question



## petrojb (Sep 14, 2006)

A few weeks ago, I bought the HR-10 250 and have been using it with my Sony 46" LCD Projection. No complaints.

But the thirty days are almost up on the Best Buy receipt for the HR-10, so I run out and find a HR-20. I bought the HR-10 for the exact same price as a HR-20, so it seems like a no-brianer to make the switch, and I did.

The problem is, I just don't like the interface with the HR-20 nearly as much. I don't like the fact that it isn't Tivo, mainly. I get locals in HD through the satellite with the HR-10 (the DirecTV person said that was rare) so there's no reason to switch. 

I'm now leaning towards returning the HR-20 and just staying with what I have. My question is -- is that just idiotic? Won't the HR-10 be obsolete soon forcing me to upgrade to the HR-20 anyway?

Thanks for the help, guys...


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

In my case, the HR10 will be operational for quite some time. My area won't be getting local HD via DirecTV for awhile. It can record my local HD from antenna very well. 

What's your location?


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

petrojb said:


> I get locals in HD through the satellite with the HR-10 (the DirecTV person said that was rare) so there's no reason to switch.


I am assuming you are either getting LA or NY as those are the only HD 'locals' in MPEG2. Those will be going away. No one knows for sure when though. It may be 3 months or 3 years depending on how/when DirecTv decides to yank them. The only sure thing is that they will be going away.


----------



## petrojb (Sep 14, 2006)

Yea... I'm in Los Angeles.

I know this is a Tivo forum... but it sounds like given all that consideration -- mainly that I could be losing the locals with the HR-10 whenever D* decides to switch it out -- I should stick with the HR-20.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

If you are in LA you can most likely get all your locals over the air instead of from the satellite. This will be higher quality than the HD-Lite from DirecTV. Check antennaweb.org and look at how far you are away from the digital stations.


----------



## petrojb (Sep 14, 2006)

Interesting... does that mean that I'd need to get an antenna?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

They will be adding new HD channels in the future that only the HR20 will pick up. Long term only the HR20 will be getting new features, upgrades, etc.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

rminsk said:


> This will be higher quality than the HD-Lite from DirecTV.


HD noob here. What do you mean by this? I want to get the HR-20 as Cincinnati will be getting locals from the satellite this month and I don't want to have to deal with an antenna.


----------



## f300v10 (Dec 6, 2004)

mtnagel said:


> HD noob here. What do you mean by this? I want to get the HR-20 as Cincinnati will be getting locals from the satellite this month and I don't want to have to deal with an antenna.


HD-Lite is a phrase some one came up with to describe the quality of D* HD. On national 1080i channels D* is down ressing the signal from 1920x1080i to 1280x1080i to save bandwidth.

From what I can see that is not the case on the MPEG4 HD locals. I have compared the PQ many times between the OTA signal and the MPEG4 signal from my H20 on a 62" 1080P DLP. I can't see any difference 97% of the time. On the remaining 3% I sometimes see some color banding on the MPEG4 channels that is not present in the OTA signal. The MPEG4 is so close to the OTA, that most of the time I have to put the info screen up to remember which channel I am watching.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Two things I have been told about the MPEG-4 signal.

1) They don't alter the resolution of the signal they receive from the affiliate. They simply re-encode it into the MPEG-4 codec

2) They are currently updating all their receiving for the digital broadcasts (from the affiliates), and they are updating hardware/software for all their encoding equipment... that will result in even better MPEG-4 results.


----------



## tmdlkwd (Apr 16, 2004)

I live in So Cal

I just received the HR10..very happy

Main thing for me was the dual buffers..ala NFL Ticket!

So, after the season is over, I do not care too much
I get locals as well via OTA on my V plasma

Yes, I did pay for the HR10, still no worries
HD is awesome..FALL season....watch OTA record 2 HD via the HR10..Happy camper...


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> ...They don't alter the resolution of the signal they receive from the affiliate. They simply re-encode it into the MPEG-4 codec...


While that may not change the resolution, it is impossible to chain encoding algorithms without concatenation error. IOW, when they convert MPEG2 to MPEG4, all artifacts in the M2 decode roll over into the M4 encode, and all M4 artifacts are then added on top of that.

