# Should I ask for an HR22 & HR23? Is there a difference?



## digitalant (Oct 4, 2002)

Upgrading/swapping my current HR10-250 (will miss you TiVo) to get mpeg4 HDs. 

Is there a difference between the HR22 & HR23?


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

The HR23 is reported to have better audio and video. If you order an HR2x from D*, you can request an HR23 but you will get what they send you. If you really want an HR23, you probably need to wait until they appear on the shelves of you local Costco, Best Buy or Circuit City and buy it there.


----------



## incog-neato (Sep 18, 2007)

HR23 has "internal" BBC's so no separate BBC's needed.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

incog-neato said:


> HR23 has "internal" BBC's so no separate BBC's needed.


Actually, the HR23 uses a wide-band tuner so there is no need for a BBC internal or external.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

bpratt said:


> The HR23 is reported to have better audio and video...


"Better" in what way, and reported by who? It is hard to improve on audio or video that is already delivered in a digitally-encoded format, especially since all DVRs get it from the same place. The quality of the improvement would have to be limited to the DAC and associated analog output circuitry, which is already excellent in all DTV DVRs.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> "Better" in what way, and reported by who? It is hard to improve on audio or video that is already delivered in a digitally-encoded format, especially since all DVRs get it from the same place. The quality of the improvement would have to be limited to the DAC and associated analog output circuitry, which is already excellent in all DTV DVRs.


It was reported better here by the people who tested it:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=144256

Why don't you challange them in that thread if you don't think it should be better? The HR23 uses newer chip sets and a new wide-band tuner. I guess you'll tell me my new Sony 1080p 120fps TV is no better than my 5 year old Mitsubishi since they both show a digital picture.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 9, 2005)

I just read that thread and there is a newer chip for the ethernet output but other then that the changes are cosmetic according to the reviewers. I could be reading it wrong so if anyone knows please post a correction.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

bpratt said:


> Actually, the HR23 uses a wide-band tuner so there is no need for a BBC internal or external.


So, not being an HD user on DTV, what does the BBC do anyway?

Still deciding if I want to go HD with DTV or just dump it and live with Comcrap. I have two HD tivo's on comcrap now and DTV on the other sets.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> So, not being an HD user on DTV, what does the BBC do anyway?
> 
> Still deciding if I want to go HD with DTV or just dump it and live with Comcrap. I have two HD tivo's on comcrap now and DTV on the other sets.


The new satellites D* put up for HD broadcast at a different frequency that is not compatable with the tuner in the HR20 - HR22 receivers. The BBC changes the frequency to one the tuner can use. In the HR23, they included a wide-band tuner which will handle the frequency broadcast by the new sattelites so there is no need for BBCs on the HR23.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 9, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> So, not being an HD user on DTV, what does the BBC do anyway?
> 
> Still deciding if I want to go HD with DTV or just dump it and live with Comcrap. I have two HD tivo's on comcrap now and DTV on the other sets.


Sounds like you have too much invested in your system to make the switch practical.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

bpratt said:


> It was reported better here by the people who tested it:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=144256
> 
> Why don't you challange them in that thread if you don't think it should be better? The HR23 uses newer chip sets and a new wide-band tuner. I guess you'll tell me my new Sony 1080p 120fps TV is no better than my 5 year old Mitsubishi since they both show a digital picture.


I was asking _you_, since _you_, are the one making this claim. IMHO, if _you _are the one making the claim, then _you _should be the one to search the source thread and prove your allegation here, an allegation which I have very good reason to be very skeptical of. I have a life, and have no time to search an 11-page thread for the one esoteric line you might be referring to. If all you are capable of is parroting back unsubstantiated claims, then I find little of worth in such a post, and my best guess would be that nearly everyone here is in agreement with me on that.

Searching the thread for "better" and "audio" reveals only a few guesses based on folks who don't really know any better, and certainly does not imply that there may be real evidence supporting such a claim.

