Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

HR20-100 vs. HR20-700


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   ShiningBengal

ShiningBengal

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2003

Posted 17 July 2007 - 07:09 PM

For this very reason, I'm hoping I get a 100, when I have mine installed oin Thursday. I'd much rather use a coaxial cable over a fragile optical cable.


Fiber optical is fragile? Hmm. Guess that's why all newer telecommunications trunks are fiber:rolleyes:

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   Chuck W

Chuck W

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 828 posts
  • LocationConnecticut
Joined: Mar 26, 2002

Posted 17 July 2007 - 10:57 PM

Fiber optical is fragile? Hmm. Guess that's why all newer telecommunications trunks are fiber:rolleyes:



:confused: What they are using has little to do with whether they are fragile or not. Besides, we are talking about consumer optical cables, not heavy duty industrial strength cables :rolleyes:

Optical cables are very fragile, compared to a simple RCA cable. Try just kinking your optical cable and lemme know how well it works. :lol:

#28 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,202 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 July 2007 - 04:48 AM

Com sumer optical is plastic and "real fiber optic" is glass. FWIW
A.K.A VOS

#29 OFFLINE   ShiningBengal

ShiningBengal

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2003

Posted 18 July 2007 - 05:01 AM

Com sumer optical is plastic and "real fiber optic" is glass. FWIW

Just like consumer eyeglasses, right? Is "real coax" made of platinum? FWIW, plastic is a better material for connecting cables because it is MORE rugged than glass, not less. It is more expensive than glass, not less. And it is certainly at least as reliable as coax.

I have had Toslink cables since they first became a standard many years ago. My experience is that they are more reliable than coax. They have virtually zero connection problems, zero interference, and yes, cost less than coax. Oh sure, you can pay a lot for them if you buy into the Monster snake oil arguments. But they are cheaper to manufacture.

Just for jollies, I did what you suggested. I tied a Toslink cable into a fairly tight knot and reconnected it in my system. It still worked just fine. I have also connected 3 Toslink cables using couplers for a total length of 18 feet. Still work just fine.

#30 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,202 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 July 2007 - 05:21 AM

Just like consumer eyeglasses, right? Is "real coax" made of platinum? FWIW, plastic is a better material for connecting cables because it is MORE rugged than glass, not less. It is more expensive than glass, not less. And it is certainly at least as reliable as coax.

I have had Toslink cables since they first became a standard many years ago. My experience is that they are more reliable than coax. They have virtually zero connection problems, zero interference, and yes, cost less than coax. Oh sure, you can pay a lot for them if you buy into the Monster snake oil arguments. But they are cheaper to manufacture.

Just for jollies, I did what you suggested. I tied a Toslink cable into a fairly tight knot and reconnected it in my system. It still worked just fine. I have also connected 3 Toslink cables using couplers for a total length of 18 feet. Still work just fine.

I think there may be some cross posting. I don't remember anything about kinks or knots.
Anyway if you knew the insides of glass fiber optical cables, I doubt the plastic ones are the same [and most expensive].
BTW: my glasses are "glass".
The big plus with fiber [glass] is the lower loss over copper. Typically the dB loss per 100' of copper is kilometers with glass. I have to doubt plastic cost more & then the consumer products would be made of glass. By the nature on the market, they use the lower cost materials.
A.K.A VOS

#31 OFFLINE   Chuck W

Chuck W

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 828 posts
  • LocationConnecticut
Joined: Mar 26, 2002

Posted 18 July 2007 - 08:09 AM

Just like consumer eyeglasses, right? Is "real coax" made of platinum? FWIW, plastic is a better material for connecting cables because it is MORE rugged than glass, not less. It is more expensive than glass, not less. And it is certainly at least as reliable as coax.

I have had Toslink cables since they first became a standard many years ago. My experience is that they are more reliable than coax. They have virtually zero connection problems, zero interference, and yes, cost less than coax. Oh sure, you can pay a lot for them if you buy into the Monster snake oil arguments. But they are cheaper to manufacture.

Just for jollies, I did what you suggested. I tied a Toslink cable into a fairly tight knot and reconnected it in my system. It still worked just fine. I have also connected 3 Toslink cables using couplers for a total length of 18 feet. Still work just fine.



Congrats on the knots. That still doesn't change the fact that they can break when you kink them and they are more fragile than a descent RCA cable. I know, I have ruined an optical cable by accidentally kinking it. I have yet to ruin an RCA cable's cable part. Now, I have had issues with RCA cable end connectors, but I've also had issues with TOSLink cable end connectors too.

