Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by Sir Lagzalot, Oct 21, 2009.
I just had a new install and received hr22-100-r are these the new receivers?
Could be.....the latest model is the HR23, however I had a 22 installed about 6 weeks ago that was built in July so it had to be new. (No refrub tags eithers.)
Actually the HR22 and HR23 are both the most current. There are minor differences between the two but there's no reason to think one is better or more advanced than the other.
The HR22 is still in production and is actually about 3/4 of all HD-DVR production, with the HR23 only about 1/4th, so it's far more common to get an HR22 than an HR23. Part of that is that only one contractor is making HR23s (Pace), and part due to the limited supply of wideband tuners, which is the only real difference between the two models.
Don't forget about that significant increase in audio and video quality touted on the HR23
(sorry, as usual, just trying to stir things up)
Thank you for making my job so much more fun.
To reiterate for the benefit of those now stirred up, when we tested the HR23, we remarked on better audio and video quality, but we later realized that it was just the way the receivers were calibrated out of the box, and that proper adjustment of the TV and AVR could yield the same quality on HR21, HR22, or HR23.
I hope that clarifies my position for what is probably the 750th time.
Can't believe nobody answered your question completely. You got a purportedly "refurbished" HR. Somebody else had it and returned it, hence the "r" at the end of the model number.
I thought so, one of them is already bad and won't connect to my router so I suspect the internal network card is bad, because when I connect my computer it works fine.
Perhaps you could share how an out-of-the-box HR23 doesn't require adjusting the display or AVR and the other models do?
Is there some sort of setting that you can do to the other receivers to make them work better?
I know several who are interested in getting a better picture with their <HR23.
Just got a HR23. It's audio 'brups' periodically just like the two HR22's and HR20 I have.
Are you using an Ethernet wire or a wireless adapter?
My 23 had what I though was a great picture. I had it set up so that it and a 21-700 shared two TVs. I was watching a baseball game on the 23 one day and I was marveling at the PQ, then I looked at the remote and it dawned on me that I was watching on the 21-700. Switched back and forth and the PQ was equal playing on a 50" Panny plasma.
Working directly with digital video files and transport streams daily for the last decade has revealed to me a few unimpeachable absolutes, and one of those is that their resultant quality levels are not "calibrated", and most assuredly not at the consumer DVR level. They exist as they are as a set of clearly-defined binary coefficients, and nothing can be done to change how they exist or how they eventually appear without either converting them to analog (which typically has no visible effect), re-encoding them, bit starving their delivery, knocking enough bits into corruption due to a lack of robustness of the delivery protocol through a hostile delivery environment, or performing a mathematical operation on them. That constitutes the entire universe of possibility.
Regardless of what happens to them later, they reach all DVRs in the exact same form and state. Binary coding itself implies by definition one of two absolute states for every bit, and so there is no grey area here, no wiggle room to argue about what is a fact, and no opportunity to "calibrate" or change what is into something different or better. So video PQ is at a level playing field at input.
And, there is no "calibration" at work later on in the DVR (which if it did exist would have to use one of the methods above, and is probably limited to performance of a mathematical operation). Other than the direct conversion to component for those outputs, the DVR doesn't do anything of the sort, and digital video has no capability to be altered for better or worse, by some sort of magical calibration that doesn't really exist. So our video PQ is also at a level playing field at output.
Assuming the same input (and obviously that means all DTV DVRs enjoy the same input), all consumer-level decoders generate the absolute exact same output with the exact same PQ in all DBS or OTA STBs and DVRs including Tivo and DISH as well, meaning if the source is the same, the resulting decoded video is also exactly the same, meaning they are all the same as far as PQ is concerned, and no one is even microscopically better than the other in that regard.
Even if a new DVR came along with 14-bit video decoding capability, the 8-bit source video means that the remaining 6 bits of each decoded digital word would be all zeroes, meaning the resulting output would still have the same exact quality as an 8-bit decoder, which is why one never will come along such as that.
"Out of the box" can then be no different than years after coming "out of the box", since there is no method available to change what comes out of the box. Your group's original report probably had nothing to do with DVR calibration (since that is a fantasy) and probably everything to do with unscientific expectations, which there still is no excuse for. If you are instead really talking about how the inputs to the test monitor were mis-calibrated, there still is no excuse for overlooking that, either.
I disagree with TomCat's insistence that the output of all devices must somehow be identical given the same input. The CE industry has provided us with a large number of different (both in technique and effectiveness) decoding and processing schemes. Names like "motion compensation" and "edge enhancement" are etched on everyone's brain. Both perform "magic" that may or may not improve the appearance of the resultant picture just as dithering increases the apparent number of colors used.
Tomcat, thank you for your explanatory post. However, I can only say by empirical experience that while the outputs from the HR21 and HR23 were different on the same TV, and that initially the HR23 seemed better, I had no problem adjusting my television so that the HR21 looked great and the HR23 looked terrible.
I did have to change the normal things on my TV like brightness, contrast, and sharpness. Why do you think there is no processing taking place in the DVR that controls these factors?
I agree with TomCat. The HR boxes are video "Sources" and should provide identical, standards-based, digital output to downstream video processors in the display, stand alone video processor or, sometimes, in an AVR or PrePro. Processing such as motion compensation, edge enhancement or even contrast & brightness should not be performed in the "source," but rather in the downstream video processor. That is the intent of the high level video architecture. It is acceptable to have some video processing options in a source (e.g, an HR2x box, BluRay player, etc). But, any such options should be user accessible and adjustable and NOT buried "under the hood."
That leaves me unable to explain the differences you have seen between the HR2x boxes. I'm not questioning what you observed. But, the differences should not be there in a proper architecture.
Perhaps in a perfect world there would be an option in my DVR to output "source direct video" for lack of a better term. I know my Blu-ray player has video "enhancement" features that I am able to turn off. I have no doubt that something like that is taking place in the DVRs; like you all I agree it would be nice if we could control them.
Wired and is it normal for them to install two refurbished receivers both look all scratched up and the one isn't fully operational, I just don't want someone else problem.
It is normal to get refurbished units. It is not acceptable to get one that is not fully operational or that has problems. Call and request a replacement for it.