The wideband tuner is to accomodate the larger bandwidth of Ka compared to Ku. The BBCs were a workaround to allow them to use a tuner with less bandwidth than Ka. When selecting a channel in the lower range, that would activate the BBC, which converted those channels back into conventional L-band. It has no possible connection to providing better quality audio and video as what the tuner ends up seeing is exactly the same thing at the same frequency, and the signal is still modulated, multiplexed, digititized, and compressed, meaning that there is no opportunity to manipulate the data in any positive way.

"New chips"? Nearly every new DVR uses "new chips", and the only one that could possible make a difference would be the DAC (and only if using component video and baseband analog audio outputs), as that is the first possibility for manipulation of audio or video quality. The only problem with that is that DAC technology is not concerned with improvements in quality, and DAC technology, as far as "quality" is concerned, topped out some years ago. "Improved", referring to new DAC technology means it can do the exact same job the exact same way as the older chip, only "cheaper".

There is no advance in how digital audio is converted to analog, as that is a process that is pretty-much fixed and identical everywhere. Your example of a newer TV having better quality is not comparable, because the advances you speak of are not in the area of improving the quality of the digital signal (which is fixed) but, once again, in what happens *after *being converted to analog. 1080p-native is better than 720p-native for the reason that it _preserves _more of the resolution that emerges from the DAC, which is identical in virtually every HDTV for the last 5 years, which includes all 720, 768, and 1080-native displays.

120 Hz refers to a 120 display refresh rate compared to a 60 Hx refresh rate, and really doesn't mean anything at all of value. Persistence of human vision means that refreshes greater than about 50 Hz can't be perceived, so scanning each field twice buys you exactly nothing. Bottom line, your new TV may be better than one from 2002, but what emerges from the decoder and DAC has not materially changed at all in that time.

Likewise, any improvement to audio quality in the HR23 would have to come _after _conversion to analog. There is the possibility for improvement in the analog audio circuitry used along with component video, but again, that technology topped out long ago, so any improvement would have to be so minute as to not be even noticeable. If you use HDMI or optical, well, there is hardly anything in the HR23 that could be involved, since the audio is only converted to analog much later, either in your display, or AVR. An HR23 can't possibly improve audio that is only converted to analog well after it leaves the HR23. It's still coming from the same source and processed in the same encoded and digital protocols, meaning it can't be improved before that point.

There may well be some discussion about improved audio on that thread and in the Engadjet article, but it all seems to be wildly-unsupported conjecture by folks who actually don't have a clue how things really work and therefore have no earthly idea what they are talking about. If what I posted makes no sense to you, then you very well may also fall into that category. If you want to believe wild speculation that has no basis in fact and is technically virtually impossible, go for it. But to infect everyone else here (who may not understand why this is not possible and also just don't know any better) with bad information isn't at all cool, unwittingly or not. Leave that to Karl Rove and his cronies.


----------



## incog-neato (Sep 18, 2007)

Actually (if I read it correctly) it was just ONE PERSON of all those who were part of the review that made that statement towards the end when each individual tester wrote their opinion. Not sure if it was a general consensus.

"reweiss: If you're looking for a DVR with a sharper picture, louder sound and more storage, the HR23 should be your first choice."

Not sure who "rewiss" is or what technical information he based his opinion on other then "just looking."

None of the others stated that in their final comments.



bpratt said:


> It was reported better here by the people who tested it:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=144256
> 
> Why don't you challange them in that thread if you don't think it should be better? The HR23 uses newer chip sets and a new wide-band tuner. I guess you'll tell me my new Sony 1080p 120fps TV is no better than my 5 year old Mitsubishi since they both show a digital picture.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

incog-neato said:


> Actually (if I read it correctly) it was just ONE PERSON of all those who were part of the review that made that statement towards the end when each individual tester wrote their opinion. Not sure if it was a general consensus.
> 
> "reweiss: If you're looking for a DVR with a sharper picture, louder sound and more storage, the HR23 should be your first choice."
> 
> ...


Yes. I do not mean to be hard on people simply for the sake of being difficult and I take no real pleasure in being on the opposite side of an issue with someone, and bpratt is a good guy and has a well-proven record here of fine and valuable posts, but accuracy is important, and more important than ignoring inaccuracy. I think it would be unfortunate for folks to opt for the HR23 (or lament not having one) because they might be led to believe that the sound is "better" when there is no real way that could be true. In the world of digital, things just don't work that way.

