HD tuner cards that can replace DTV box from cable company - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > Video Components > Home Theater Computers > HD tuner cards that can replace DTV box from cable company

Home Theater Computers

infamo's Avatar infamo
10:01 AM Liked: 10
post #1 of 42
09-01-2005 | Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2005
I order Digital TV and HD service from my cable company but is there a TV tuner card that I can use so I dont have to use the box that they give me?
salsbst's Avatar salsbst
10:20 AM Liked: 10
post #2 of 42
09-01-2005 | Posts: 1,226
Joined: Jul 2002
No, unless your service is purely unencrypted QAM (which is almost guaranteed not to be the case).
oachalon's Avatar oachalon
01:12 PM Liked: 10
post #3 of 42
09-01-2005 | Posts: 395
Joined: Dec 2002
what hes basically asking is if theres a tuner for a computer that accepts cable cards so you can get your hd and digital cable channels. Im not sure if there is any.(probably not at this time).
salsbst's Avatar salsbst
01:20 PM Liked: 10
post #4 of 42
09-01-2005 | Posts: 1,226
Joined: Jul 2002
Right. The answer is a definite 'no' at this time.
infamo's Avatar infamo
11:18 AM Liked: 10
post #5 of 42
09-04-2005 | Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2005
so theres no way to view HD over the cable channels on my computer.
Halstead's Avatar Halstead
02:13 PM Liked: 10
post #6 of 42
09-04-2005 | Posts: 771
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamo
so theres no way to view HD over the cable channels on my computer.

There are several, but none are particularly reliable and none are likely to allow you to view restricted content (such as HBO).
infamo's Avatar infamo
02:15 PM Liked: 10
post #7 of 42
09-04-2005 | Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2005
Well, I didn't get HBO and those channels in HD, just the basic ones like CBS and NBC and what not. What are teh ways to do this.
Teeps's Avatar Teeps
02:19 PM Liked: 12
post #8 of 42
09-04-2005 | Posts: 1,045
Joined: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamo
so theres no way to view HD over the cable channels on my computer.
You have to find out if the hd stream is unencrypted QAM.

I can recieve cable HD Channels with a MyHD 130 card. But it's no better than OTA reception.

Time Warner is my provider.
Teeps's Avatar Teeps
02:20 PM Liked: 12
post #9 of 42
09-04-2005 | Posts: 1,045
Joined: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamo
so theres no way to view HD over the cable channels on my computer.
You have to find out if the hd stream is unencrypted QAM.

I can recieve cable HD Channels with a MyHD 130 card. But it's no better than OTA reception.

You can also request a converter box with FireWire output to record hd streams too.

Time Warner is my provider.
infamo's Avatar infamo
02:48 PM Liked: 10
post #10 of 42
09-04-2005 | Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2005
I have atlantic broadband, dont know if that helps out any.
RalphArch's Avatar RalphArch
03:16 PM Liked: 10
post #11 of 42
09-04-2005 | Posts: 2,753
Joined: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamo
I have atlantic broadband, dont know if that helps out any.
The best thing to do is ask in your local thread. I believe most cable companies do not encrypt the local broadcast networks - I have all the major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, WB and PBS available as unencrypted QAM on the MDP-130

This allows archiving HD or regular digital shows, timeshifting the digital channels etc. Of course you can do this OTA as well with the MDP 130 but then again don't have to set up and antenna. Analog cable is also available - but this is not a strong pont of the MDP-130
infamo's Avatar infamo
02:15 PM Liked: 10
post #12 of 42
09-05-2005 | Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2005
"All digital downstreams use QAM, regardless of ISP/cable provider.

Just for reference, broadcast uses 8 VSB, a different format with much more redundancy."

I got that reply from someone off of a different forum.
Well, lets just say that the HD channels on my cable are not encrypted, what kind of card do I need to view them and how do i view them.
Halstead's Avatar Halstead
04:02 PM Liked: 10
post #13 of 42
09-05-2005 | Posts: 771
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamo
"All digital downstreams use QAM, regardless of ISP/cable provider.

Just for reference, broadcast uses 8 VSB, a different format with much more redundancy."

