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

DirecTV HR34-700....Certified

Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by codespy, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. Feb 13, 2011 #61 of 106
    David MacLeod

    David MacLeod New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    ok, I had not read up on it so wasn't sure.
    still loves me some ethernet though :)
  2. Feb 13, 2011 #62 of 106

    TXD16 Icon

    Oct 29, 2008
    Yes you are.
  3. Feb 13, 2011 #63 of 106
    Scott Kocourek

    Scott Kocourek Well-Known Member

    Jun 13, 2009
    Time to let the disagreement go. This is a pretty interesting topic so try and enjoy it.
  4. Feb 13, 2011 #64 of 106

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    I had a lot more trouble with the Ethernet MRV than I've had with the DECA. I paid as much, or more for Ethernet wiring and switches than the DECA costs. I could not put anywhere near the number of HRs on the Ethernet system as I can on my DECA system. When using a small number of HRs, I can understand folks "thinking" that Ethernet is as good as DECA, but I'm even sure about that. Add to all this the fact that DECA is gonna open up more doors to new technology (I hope) and I think it's foolish to hang on to the Ethernet systems.

    To further add to my comments, I really doubt that many people have a more complicated DECA system than I do. And it works and works better than I could have hoped for.

    By the way, I have a "refurbished" 24-500. They are sending them out. Mine works quite well.

  5. Feb 13, 2011 #65 of 106

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    Home WiFi is the shaky future. Me, old school, prefer wires. But I have little say in the future. I'm just on for the ride.
  6. Feb 13, 2011 #66 of 106

    ndole Problem Solver

    Aug 26, 2009
    They already do :)
  7. Feb 13, 2011 #67 of 106

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    This is probably not the appropriate thread, but curious what the issue with Ethernet was. When I read your post, I actually thought you had the scenarios miss-typed and reversed :), since I've always thought that DECA had the limit (16 tuners per BB DECA), and Ethernet was unlimited.

    While DECA is the standard, and preferred, and for the appropriate reasons (ok, I got the disclaimer out of the way :)).

    I've always thought that there was no material issue with Ethernet, and growing the number of receivers was never a factor, just another node on the home network.

    I'll someday convert, but I've never had any issue with 4 DVR's plus 3 HD receivers. Have maybe been up to 5-6 DVR's plus 3 HD receivers for testing scenarios, and it never seemed to matter. They all get an IP address, they're all connected to the same Gigabit non-blocking Switch, so they all communicate point-to-point with no effect on the rest of the home network. Can't image what the Ethernet issue would be with even a dozen DVRs, unless UPL management somehow becomes an issue when a certain number of DVRs is exceeded, but then DECA would have the same issue.

    Also seem to always see these references to separating DirecTV MRV video traffic from the rest of the home network. Not sure I understand what the issue is. As an example, I have a 24-port Gigabit Switch and every device in the home is connected to the Switch, and the Switch is up-linked to the Gigabit Router (which is on FiOS 35Mbps/20Mbps). All traffic is point-to-point with 2Gbps bandwidth (full-duplex) dedicated between any two ports with 48Gbps Switch-wide. Not sure why DirecTV MRV video traffic would ever effect anything but the two DirecTV devices communicating.
  8. Feb 13, 2011 #68 of 106
    David MacLeod

    David MacLeod New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    nothing wrong with it if you know what you are doing and equipment is up to the task. most won't have that and an installer can't deal with that.
    a cheap ass switch and router from worst buy isn't always going to cut it as you know.
  9. Feb 13, 2011 #69 of 106

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    Yep, that's all part of the disclaimer. :)
  10. Feb 14, 2011 #70 of 106

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    I've got 24 tuners on my DECA system, but I have two Power Inserters. I see no limitations at all.

    That's what I thought too. But, as I added HRs, I began to have problems and could only hold 9 HRs on the Ethernet system. Don't really know why, but then D* offered me the DECA system and a 24 at no cost, so I got it done and never bothered playing with the Ethernet system again.

    Yeah, I don't get that either. I've got switches all over the place and everything ultimately goes into the mix on my N router and I have no problems. But I did have to put static IP addresses on all my equipment.

  11. Feb 14, 2011 #71 of 106

    davel Godfather

    May 1, 2007
    Wanna bet that when this generation comes out they will STILL be sending out hr-20 circa 2006 units for new customers (5 models old)?

    Also, take the rj45 port if it saves on manfacturing cost and replace it with a gig buffer chip for whole home, so I can fast forward and rewind a program smoothly from another DVR
  12. Feb 14, 2011 #72 of 106
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    I'm not sure your comment really addresses the HR34... maybe it is something to think about for future receivers.
  13. Feb 14, 2011 #73 of 106
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    I'm pretty sure they won't be sending HR34s to replace an HR20 or vice versa.

    The HR34 has 5 tuners inside the HR20 has only 2. These will not be classified as "equivalent" devices.
  14. Feb 14, 2011 #74 of 106

    xmetalx Godfather

    Jun 3, 2009
    Pretty sure the HR34 will be in its own class, separate from the current HR-2x lineup (No, I don't have proof of this, its just an educated guess :) )
  15. Feb 16, 2011 #75 of 106

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    Nov 13, 2006
    If they are adding a new unit, they will have to go swm, no new units will be able to work on any other setup, so that part of the argument is invalid as a reason to keep ethernet.