And as all of us should know, "louder" is not "better". Volume is not an aspect of quality. Consumer audio is typically standardized at -10 dBu across 10K ohms, which means virtually every device for consumers is designed to process baseband audio signals at the same level of "loudness". This is done for interopability, for one thing (if a device had higher output it might overdrive an amp input "looking" for that standardized level, for instance).

This is also the problem with speaker systems (which are the one exception from the above rule and differ from those standardized loudness levels because they process baseband audio signals by converting them into actual sound). In the 80's it became popular to have "A-B" test setups in hifi stores. Speaker manufacturers then began to engineer their speakers to have better efficiency (instead of concentrating on actual quality), so that they would be louder (give a higher SPL for a given input level) which could mean that their "louder" speakers would be perceived as "better" by consumers who (unless educated otherwise) would naturally make this misperception.

"Rewiss" sounds like a technical know-nothing who unknowingly places "the truth" in mortal danger. The dead giveaway is "sharper picture". "Sharpness" (with all else such as the quality of the source held equal) is directly defined and constrained by resolution. All HD has either of two resolutions (excluding "HD Lite"), either 1920x1080 (typically 1080i) or 1280x720 (typically 720p). For technical reasons they both have a "perceived" resolution that is nearly the same.

But considering just 1080i source material for the moment (or 1080p or 720p if you like) how is one DVR that presents in 1080i resolution (IOW, that has a defined constrained resolution or "sharpness") going to ever be possibly any "sharper" than another that also presents in 1080i resolution? If they are both the same resolution (and of course they are) there is no way one is "sharper" than the other. So cut us a break, rewiss. You're simply talking out of your butt when you say one is sharper than the other. We're used to there being differences with analog processing, but gain, with digital it just doesn't work that way.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 12, 2000)

After reading this thread the issue got my curiosity so I skimmed the DBS thread linked here. I too am inherently skeptical of the idea of better audio and video and I have no stake in defending either side here. That said, there is more in the thread and the first look than just this one coment posted above. There were multiple testers, all long-time users, and while they don't appear to have any hard facts they did do side-by-side compairsons and flip back-and-forth on the same sets using the same cabling and came to a consensus on the better results. At least three testers all post follow-ups sayings they tried every variation of comparison and saw and heard the difference. So, again, I remain skeptical, but it shouldn't be dismissed as only one person's opinion either... Here's a excerpt from one of the testers reply to the questions on that thread:

START
Re: Better Audio/Video

1. I can't quantify this with scientific measurement. That needs to be said up front.
2. I have an HR20-700 which I used on many occasions to do comparisons with the HR23-700.
3. Both HR's are connected via HDMI cables to a Samsung LNT4665 LCD set. The set's audio output is connected to a Sony AVR with Klipsch speakers.
4. I did my tests switching back and forth between the units while watching the same program sources.
5. This is my perception.

Audio: Crisper, more sharply defined seemed to have more high end, the same on the low end. I did both movies and regular TV. I enjoyed music more from the HR23. Voice reproduction was about the same and both units exhibit the same behavior with regards to commercial loudness and recent issues with low volume on channels like Fox.

Video: the same scene on the HR20-700 looks less well defined, softer and with a different color emphasis. The HR23 scene was well defined sharper and with a more balanced color emphasis. By color emphasis, if you can remember back to the old CRT tubes, if you put a Mits and a Sony side by side on the same program source you could tell that Sony emphasized cool colors (blues, greens, etc.) and Mitsubishi emphasized warm colors (reds, yellows browns, etc.). I am seeing something similar here, with the HR20 emphasizing cool colors.

END

It still may come out to be some kind of settings issue or other difference that fools the eye. For example, perhaps it outputs a louder audio level by default which is being inetrpretted as "clearer" or perhaps they improved the resolution of the menus which is causing them to think all video is more clear. I have no idea -- just speculating.


----------

