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

Receiver-only: is it a better option now?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Connected Home' started by Stuart Sweet, May 15, 2010.

Do you think that non-DVR receivers are a viable option for you?

  1. Yes ... as long as there's a DVR or two, a non-DVR is good

    0 vote(s)
  2. No ... it's DVR or nothing!

  1. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    Now that DIRECTV Connected Home is a reality, what's your opinion of the "receiver-only" option? Most of us have had multiple DVRs, one for each room. Now that you can watch recorded programs in multiple rooms, is there still a reason for that? Would you want to go to fewer DVRs and more receivers?
  2. kevinturcotte

    kevinturcotte Active Member

    Dec 19, 2006
    Recording more than 2 programs at the same time, as well as having backups of recordings.
  3. code4code5

    code4code5 Godfather

    Aug 29, 2006
    Not for me. I enjoy the flexibility of having four tuners to record. If I think that my wife might be watching something on the main television, I can schedule something to record via the iPhone app on a completely different DVR. She won't have to be inconvenienced at all.
  4. NR4P

    NR4P Dad

    Jan 15, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    Still see a need to have multiple DVRs to the limitations of watching and recording two shows at the same time. A house with many TV's wouldn't be a happy home with only one server.

    I have 3 DVR's, might be able to live with 2. But certainly not one.
  5. netraa

    netraa Godfather

    Mar 27, 2007
    3 words....

    pause live tv
  6. dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    Jun 12, 2009
    Losing the ability to rewind/pause live Tv, one active stream per DVR , and a reduction in tuners for recording make that a big negative here. That doesn't even include the fact that spreading recordings on multiple DVR's means you'll lose a lot less when a drive crashes.

    I really can't imagine a circumstance as to why you'd go with a receiver over a DVR (apart from the initial cost difference.) They're both $5 a month and the DVR fee covers as many DVR's as you could ever want. At this point it's really a no brainer to keep DVR's over receivers.
  7. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Still need DVR's.

    My kids have their own DVR. It's set up for MRV and I can see the shows on their DVR (and I occasionally use it for my overflow shows that are kid friendly), but they cannot see the shows on the other DVR's (it's set up for local list only). If they just had a receiver, they'd see all the shows recorded and it would be much harder for them to pick their own show to watch (they're only 4 and 6). As it is now, they can operate their own DVR during TV time, go to the list and select a show to watch with no trouble.

    So, I'd still want a DVR there.

    The other DVR in the theater is used mainly for the extra tuners, so I'd still want a DVR there too.
  8. Greg Alsobrook

    Greg Alsobrook Lifetime Achiever

    Apr 1, 2007
    Agreed. That, and the six-second replay. I have an H24 in my office and every once in a while I'll miss a line and want to rewind to listen again, but can't.
  9. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    Sep 16, 2006
    With a HMC30 maybe. But now, you can only stream to one receiver at a time, correct?
    What if 4 receivers want to watch something at the same time? Big limitation, even WITH two or three DVRs if multiple receivers try to watch a show on the same DVR.

    If the HMC30 has 4 or more tuners, offers multiple drives, and allows multiple receivers to access it at the same time, THEN I think having all receivers would be a great idea.
  10. dwcolvin

    dwcolvin Icon

    Oct 4, 2007
    You got it.

    Now, if only the DVRs could schedule a recording on any DVR like the receivers can. (I'm sure we'll see that eventually)
  11. webby_s

    webby_s Hall Of Fame

    Jan 11, 2008
    netraa getting a lot of love for that post!

    While I agree with that, and even caught myself trying to rewind one day, I still really like using my H21-100. Especially the remote schedule, Which is probably in the pipeline someday for the HR's

    So I said yes in the poll as long as I can keep the 3 DVR's on the network, and still see the recordings. Hello, garage TV! I don't "need" a DVR out there. But my H21 is darn near as fast as my HR24, not quite but close, that's another reason.
  12. bobnielsen

    bobnielsen Éminence grise

    Jun 29, 2006
    Certainly it is an improvement over the non-MRV case and I now have a H24 in the bedroom. However, the loss of pausing and rewinding live programming has caused me to rethink things, so I bought a DECA from Solid Signal so I can move the HR21 back to that location. Hopefully the DVRs will get remote scheduling capability SOON.
  13. gpg

    gpg Well-Known Member

    Aug 19, 2006
    Long Island
    While MRV makes a non-dvr receiver more valuable, the there's still no substitute for pausing live tv. That, coupled with the 50 SL limit on a single dvr, still makes me prefer multiple dvrs.
  14. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    I never even thought about the pause live TV part, since all I have is DVR's. I still don't think that would be an issue for me, since I rarely watch live TV anywhere but the living room (where the DVR would be regardless), but I can certainly see how that would be an issue for others.
  15. dirtyblueshirt

    dirtyblueshirt Under Suspicion

    Dec 6, 2008
    Anaheim, CA
    If you have 2 locations, I say make both DVRs, but as I have three, it's no question the third be a receiver. The quality of MRV over DECA has been superb.
  16. Grentz

    Grentz New Member

    Jan 10, 2007
    I think a single master DVR is feasible for many families at this point, but recordings are only half the equation as others are saying. Having DVRs in other locations also allows the trickplay features on livetv which is very useful as well.

    I have been enjoying 2 DVRs w/1 regular receiver all hooked up via MRV though. Makes for a nice setup at a location that is less used. I also know other family members that have 1 HD-DVR and many regular receivers throughout the house that would LOVE to get setup with MRV and have no need for additional DVRs.
  17. azarby

    azarby Hall Of Fame

    Dec 15, 2006
    I'm going to qualify my vote in that Receivers are ok as loing as we ( mostly my wife) can record or watch eight programs simulateously. Right now, I'm one recorder 2 tuners short).

  18. Jared701

    Jared701 Legend

    Sep 9, 2008
    As long as you have 1/2 dvrs for as many tvs this shouldn't be an issue. You may not consider something delayed 20 seconds "live" but you could always set something to record on the dvr and right as it starts begin watching it on a receiver. As long as you aren't always using all tuners for your dvrs this shouldn't be an issue and if space is limited you can delete the program right after viewing it. It may not be quite as convenient as having dvrs for every room but now that the mrving is out I don't see dvrs to be a necessity for EVERY tv. If you have 3+ tvs I still think 2 dvrs would be a must.
  19. Willy1

    Willy1 Cool Member

    Jul 9, 2007
    Don't forget Double Live Buffers.
  20. barryb

    barryb New Member

    Aug 26, 2007
    I have two non-dvr's that get plenty of air time in our household. Of course there are 5 DVRs to feed them.

Share This Page