1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why Can't Slow Receivers be Fixed?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by socal404, Mar 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mar 5, 2012 #21 of 446
    beforesixbeers

    beforesixbeers Cool Member

    18
    0
    Nov 18, 2011
    To improve speed
    Turn off Resolutions [Native Mode].
    Turn off Scrolling Effects.
    Disable ID
    The remote's model ID sends remote information to receiver with each keystroke, narrowing options for remote-to-receiver programming.
    Customers may need to disable Model ID if receiver is slow to respond to remote commands.
    Press and hold Mute and Select until the green light flashes twice.
    Enter 9-6-3 on numeric key pad.
    The green light on remote should flash twice.
    Press the Channel Down key.
     
  2. Mar 5, 2012 #22 of 446
    allenn

    allenn Icon

    704
    0
    Nov 19, 2005
    Georgia
    I'm retired, so speed is not an issue. It would be nice if D* would get the bugs fixed before introducing another DVR like the HR34. Read through the DirecTV threads in DBSTALK, and you will soon realize that D* needs to direct their resources to perfecting their current hardware and software. Have a great day!
     
  3. Mar 5, 2012 #23 of 446
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    I'm sure all of these are good, but I've only ever turned off scrolling and leave all the other intact.
    My old HR20-700s [from the early days where they were made in Mexico] were fine.
    My HR21-200 [again the first run] was only about a half second slower than my HR20s.
    Time has passed and now I only have the -500s.
     
  4. Mar 5, 2012 #24 of 446
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    You know, people have different opinions about what constitutes "slow". I'm not saying your DVR is fast, but to many people it may be acceptable. There are a lot of other factors too... The health of the hard drive, the quality of the signal, the compression used at the back haul facility... There are a lot of factors.
     
  5. Mar 5, 2012 #25 of 446
    beforesixbeers

    beforesixbeers Cool Member

    18
    0
    Nov 18, 2011
    guess beings i work for the company doesnt mean anything to anyone.
     
  6. Mar 6, 2012 #26 of 446
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    I don't think I'd put it quite that way, but you may find a few here that work with those in El Segundo and know a bit too.
     
  7. Mar 6, 2012 #27 of 446
    allenn

    allenn Icon

    704
    0
    Nov 19, 2005
    Georgia
    Pretty much like any PC which a DVR really is. Also I would add price of the components and hardware as a factor. You want speed; then the price goes up. D* has to weigh price against benefit. Best wishes!
     
  8. Mar 6, 2012 #28 of 446
    Chuck W

    Chuck W Icon

    853
    12
    Mar 26, 2002
    Connecticut
    I've said this quite a few times here too. I sure peope are tired of reading about it as I've posted about it over and over, but it continues too be a problem on my HR20/21 but my biggest beef with these boxes is the CORE functionality. Simple things, like channel changes or just pulling up the guide in a timely fashion. They should be executed pretty much PERFECTLY every time, but they're not.

    On my HR10-250 Tivo, I was NEVER sent to a wrong channel if it knew the digits I entered. If I entered 265, I would goto 265 every single time. On the HR20/21 I "could" end up at channel 265 OR I could end up at channel 26 or 5 because when the internal timer hits 0 and the box has only processed the 2 and the 6, it will try to change to 26 even tho it has the 5 in the buffer. Then after changing to 26, it realizes "hey! there's a 5 here... lets change to channel 5 now". :nono2::mad: That is just shoddy programming.

    The only reason my HR25 is acceptable is because it has a fast enough processor to deal with the shoddy programming and can process the 265 fast enough before the internal timer runs out.

    The problem is Directv isn't interesting in taking the time or money to gut their code and redesign it for efficiency. It is only concerned with cramming more and more features into it so it can add it to their advertising.
     
  9. Mar 6, 2012 #29 of 446
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    I believe it is management’s fault. How often has DirecTV inflicted ‘bad’ updates on their customers? I can see mistakes happening once in a while but this is ridiculous! The same trouble with remote response/speed comes and goes as the ‘updates’ are forced on us. Shouldn’t the people responsible for this fiasco have been fired years ago? Wouldn’t that be management’s job?

    You would think someone at DirecTV would have a little pride and get tired of the constant problems. I’d be embarrassed to have any of the HR2X series or even the HR34 as an example of my work.

    I know, I know, the fix is coming soon!:lol:
     
  10. Mar 6, 2012 #30 of 446
    mikemaxj

    mikemaxj New Member

    7
    0
    Jun 2, 2007
    And it did for a while on my HR20. Then they turned it over to the "regular" programmers. With the first update since the origional HD updaate, my HR20 is slow again.

    Mike
     
  11. Mar 6, 2012 #31 of 446
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    While what you say true, the processing is done in dedicated hardware so the "speed" of the DVR shouldn't be substantially impacted. There is very little comparison to TV cards of old that were digitizing and encoding instead of decoding. Comparing how things are done in computers isn't particularly applicable in the world of purpose-built DVRs.

