# Mpeg2 Vs Mpeg4



## dscott72 (Mar 30, 2006)

Is the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 a hardware or software difference as far as the receiver equipment is concerned.


----------



## cybrsurfer (Oct 13, 2006)

dscott72 said:


> Is the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 a hardware or software difference as far as the receiver equipment is concerned.


It's hardware related. If it were software the HR10-250 could be updated via satellite to receive MPEG4. But as you know DirecTV cannot do this because it's a hardware embedded issue. Mainly the problem is the HR10-250 cannot see Ka band which the new MPEG4 is transmitted via satellite.


----------



## JTAnderson (Jun 6, 2000)

dscott72 said:


> Is the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 a hardware or software difference as far as the receiver equipment is concerned.


Yes.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Let me put it this way... decoding MPEG, whether 2 or 4, is essentially a software process; but it can be done in hardware, and that's how the HR10-250 (like most set-top boxes and DVD players) does it, with MPEG-2. The HR10-250 lacks the processor power to do real-time MPEG-4 decoding in software, and the hardware decoder is not upgradable.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nicely put.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> Nicely put.


I agree; very useful.

There's a page of footnotes that could be added (the "hardware" we're talking about is essentially "software" locked down and put on steroids), but the post cuts to it.

Like the holy grail of a universal field theory, someday there may be CPUs and RAM equivalents so small and fast that this kind of software/hardware distinction becomes a quaint historical concept.


----------



## DVRaholic (Mar 28, 2004)

test345 said:


> Nicely put.


Nicely put.


----------



## dscott72 (Mar 30, 2006)

Thanks for the info. I guess once D* switches to full MPEG 4 I will have to look at other sources for viewing HD programming. D* should have realized this when they first licensed the HR10-250 for production and made it forward thinking. I know I am certainly not going to use the HR20-700. Might just wait til the prices go down on stand alone series 3 Tivo's and just switch to a standard HR20 box at that point.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

dscott72 said:


> Thanks for the info. I guess once D* switches to full MPEG 4 I will have to look at other sources for viewing HD programming. D* should have realized this when they first licensed the HR10-250 for production and made it forward thinking. I know I am certainly not going to use the HR20-700. Might just wait til the prices go down on stand alone series 3 Tivo's and just switch to a standard HR20 box at that point.


For shadowed 4 years ago (when the HR10-250 was in design), that they would be going to MPEG-4 ?

Well.. .why didn't TiVo forshadowed Digital Cable or OTA HD, when they started with their Series 1 units, or even their Series 2 units... instead of making those intrested in those technologies buy a Series 3 ?

I don't even think the current chipsets that T3 and HR20 is using for MPEG-4 decoding where even available 4 years ago (or even 2.5 years ago when production started on the HR10).... if they where, they certainly probably would not have been cheap...

You can say the same statement about ALL of the DirecTV receivers, as they ALL have to be replaced... and for the most part, DirecTV is replacing them for free (H20)..

You can only "forward" think so much, especially when there are hardware pieces involved.


----------



## Cobra Dreaming (Feb 25, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> For shadowed 4 years ago (when the HR10-250 was in design), that they would be going to MPEG-4 ?
> 
> Well.. .why didn't TiVo forshadowed Digital Cable or OTA HD, when they started with their Series 1 units, or even their Series 2 units... instead of making those intrested in those technologies buy a Series 3 ?
> 
> ...


Nicely put.

Sorry. couldn't resist


----------



## dscott72 (Mar 30, 2006)

Wonder if our good friends at the website that heavily advertises on this forum has been working on some sort of hybrid unit.


----------



## deezel629 (May 30, 2006)

I have a question about this whole MPEG-2,4 stuff. I BOUGHT an HR10-250 about a year ago. Is it true that when D* launches all these new HD channels(I'm not holding my breath) I won't receive them with the HR-10? I don't see how D* could sell customers a $600 box knowing that it would be HD obselete within a year and a half.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

deezel629 said:


> I have a question about this whole MPEG-2,4 stuff. I BOUGHT an HR10-250 about a year ago. Is it true that when D* launches all these new HD channels(I'm not holding my breath) I won't receive them with the HR-10? I don't see how D* could sell customers a $600 box knowing that it would be HD obselete within a year and a half.


Yes, that is 100% correct.

Once the HD converts to MPEG-4.. the HR10-250 will not be able to receive it.

They have public stated that they will swap out any non-MPEG4 equipment with MPEG-4 equipment.