Bottom line, at that stage of the process, the M4-encoded signal is reduced in quality from the M2 signal, although possibly not enough to actually notice.

What happens next might impact what we receive more than simply whether they re-encode to M4 or not. Since M4 takes less bandwidth, DTV has an opportunity with M4-encoded streams that was not practical with M2 streams, in that they could either add more streams with the same _secondary_ compression, or lower the severity of the _secondary_ compression, or maybe a little of both.

But every indicator points to them only adding more streams for the same level of compression. It is the _secondary_ compression that happens just before formatting to DVB for the sats that really affects PQ the most (that's the point where DTV feels the need to squeeze things), and apparently that won't change.

But, the initial added artifacts from the re-encode certainly can't be good news for any expected aggregate improvement over M2 delivery. IOW, if anything, expect nearly-equal to worse PQ with M4 rather than better PQ.

Back to resolution for a moment, in practice, 1920x1080 really has no more effective resolution than 1440x1080 just due to the way it is typically delivered, so in practice 1280x1080 is not really as big jump as imagined. Neither the original content nor the viewing environment rarely reaches that resolution, either.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

petrojb said:


> The problem is, I just don't like the interface with the HR-20 nearly as much. I don't like the fact that it isn't Tivo, mainly.


BINGO!!!

This is why most people on this forum have gone out and made sure they got an HR10-250 while they last.

Even if mine died right now, I'd rather have a replacement HR10-250 with Tivo than a clunky Directv ripoff software.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

petrojb said:


> ...The problem is, I just don't like the interface with the HR-20 nearly as much...


Congrats on posting the understatement of the year.


----------



## iaflyer (Oct 21, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> While that may not change the resolution, it is impossible to chain encoding algorithms without concatenation error. IOW, when they convert MPEG2 to MPEG4, all artifacts in the M2 decode roll over into the M4 encode, and all M4 artifacts are then added on top of that.


I'm confused - why is the affliate sending an MPEG2 stream to DirecTV? Isn't DirecTV currently getting an uncompressed feed, THEN compressing it to MPEG2 in their own facility, then sending it on it's way?


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

iaflyer said:


> I'm confused - why is the affliate sending an MPEG2 stream to DirecTV? Isn't DirecTV currently getting an uncompressed feed, THEN compressing it to MPEG2 in their own facility, then sending it on it's way?


Doubt DirecTV is getting an uncompressed feed from the affiliate. It's way expensive get it to them uncompressed due to the needed bandwidth. Affiliates very much supply it as MPEG2, or DirecTV receives it OTA at a local PoP, then compresses it and hauls it over data lines to their facilities. And then DirecTV converts it to a lower MPEG2 bit-rate, and/or MPEG4, then sending it on its way. At least that's the way it was explained to me.


----------



## boymom (Sep 27, 2006)

first of all, I'm not only a noob, I'm not very technical compared to most of you. I just had the HR 20 installed. I live in LA. Goes without saying that I hate the new interface. But my installer confused me. He said I could've gotten local HD channels via the satellite (not the OTA antennae) with the HR10 because that's what he has. Says Directv told me wrong when they said I would not be able to get them. In fact Directv didn't even mention the antenna idea. And when I called them, I could've still gotten the HR 10 because the HR 20 was still three weeks away from being available.

What's the truth? Does living in LA somehow mean I could've gotten local HD channels via the satellite and the dude on the phone just didn't know that? (wouldn't be the first time that happened). And if so, would I eventually be losing those as Directv switched whatever the heck it is they're switching in the future?

So what's the solution? Does Directv make a high def box that excludes the DVR, so i can plug my old stand-alone Tivo back into it? Should I just try to get used to this interface? 

Help! Advise, please. I know this is a Tivo forum, but since I love tivo I don't know where else to turn? Thanks in advance.

I just wanted to add that I've just noticed my new dish is a 3 lnb, not 5! ISN'T THAT WRONG? ARGH. Please help.


----------



## videojanitor (Dec 21, 2001)

HomieG said:


> Doubt DirecTV is getting an uncompressed feed from the affiliate.