    There is zero reason to have an ethernet port on receivers going forward. There just isn't... There is plenty of hardware that has an ethernet port on it now, and will be available for quite some time for those people that have a bizzare setup and have to have it... And people getting newer equipment will have to be on a swm system, so adding a deca adapter is easier than plugging into in an Ethernet cable at every receiver..

    And when you really think about this setup vs an ethernet one, this will require less power, less additional connections, and use less electricity and cost customers less money in many cases....

    I don't want any installers to take this the wrong way, but installers for sat aren't network installers, and have no business interacting with a persons home network... A simple one plug in solution is fine and easy, but hooking up multiple units, sometimes using switches so a person can have their xbox and blu ray and hr hooke up at a tv location.. No way...

    I also see this as no different than when they no longer supported mpeg2 hd equipment.. Only this time, for many folks there is an adapter they can use to update to the newer setup, rather than needing a completely new install from the ground up as most people did.

    And also, just how many people do you think actually have MRV without being deca now? Very very few as not only a percentage but actual number vs. how many have mrv, and that number is dwindling by the day... Heck, by the time it becomes difficult to get boxes with ethernet ports, I'll bet the number of mrv homes using ethernet will be less than 50k....
  16. Feb 23, 2011 #76 of 106

    gcd0865 Legend

    Jul 23, 2008
    Hi All:

    I've been reading with interest the discussion about the upcoming HR34 receiver, and had a question for the group about its expected capabilities.

    I have an HR21, AM21, slimline dish and SWM LNB connected to a single HDTV (living room) at this point via HDMI. I receive two adjacent markets over the air via the AM21, in addition to my local market via satellite, with all 3 cities' stations integrated into my on-screen guide. I recently added a small bedroom HDTV, which for the moment is connected only to rabbit ears. There is an old RG-6 coax cable (from previous owners' cable tv, not currently being used) that comes up through the basement to the bedroom tv, and the hole for that is just barely big enough for the RG-6 coax at this point. Total distance from the location of my living room HR21 to the bedroom tv is not even 25 feet.

    In order to connect the bedroom tv to my DirecTV service, I see a few options, including:

    1 - Connect the bedroom tv to my living room HR21 via component video cables plus L/R stereo audio, by drilling larger holes to/from the basement for the bigger cables. Then, buy a second RF remote and program it for the bedroom tv. This would allow viewing of all channels (satellite and antenna) and DVR recordings on both tv's, but both tv's could only view the same channel at any given time.

    2 - Add a non-DVR receiver (H2x) for the bedroom tv and add a simple splitter after the SWM, feeding the bedroom tv with RG-6 coax from the splitter. This would allow the two tv's to view different channels, but would not allow viewing of recordings from the living room HR21's DVR on the bedroom tv unless I added [what equipment?]. And this would not allow viewing of over-the-air channels from the HR21 on the bedroom tv because the AM21 would then not be shared [correct?].

    I'm thinking of adding a basement HDTV in a few months (maybe this summer, when the HR34 might be out). If I then wanted all 3 HDTVs to be able to: (a) view DVR recordings from a single DVR, (b) view the over-the-air channels from the AM21 and (c) view different channels at the same time, am I correct in my thinking that the upcoming HR34 (plus whatever small boxes are required at the 2 remote tv's) will be the first DirecTV equipment that can do all 3 of these things, and at the same time, require only RG-6 coax to feed the remote tv's? If so, an HR34 might be the right choice for me, when it comes out.

    Thanks in advance for your comments.
  17. Feb 23, 2011 #77 of 106

    jdspencer Hall Of Fame

    Nov 7, 2003
    You are a prime candidate for the Whole House DVR (MRV) system using DECA. All three of your requirements can be done now, without the HR34. a) Currently a DVR can only stream one feed to remote receivers. (workaround is to have two DVRs) b) The AM21 can't be viewed remotely, unless it is a recording. Can the HR34 do it live? c) This can be done using separate receivers at each TV.

    The single coax to each location carriers everything.

    BTW, I wish I had multiple OTA markets I could receive to do what you did.:)
  18. Feb 23, 2011 #78 of 106
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    All I can say is if you want something right now don't wait on the HR34.
  19. Feb 23, 2011 #79 of 106

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    Dec 2, 2010
    Would it be desirable, first, and feasible, second to change the references to HR34 instead of the alpha and beta name? At least for the thread titles?

    It would make searching easier, but there may be drawbacks to the system to change a Title...
  20. Mar 7, 2011 #80 of 106

    xtoyz AllStar

    Apr 13, 2006
    DECA seems the way to go for the majority, but you'll have to pry ethernet out of my cold dead hands. Everything, and I mean everything, in my house is networked. Wiring was done by me, network cabinet was put together by me, and I even have a DVR sitting down in the cabinet for a TV in the office with no practical place to put a receiver.

    Couple all the work I've already done with the ability for me to control literally every A/V component in my house over ethernet and you have yourself one geek who does not want an RJ45 port taken away.

Share This Page