Channel Master DVR+ Owners Thread - Page 151 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 87Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #4501 of 4517 Old Yesterday, 04:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JoeKustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ashland, PA 17921
Posts: 6,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamez68 View Post
I doubt anyone from Channel Master is following this thread because if they were they would have realized by now all they need to do is update the PAL DVR/CM7000 with internet to provide guide service and they would have a hot seller!
I guess the only constant between the CM7000 and DVR+ is Rovi. That kinda sucks.
JoeKustra is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4502 of 4517 Old Yesterday, 09:24 PM
Newbie
 
jmup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hello, all.

First, I wish to thank you all for contributing to this thread and its ancestor, the DTVpal thread. Both threads have provided me over the years with a wealth of information as well as a way of fixing one of my DTVpals (thank you, P Smith, wherever you are!)

I own two DTVpals and one CM7000PAL (two in use and one spare) and have been using "mine" for several years (the other belongs to my SO and is used for the usual OTA reality shows and soaps). I have accumulated several terabytes of PBS shows (I installed a removable drive sled on it) but have been looking at this thread for a while.

With the resuscitation of my dead DTVpal (overheating, due to too much lint on the fan; yep, that was a stupid thing to allow), I started to seriously consider exploring the possibility of switching over to the next iteration.

I don't recall the post number but someone reported that Crutchfield had the DVR+ in stock. When I visited, it wasn't but I asked to be notified when they were in. They recently emailed me and I bought the model with the 1TB drive built in as well as the WiFi dongle. (There has been some discussion about what a rip-off this seems, but I figured my time was more valuable than chasing a cheaper solution, which I did in another context, but I digress.)

I received it last week and installed it this past Saturday. Everything is as advertised: it works with a minimum amount of fuss. Of course, it has its idiosynchracies and differences from the DTVpal, but those have been discussed extensively by you all.

Yesterday I purchased a Western Digital My Passport 0820 Media at Costco, 2 TB capacity (but 1.8 TB by the "other" count) for $119. It was originally NTFS formatted.

After connection to DVR+, the drive was detected. I gave it the go-ahead to reformat and, after a reboot, the DVR+ accepted and recognized the drive, complete with name, size and serial number.

As recently reported by Pachinko, the DVR+ defaulted to the external disk and did not report the existence of an internal drive.

I recorded part of a PSB pledge week show ("Elvis: Aloha from Hawaii") and this morning I removed the WD from the DVR+ (while it was turned off as the drive appeared to be on standby). Upon turning the DVR+ back on, it informed me that its "upgrade" had been removed and that it would continue with its internal drive. It then rebooted. After it came back, I confirmed that the storage now in use is the internal drive.

In preparation, I had installed MacFUSE 2.0.3,2 and fuse-ext2-0.0.07 onto my 10-y-o Mac (PPC G5, 10.5.8; it still works but soon the Gods of the InterTubes are going to force me to upgrade as they are already punishing me by showing me the PBS schedule line up for only one day). Connecting the drive to it resulted on it being recognized as two drives, disk2s1 and disk2s2.

The Mac's Disk Utility reports that the drive has a "Master Boot Record" partition map scheme. disk2s1 is reported to be formatted as fuse-ext2 and its capacity is set at 976.5 MB, while disk2s2 is reported to be 1.8 TB also as fuse-ext2. At this point, those capacities seem strange as they add up to more than the 1.8 TB reported for the drive.

The trick is that the total number of bytes in this drive is 2,000,365,289,472 and for the disks are 1,023,975,424 for disk2s1 and 1,999,341,281,280 bytes for disk2s2. Those numbers do add up to nearly the total capacity and the apparent differences are due to "rounding" errors.

The Mac's Finder reports one file (Strm002.ts) and one folder (lost+found) in disk2s2. After exploring the files in disk2s1 with VLC (0.9.10), another file showed up in disk2s2 (Strm0003.ts) but it has zero length. Interestingly, the Finder does not display "reasonable" dates of "modification" for any files. For example, all files report a date of either Jan 1, 1970, or Dec 31, 1969. The "new" file's date is even wackier: Dec 31, 1903. This is no doubt due to the different ways in which dates are displayed in the Linux flavor of UNIX vs Mac OS. Using "Terminal" to check things out, returns "Input/output error" when "ls" attempts to give a listing of the folder. Doing "ls -la" does not show the "new" file. I am sure that all this has an explanation, but I won't pursue it. For now.

The encouraging fact is that the files are accessible if not initially playable by the VLC in this Mac. MPlayer OS X 2 (2.0b6) (SMPlayer's Mac analog) does not "see" any of the files (they are all grayed out). (OTOH, something is weird with the MPlayer installation as it does not show the video and only plays the audio of any other files. Testig with other files shows that MPlayer has a problem since VLC can play any other of my video files.)