    Because MPEG4 requires less data, there's less of a load on the mass storage (shared among many functions) than with MPEG2.
     
  12. Mar 6, 2012 #32 of 446
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    Once again you seemed to have missed the point.
    The TV card in question was an HD TV tuner card.
    As for MPEG-4, it isn't the mass storage load, but the processing power required to decode the "less data" into HDMI.
     
  13. Mar 6, 2012 #33 of 446
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    I don't see the MPEG4 decoding being the trouble. Because the decoding is being done with dedicated hardware it doesn't take a lot of work (processing power) to decode it.

    A good example would be to tune to a music channel.... The DVR is still very slow to respond to the remote and scrolling through the lists is still painfully inconsistent. If the slowdown was/is being caused by decoding you'd expect the DVR to speed up when it isn't decoding MPEG4....

    And this is on my HR24-500 - Ah, the good old days when my HR24s where quick....
     
  14. Mar 6, 2012 #34 of 446
    dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    1,938
    0
    Jun 12, 2009
    You would have to consider what's going on on the second tuner as well though (D* pushed programming.) I didn't realize how much programming was "pushed" until I started operating my R15 in single tuner mode. The R15 will go into screen saver mode when a push happens, and I noticed it happening much more.

    Not that this is the specific issue with the receivers either, but something else to the puzzle. In the end, I think the code isn't all it can be. I learned on the old programming languages, and it's been my experience that the "newer stuff" is more bloated (and hardware demanding) for the same results. It's also my experience that a good programmer can make poor hardware look good, although there is always a "break even" point.
     
  15. Mar 6, 2012 #35 of 446
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    As with the video card chips that offload the MPEG-4 decoding from the CPU, but the original point/reference was comparing an old TiVo MPEG-2 DVR to the current HR2x [MPEG-4] DVRs, which I still think isn't a valid "apples to apples" for TiVo and DirecTV, "where as" the HR22 and THR22 should be.
     
  16. Mar 6, 2012 #36 of 446
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    The 'decoding' doesn't happen until you are actually viewing the program. It stays in its original MPEG2 or MPEG4 as it is received and stored in the case of a recording.

    I agree with your bloated comment. It would seem that they just keep piling bad code on top of bad code....
     
  17. Mar 6, 2012 #37 of 446
    dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    1,938
    0
    Jun 12, 2009
    Try telling my HR22-100 that something isn't "going on" when it's recording on the second tuner and you're doing some "intensive" guide navigation (or menu actions.) :lol:

    From what I understand the THR22 doesn't have this type of problem. Since the hardware is identical to my HR22-100, that means there's an obvious difference in coding. Since everyone's perception is a bit different I'd like to see the THR22 in action (to compare for myself.) Problem is, nobody I know will buy one :lol:
     
  18. Mar 6, 2012 #38 of 446
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    I see your point but because of the dedicated MPEG4 hardware in the HR2X receivers there shouldn't be much, if any, 'extra' burden to deal with when playing back MPEG4. One could even argue (I'm not!) that there is LESS work to for the DVR when recording and playing back MPEG4 because the compressed data is smaller and uses less bandwidth.

    A good comparison for Apples to Apples to Apples may be comparing the speed/response of the HR22, the THR22 and even an old Dish receiver like the 622. I have not seen a THR22 (and even doubt they exist!:lol:) but I can tell you from firsthand experience that the 622/722 receivers from Dish Network beat the pants off any DirecTV DVR (even my HR24s when they used to be fast). I'm not claiming they are perfect but when it comes to speed the HR24 is 'slow' when running up against a five or six year old 622 from Dish Network. A 722k recording 4 simultaneous HD programs is even faster than the 622 is.... Leaves my HR24s in the dust...

    I think the HR2X receivers COULD be fixed - I just don't think they WILL be fixed. It just doesn't seem to be a priority to DirecTV. If it was a priority to DirecTV they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot every time they do an 'update'. They figure as long as they keep the complaints under a certain level then they are 'good enough'... And they're probably right... Just wish they would take a little pride in their work...
     
  19. Mar 6, 2012 #39 of 446
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Didn't mean to say there wasn't anything going on - just not any MPEG4 going on!

    I'm with you on the THR22 - I'd like to see one but doubt they even exist!
     
  20. Mar 6, 2012 #40 of 446
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    I don't think we're "far off" here, but want to point out that it takes more memory to decode MPEG-4 [and one of the downsides discussed about HDTV in the early days with moving to MPEG-4 to reduce bandwidth].
    I don't know the chips in the Dish receivers, so :shrug: "but" were they even using MPEG-4 five or six year ago? [another :shrug:]

    "If DirecTV" wouldn't keep trying to "hit a moving target", we might see stability like we did in early '07 with the [then one an only] HR20-700.

    I see them adding more "features" and having too many different "boxes", that are all trying to use a "one size fits all" approach to software.

    OK now if nobody ever hears from me again, "you'll know why" !rolling

    [as I duck into my bunker to wait out the wrath headed my way :lol:]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page