That's absolutely true. DirecTV is getting the local HD stations off-the-air.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

stiffi said:


> BINGO!!!
> 
> This is why most people on this forum have gone out and made sure they got an HR10-250 while they last.
> 
> Even if mine died right now, I'd rather have a replacement HR10-250 with Tivo than a clunky Directv ripoff software.


My guess is you haven't actually used it. The HR20 interface is very slick, very fast and at this point (after having it for over a week) I much prefer it over the Tivo interface which I feel is clunky in comparison. The mini-MyVOD list alone is worth it (when watching TV simply hit the menu button to bring up the mini-menu, highlight and click MyVOD and all of your recorded shows are listed right there. Simply click on and it start playing immediately all without actually bringing up the full screen menu). Very slick.

However, interfaces and who likes them are very individual but I think too many people are just going off with "if it's not Tivo it sucks" with little to no experience otherwise or giving another interface an actual chance to grow on them. I remember how confusing the Tivo interface was to me 6 years ago. Took me a couple months to figure it all out. The HR20 interface took me about 30 minutes to figure it all out and I'm learning new things all the time.

Give it a chance. You won't have any choice soon enough anyway if you still want to get HD via sat with DirecTV.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

videojanitor said:


> That's absolutely true. DirecTV is getting the local HD stations off-the-air.


Not in every case... some of the affiliates are providing the feed via other methods.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> My guess is you haven't actually used it. The HR20 interface is very slick, very fast and at this point (after having it for over a week) I much prefer it over the Tivo interface which I feel is clunky in comparison. The mini-MyVOD list alone is worth it (when watching TV simply hit the menu button to bring up the mini-menu, highlight and click MyVOD and all of your recorded shows are listed right there. Simply click on and it start playing immediately all without actually bringing up the full screen menu). Very slick.
> 
> However, interfaces and who likes them are very individual but I think too many people are just going off with "if it's not Tivo it sucks" with little to no experience otherwise or giving another interface an actual chance to grow on them. I remember how confusing the Tivo interface was to me 6 years ago. Took me a couple months to figure it all out. The HR20 interface took me about 30 minutes to figure it all out and I'm learning new things all the time.
> 
> Give it a chance. You won't have any choice soon enough anyway if you still want to get HD via sat with DirecTV.


Have you not had any problems with yours? I'm trying to keep up with the issues on dbstalk and it seems like everyone is having some issue. I should be getting HD locals very soon in Cincy, so I will get a new tv and the HR20 at that point, but I'm afraid with all the issues people are having.


----------



## Sir_winealot (Nov 18, 2000)

bonscott87 said:


> I remember how confusing the Tivo interface was to me 6 years ago. Took me a couple months to figure it all out. The HR20 interface took me about 30 minutes to figure it all out and I'm learning new things all the time.


A couple of _months_ to figure out the TiVo interface? Really? On the contrary, I found the TiVo interface to be very intuitive ...as did everyone in our household. Heck, my kids had it wired in days.


----------



## boymom (Sep 27, 2006)

hello???? noob still confused here.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Sir_whinealot said:


> A couple of _months_ to figure out the TiVo interface? Really? On the contrary, I found the TiVo interface to be very intuitive ...as did everyone in our household. Heck, my kids had it wired in days.


So that would make the R15/HR20 Interface intuitive as well... as my household (including my 5yrd old) figured it out almost as quick.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

boymom said:


> first of all, I'm not only a noob, I'm not very technical compared to most of you. I just had the HR 20 installed. I live in LA. Goes without saying that I hate the new interface. But my installer confused me. He said I could've gotten local HD channels via the satellite (not the OTA antennae) with the HR10 because that's what he has. Says Directv told me wrong when they said I would not be able to get them. In fact Directv didn't even mention the antenna idea. And when I called them, I could've still gotten the HR 10 because the HR 20 was still three weeks away from being available.
> 
> What's the truth? Does living in LA somehow mean I could've gotten local HD channels via the satellite and the dude on the phone just didn't know that? (wouldn't be the first time that happened). And if so, would I eventually be losing those as Directv switched whatever the heck it is they're switching in the future?
> 
> ...


In LA, the Locals are available via SAT... Your installer should have installed an updated SAT dish as well, known as the AT9. That Dish is able to see the two newer sats that carry your local programming.