As for connecting them, as long as you get a good connector that keeps the ends properly aligned, it shouldn't be an issue. I connect 2 12ft cables together for a 24ft run, which works great.

#32 OFFLINE   ShiningBengal

ShiningBengal

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2003

Posted 18 July 2007 - 08:33 AM

Congrats on the knots. That still doesn't change the fact that they can break when you kink them and they are more fragile than a descent RCA cable. I know, I have ruined an optical cable by accidentally kinking it. I have yet to ruin an RCA cable's cable part. Now, I have had issues with RCA cable end connectors, but I've also had issues with TOSLink cable end connectors too.

As for connecting them, as long as you get a good connector that keeps the ends properly aligned, it shouldn't be an issue. I connect 2 12ft cables together for a 24ft run, which works great.



If you paid me to break a Toslink cable, I'm sure I could do it. That is not the same as "fragile." :D In 20 years or so of using Toslink cables, I have never damaged one. OTOH, I have 3 cats who have been able to gnaw through a number of coax cables during that time. But I won't say they are fragile, either.

If the only drawback that can be cited for Toslink cables is that they are "fragile" then I suggest someone is really, really reaching for one.

I have some fairly high end HT electronics. My A/V Receiver, a top of the line Denon, has 8 user definable Toslink inputs, and only one digital coax input. Many lower end don't even have a single digital coax input.

So at both ends of the market, Toslink has at least an 8 to 1 acceptance factor over coax. Seems like the market has spoken. :hurah:

#33 OFFLINE   bret4

bret4

    DBSTalk Club Member

  • Registered
  • 485 posts
Joined: Nov 22, 2006

Posted 24 July 2007 - 05:00 PM

I just got a 100 to replace a bad 700. I will miss all the CE downloads that the 700 was getting. It was fun.

One thing I have noticed on the 100 is that the OTA tunner is a lot better than my 700 ever was. I now get all my OTA channels that I couldn't get with the 700. Could be that my 700 was just bad from the start.

The work the same and I really like the 100 just as much if not better than the 700. Only thing I don't understand is the RF antenna jack on the back of the 100. I didn't get any antenna to attach to that jack. Should I have?
HR22-100 DVR

#34 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,202 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 24 July 2007 - 05:06 PM

I just got a 100 to replace a bad 700. I will miss all the CE downloads that the 700 was getting. It was fun.

One thing I have noticed on the 100 is that the OTA tunner is a lot better than my 700 ever was. I now get all my OTA channels that I couldn't get with the 700. Could be that my 700 was just bad from the start.

The work the same and I really like the 100 just as much if not better than the 700. Only thing I don't understand is the RF antenna jack on the back of the 100. I didn't get any antenna to attach to that jack. Should I have?

There should have been a small 6.5" antenna for the remote RF to work. The -700 has it internally.
A.K.A VOS

#35 OFFLINE   khoyme

khoyme

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 49 posts
Joined: Jul 04, 2007

Posted 24 July 2007 - 05:19 PM

There should have been a small 6.5" antenna for the remote RF to work. The -700 has it internally.


Before I figured out it was for the remote (being an engineer, I only RTFM well after I have it all "figured out") I plugged one of those little antenna's on the OTA jack on my H20 in my porch. This is on the side of our house where the TV towers are located (some 15-20 miles away). Worked like a charm. The OTA's come in with high signal levels - over 90.

That was the one room that I didn't distribute the attic antenna signal to and would be impossible to get it there now.

Ken
HR20-100 Theater, 2 tuner, OTA, Wired networked Music & Pics 1080i res HDMI upconverted to 1080p Sony VPL-VW100 PJ
HR20-100 Family Room 2 tuner, OTA, Wired Networked Music & Pics HDMI to 1080p 46" Sharp LCD
H20-600 Porch, OTA, HDMI to 720p 32" Samsung LNT3242H
D11-500 Master Bedroom 480i res composite to 25" Sony CRT

#36 OFFLINE   bret4

bret4

    DBSTalk Club Member

  • Registered
  • 485 posts
Joined: Nov 22, 2006

Posted 24 July 2007 - 06:51 PM

There should have been a small 6.5" antenna for the remote RF to work. The -700 has it internally.


Thanks, I'll have to call D* and get them to send me and antenna for the remote. This was a refurbished HR20-100 so I gues they forgot to put the antenna in the box.
HR22-100 DVR




Protected By... spam firewall...And...