----------



## deezel629 (May 30, 2006)

ebonovic said:


> Yes, that is 100% correct.
> 
> Once the HD converts to MPEG-4.. the HR10-250 will not be able to receive it.
> 
> They have public stated that they will swap out any non-MPEG4 equipment with MPEG-4 equipment.


Thanks Earl. Looks like I have a decision to make.


----------



## Sir_winealot (Nov 18, 2000)

deezel629 said:


> Thanks Earl. Looks like I have a decision to make.


Not for a while you don't ...it'll be quite some time before MPEG2 is shut down.


----------



## deezel629 (May 30, 2006)

Sir_whinealot said:


> Not for a while you don't ...it'll be quite some time before MPEG2 is shut down.


But if the HD channels I currently receive with this box is never going to increase I do. I'm not going to pay $11/ month for 12 HD channels forever. I'd rather get them for free from cable, not to mention in better quality also. I think D* dropped the ball on this one. Nice of them to offer me a "swap"(I get to also pay them another $99 for the non-tivo DVR) and keep me locked in as a customer. I think I should sell it before it becomes a door-stop. Shame too because it's a nice machine.


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

deezel629 said:


> But if the HD channels I currently receive with this box is never going to increase I do. I'm not going to pay $11/ month for 12 HD channels forever. I'd rather get them for free from cable, not to mention in better quality also. I think D* dropped the ball on this one. Nice of them to offer me a "swap"(I get to also pay them another $99 for the non-tivo DVR) and keep me locked in as a customer. I think I should sell it before it becomes a door-stop. Shame too because it's a nice machine.


I wouldn't say they dropped the ball, really. The HR10-250 was able to receive all the HD that D* offered at the time it was introduced. For those of us who are able to get our locals OTA, it still does (w/ the exception of the regional sports network in HD).

Satellite bandwidth is limited; moving to MPEG4 will allow them to use it more efficiently and improve quality. Of course, the new technology will require new reception equipment, which they will provide for you at no or very minimal cost. I'd rather that they would have used an MPEG4 Tivo, but they made their business decision...and as you say, we as customers have our own decisions to make.


----------



## Hank Freid (May 8, 2008)

No matter who ends up "winning," the Blu-Ray and HD DVD format war has probably entered its most dangerous period. For right when new formats are launched, you'll find advocates of one system or another putting forth unsubstantiated claims and various forms of quasi- and pseudo-science to back their side. The public is particularly vulnerable to such mis- or disinformation because it spreads rapidly via the Internet, and because influential first adopters (such as readers of Sound & Vision are intensely, even competitively (but often uncritically) interested in any information they can get. So you can get more information to this site:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hitech/1414/mpeg-2-vs-mpeg-4.html

Regards:
Hank Freid


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Hank Freid said:


> No matter who ends up "winning," the Blu-Ray and HD DVD format war has probably entered its most dangerous period. For right when new formats are launched, you'll find advocates of one system or another putting forth unsubstantiated claims and various forms of quasi- and pseudo-science to back their side. The public is particularly vulnerable to such mis- or disinformation because it spreads rapidly via the Internet, and because influential first adopters (such as readers of Sound & Vision are intensely, even competitively (but often uncritically) interested in any information they can get. So you can get more information to this site:
> 
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hitech/1414/mpeg-2-vs-mpeg-4.html...


Wow.

It's not often you see either a thread get hijacked this severely or resurrected from this far back in time. Congrats, you did both.

I hope it wasn't to astroturf for S&V, as that article blows. What else is Sony going to say with millions at stake?

MPEG-4 was designed for low bit rates. It would not be at all surprising that it might not measure up at high bit rates. After all, more original bits are discarded in any compression algorithm more efficient than another, by definition.

But the realities of how HD is delivered dictate that there will not be much bandwidth available, as bandwidth equates to money and the more vendors squeeze into it, the more profitable they will be. That makes M4 a powerful tool in bringing us more and better HD within that reality compared to M2.

If you've ever seen HD before it was compressed for broadcast, you would probably understand how good it really can be. NBA games are absolutely stunning, flawlessly perfect at 45 mb as delivered from the venue, but no vendor can deliver it to viewers at anything more than about a third of that, making the resultant video actually pretty far from perfect. It's a matter of practicality. That difference is huge compared to the difference between M2 and M4, even at high bit rates.

If HD can be delivered on a disc at high bit rates, that can be a valid niche audience, but of course less content will fit on a disc. I predict that is a market share that will thrive at some point, however, as it may be the only way to get really top-notch HD to the masses.


----------



## pretzelbag (Mar 12, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> It's not often you see either a thread get hijacked this severely or resurrected from this far back in time. Congrats, you did both.


Nicely put.

-pretzelbag.


----------