I got that reply from someone off of a different forum.
Well, lets just say that the HD channels on my cable are not encrypted, what kind of card do I need to view them and how do i view them.
the most popular cards are the MyHD-130 and the Fusion HDTV3. MyHD-130 has the advantage of hardware-accelerated decode, while the Fusion has the advantage of working with PVR software like MCE, and the next versions of SageTV and BeyondTV. However, I don't think any of those currently support QAM out of the box.
Cliff Watson's Avatar Cliff Watson
04:05 PM Liked: 10
post #14 of 42
09-05-2005 | Posts: 14,159
Joined: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halstead
the most popular cards are the MyHD-130 and the Fusion HDTV3. MyHD-130 has the advantage of hardware-accelerated decode, while the Fusion has the advantage of working with PVR software like MCE, and the next versions of SageTV and BeyondTV. However, I don't think any of those currently support QAM out of the box.
MDP-130 supports QAM tuning out of the box.
infamo's Avatar infamo
07:39 PM Liked: 10
post #15 of 42
09-05-2005 | Posts: 204
Joined: Aug 2005
So I should get a MDP-130, is that a HDTV card too?
Teeps's Avatar Teeps
08:08 AM Liked: 12
post #16 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 1,045
Joined: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by infamo
So I should get a MDP-130, is that a HDTV card too?
Yes, yes it is.

You can't go wrong with a MyHD card. Seems to be one of the major players for HTPC. And, with plenty of support for dummies like me. Right here within the AVS group.
salsbst's Avatar salsbst
08:40 AM Liked: 10
post #17 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 1,226
Joined: Jul 2002
The only way you can go wrong is if you expect it to work with MCE, SageTV, BeyondTV, etc. It only works with its own, very limited application.
Cliff Watson's Avatar Cliff Watson
08:50 AM Liked: 10
post #18 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 14,159
Joined: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by salsbst
The only way you can go wrong is if you expect it to work with MCE, SageTV, BeyondTV, etc. It only works with its own, very limited application.
Does any of the other software frontends support QAM tuning, recording and time shifting? Or even digital closed captions (DTV-CC)?
ADebar's Avatar ADebar
09:25 AM Liked: 10
post #19 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 1,694
Joined: May 2001
http://www.pcalchemy.com/product_inf...acturers_id/56

it looks like this card supports QAM tuning and MCE 2005. pretty good for $99. Has anyone used this to record Time Warner HD? I'm in Houston and I'm very curious.
Cliff Watson's Avatar Cliff Watson
09:29 AM Liked: 10
post #20 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 14,159
Joined: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADebar
http://www.pcalchemy.com/product_inf...acturers_id/56

it looks like this card supports QAM tuning and MCE 2005. pretty good for $99. Has anyone used this to record Time Warner HD? I'm in Houston and I'm very curious.

I have that card and it supports QAM tuning with its own software, but not with MCE.
salsbst's Avatar salsbst
09:53 AM Liked: 10
post #21 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 1,226
Joined: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Watson
Does any of the other software frontends support QAM tuning, recording and time shifting? Or even digital closed captions (DTV-CC)?
Technically, I think they all do, but that Microsoft's driver implementation doesn't (yet?). But I don't want to argue the semantics of who it is that doesn't support QAM. I acknowledge that there is currently no card with which you can achieve QAM in PVR applications unless you are a hacker or you run Linux.

My point was that the "software" cards have Windows driver-level support, while with the MDP-130, I believe it's been stated that there are no plans to support any driver that is open to other applications.
Cliff Watson's Avatar Cliff Watson
10:06 AM Liked: 10
post #22 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 14,159
Joined: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by salsbst
Technically, I think they all do, but that Microsoft's driver implementation doesn't (yet?). But I don't want to argue the semantics of who it is that doesn't support QAM. I acknowledge that there is currently no card with which you can achieve QAM in PVR applications unless you are a hacker or you run Linux.

My point was that the "software" cards have Windows driver-level support, while with the MDP-130, I believe it's been stated that there are no plans to support any driver that is open to other applications.
I knew that, but you didn't make your point very well in the original post.

Don't you think that "Microsoft's driver implememtation doesn't yet support QAM" places even more limits on software cards than the so call limitation of cards like MyHD that can currently support many, many more functions than MS?
stanger89's Avatar stanger89
10:28 AM Liked: 157
post #23 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 17,498
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Watson
Don't you think that "Microsoft's driver implememtation doesn't yet support QAM" places even more limits on software cards than the so call limitation of cards like MyHD that can currently support many, many more functions than MS?
It will depend on what you want, I couldn't care less about any of the "more functions" the MyHD offers. I don't care about DTV-CC, I don't care about QAM as my cable company gives me Jack for QAM (no locals) and I'll be switching to DirecTV soon.