Yes, the HR10 (IN LA and NY) can get their locals... they are available in the 80's range of channels... However, those particular feeds will be turned off in 2007 and converted to MPEG-4 which the HR10 can not work with.

When did you call DirecTV? The HR20 has been available now for about 6 weeks.

Eventually all SAT based HD broadcasts will be in MPEG-4, and the HR10 is not able to see any of those.

DirecTV sells the H20 has the same interface as the HR20 (except for the recording options). But your StandAlone TiVo will not record the HD version of the program... Only the SD.


----------



## Sir_winealot (Nov 18, 2000)

ebonovic said:


> So that would make the R15/HR20 Interface intuitive as well... as my household (including my 5yrd old) figured it out almost as quick.


...And?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Sir_whinealot said:


> ...And?


And nothing... I was comparing your family learning the TiVo Interface quickly, to my family learning the DirecTV Inteface quickly....


----------



## Sir_winealot (Nov 18, 2000)

I wasn't talking about the HR20 ...I was talking about the TiVo interface. But if you wanna go down that road, it sounds like your 5 year old must be a lot more intelligent than many of the folks in these forums who've had problems with the HR20 interface. 

But whatever you say....


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Sir_whinealot said:


> I wasn't talking about the HR20 ...I was talking about the TiVo interface. But if you wanna go down that road, it sounds like your 5 year old must be a lot more intelligent than many of the folks in these forums who've had problems with the HR20 interface.
> 
> But whatever you say....


I know you where talking about the TiVo interface.... 
I was just saying that people can learn the TiVo Interface quickly, other's can't.
And people can learn the DirecTV inteface quickly, other's can't.

As for my son... He scares me sometimes how easily he "picks" things up so fast. He is already showing signs of the "if it is plugged in... gotta have it" addiction that I have...


----------



## mikeny (Dec 22, 2004)

Sir_whinealot said:


> I wasn't talking about the HR20 ...I was talking about the TiVo interface. But if you wanna go down that road, it sounds like your 5 year old must be a lot more intelligent than many of the folks in these forums who've had problems with the HR20 interface.
> 
> But whatever you say....


My 5 year-old doesn't have a problem getting into the VOD List and playing his recordings off the R-15 which has virtually the same GUI as the HR-20. He needs to get used to some of the other navigations though as he complained the other day. I think he'll be fine with it. I'm trying to get him away from the HR10-250/Harmony 880 setup.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

mtnagel said:


> Have you not had any problems with yours? I'm trying to keep up with the issues on dbstalk and it seems like everyone is having some issue. I should be getting HD locals very soon in Cincy, so I will get a new tv and the HR20 at that point, but I'm afraid with all the issues people are having.


No, no problems at all. Same for many, many people. Remember that people that post tend to have problems. Not that they love it. There are some threads over there with many people posting that they have had no or little trouble. Doesn't mean I won't have trouble just like any other piece of technology.

I seem to remember tons of posts on this very forum when the HR10-250 was first released about how many problems there were. How could they release such a buggy box? DOA HDMI! Constant reboots! DirecTV is going under by releasing this piece of poo! Sound familiar? But I digress....

Heck, take a look at this forum today. Most of the posts on the first page alone are about problems. One look at this forum and I might think the HR10-250 is a piece of junk with all these problems 2 years after it was released.

It has recorded everything I've asked it to. Not a single reboot. No hangup or lockups. Just doing it's job, recording. And the Sunday Ticket interactive stuff is just over the top icing on the cake.


----------



## videojanitor (Dec 21, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Not in every case... some of the affiliates are providing the feed via other methods.


OK, how about most cases? 

Do you know of any exceptions, and why it's being done that way? Obviously, it is quite a bit more costly to provide a dedicated fiber feed. Anytime one of my local HD stations goes off the air due to transmitter problem, it disappears from DirecTV as well. According to a DirecTV engineer (not a CSR, but an actual tech in the operations center), the HD signals from my market (Sacramento) are muxed and then sent down to San Francisco, where they are muxed with those HD channels, and then they're all sent as a group down to the L.A. operations center.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

IIRC... I think DC and Chicago don't use OTA... but I am ont 100%.
I just know not all of them use OTA....


----------