What I do care about is intelligent, integrated scheduling and recording management, which the MyHD does not have, and it sounds like it never will.
salsbst's Avatar salsbst
10:35 AM Liked: 10
post #24 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 1,226
Joined: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Watson
I knew that, but you didn't make your point very well in the original post.
And I knew you knew that, and I stand by my post as accurate. Though I acknowledge that it could have been misinterpreted, it was genuine. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.

Quote:
Don't you think that "Microsoft's driver implememtation doesn't yet support QAM" places even more limits on software cards than the so call limitation of cards like MyHD that can currently support many, many more functions than MS?
Not personally.

I just wish one manufacturer would step up and create an old-fashioned directshow filter for their cards' QAM feature to write to the hard disk. It's not rocket science. Most of the code is already in their code base.
Cliff Watson's Avatar Cliff Watson
10:43 AM Liked: 10
post #25 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 14,159
Joined: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89
It will depend on what you want, I couldn't care less about any of the "more functions" the MyHD offers. I don't care about DTV-CC, I don't care about QAM as my cable company gives me Jack for QAM (no locals) and I'll be switching to DirecTV soon.

What I do care about is intelligent, integrated scheduling and recording management, which the MyHD does not have, and it sounds like it never will.
Of course you don’t care! But you and some others around here are under the false impression that everyone in this forum should have your own narrow-minded view of the would.

Believe it or not, not all people are locked into the TiVO mentality.
salsbst's Avatar salsbst
10:56 AM Liked: 10
post #26 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 1,226
Joined: Jul 2002
I don't think it's narrow-minded to push for hardware and software makers to use standard means of interoperation to allow their products to work together.
Cliff Watson's Avatar Cliff Watson
11:12 AM Liked: 10
post #27 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 14,159
Joined: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by salsbst
I don't think it's narrow-minded to push for hardware and software makers to use standard means of interoperation to allow their products to work together.
Then why not push Microsoft to support hardware decoders in addition to software. Oh I forgot MS is the world leader and everyone has to follow them off the end of the earth.
salsbst's Avatar salsbst
11:35 AM Liked: 10
post #28 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 1,226
Joined: Jul 2002
Quote:
Then why not push Microsoft to support hardware decoders in addition to software.
I guess I would push if it mattered to me, but it happens that I'm content with having my CPUs and video cards do the rendering, especially because I have a client/server setup and my server (where things are recorded) wouldn't benefit from hardware decoding/rendering. I'm content to pay for the rendering hardware to lie fallow for the good QAM tuning of the MDP-130, that's why I bought one, and why one of my projects "for someday" is to Girderize the MDP's application so as to fake the presence of a directshow interface.

Quote:
Oh I forgot MS is the world leader and everyone has to follow them off the end of the earth.
Believe me, I'm no more happy about the circumstances than you are, and I recognize that a major reason for lack of QAM is Microsoft's FUD.
stanger89's Avatar stanger89
12:05 PM Liked: 157
post #29 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 17,498
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Watson
Of course you don’t care! But you and some others around here are under the false impression that everyone in this forum should have your own narrow-minded view of the would.

Believe it or not, not all people are locked into the TiVO mentality.
I don't think it's narrow-minded to want a better interface for a very nice piece of hardware I bought. I don't think it's narrow-minded to want the option of using different software. I don't think it's narrow-minded to expect a much more expensive product to offer a feature found on a much less expensive one.

Personally I think it's narrow-minded for you to assume that MyHD users wouldn't want or make use of BDA drivers despite the fact that the hardware decoder would go unused. Believe it or not, hardware decoders aren't the be-all end-all of video decoding.
Cliff Watson's Avatar Cliff Watson
12:37 PM Liked: 10
post #30 of 42
09-06-2005 | Posts: 14,159
Joined: Mar 1999
â€Personally I think it's narrow-minded for you to assume that MyHD users wouldn't want or make use of BDA drivers despite the fact that the hardware decoder would go unused. Believe it or not, hardware decoders aren't the be-all end-all of video decoding.â€

As I’ve often said it would be fricking stupid to pay for expensive hardware just to turn it into cheap software controlled completely by MS. If a half ass TviO on a computer (with limits from MS) is what you want there are several cards for less than a $100 you can buy.

Not to worry, it want be long until MS has killed ALL hardware cards and then you can bend over and take the MS boner up your back side when they decide to control everything you can or can’t do in THEIR operating system.

Closed Thread Home Theater Computers

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3