I fixed the file in two ways: 1) using ffmpeg as suggested by JHBrabdt and DD24 (post 1106, most notably) and 2) using Handbrake (0.9.4 for ppc). ffmpeg took less than 5 minutes to chew over the slightly-more-than 35-minute, 2.93 GB file. Handbrake was able to create an mp4 file without me fiddling with its controls. The drawback is that it took nearly 7 hours. Handbrake uses ffmpeg but it does compress/mux the file to get it into mp4. The resulting mp4 is 1.27 GB while the "clean" TS file is 3.1 GB. But this is not surprising since ffmpeg is simply copying and "fixing" the mistakes it found.

The bottom line: 1) connecting an external drive to the DVR+ makes it the default storing destination, 2) the drive can be mounted in Macs (and PCs as shown by others), and 3) the files in the DVR+ can be archived, transferred to other computers, and can be made more portable by translating them to other formats.

Now, if I could figure out how to do the same to the files in my DTVpal, I would be a happy camper. Going off topic but bear with me: I can put a Mac formatted drive in a DTVpal and then put it back in the Mac and the Mac still thinks it is a Mac drive, with nary a trace of the files the DTVpal put there. PM me if you have any suggestions on what is going on and how to mount a DTVpal drive as so far I am stumped. (And, no, I am not going to talk to E* about it.)
pachinko likes this.
jmup is offline  
post #4503 of 4517 Old Yesterday, 09:41 PM
Newbie
 
jmup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by P Smith View Post
I did the DVR+ int/ext HDDs tests and posted the result (is it just some sort of conspiracy - Enton's CM-7400 behave same way)
Is this what you are referring to Sr. Smith?

Quote:
- second USB drive doesn't using/discovering/seen by the DVR (the test was to connect 100 GB HDD what was previously used while other 500 GB has been connected to the DVR);
It comes from post #1055. I interpreted that to mean that you were connecting a drive to each of the USB ports. You did not, at the time, had a DVR+ with an internal drive, I think.

Anyway, the date on that post is 01-10-2014 so I had hoped that more than seven months later the revisions of the FW would have addressed the possibility of choosing one drive or the other for recording. Also, I had hoped that CM would have made it possible to access the recordings on both drives by, say, choosing a "source" drive. Alas, no, that's not the case. Or at least I could not find it in the menus.

But Pachinko confirmed these observations by talking to CM. Oh, well, let's hope they take this suggestion and act on it. Or do we have to contact them directly to request that?
jmup is offline  
post #4504 of 4517 Old Yesterday, 10:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,605
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 289
You cannot do anything with the drive from a DTVPal other than use it to record and watch shows with a DTVPal. It uses a proprietary filesystem that nobody is willing to demystify, due to DMCA restrictions.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #4505 of 4517 Old Yesterday, 10:25 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post
OK, it's good to hear that you've already done your homework on that matter. Have you decided w if you are going to replace your old TV or not? I think you will enjoy the experience a lot more if you do...
Oh I'd definetly replace the existing television with a new flat screen. And I'd take the advice that was also offered by someone here to make sure to get one with more jacks than you think you'll need so it's expandable with future devices.

The problem I have now is that I was doing some additional research on the boards of the Roku site and one of the sites that's a deal breaker for me is limited to folks with cable subscriptions. I was willing to cut the cord so long as my family could get ABCFamily through their site. But they've closed it to only folks with a cable subscription that can be verified which is so insanely stupid. To add insult to injury they don't even service Time Warner customers, one of the biggest cable providers in the country, which serves my area. So I need to think about it some more and/or possibly find someone who's willing to lend out their login/id from their provider. It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen a website do and I was so looking forward to telling the cable company to kiss my posteirer...

KB
Kevin Blanco is offline  
post #4506 of 4517 Old Yesterday, 11:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
P Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mediterranean Sea
Posts: 1,949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmup View Post
Is this what you are referring to Sr. Smith?

It comes from post #1055. I interpreted that to mean that you were connecting a drive to each of the USB ports. You did not, at the time, had a DVR+ with an internal drive, I think.

Anyway, the date on that post is 01-10-2014 so I had hoped that more than seven months later the revisions of the FW would have addressed the possibility of choosing one drive or the other for recording. Also, I had hoped that CM would have made it possible to access the recordings on both drives by, say, choosing a "source" drive. Alas, no, that's not the case. Or at least I could not find it in the menus.

But Pachinko confirmed these observations by talking to CM. Oh, well, let's hope they take this suggestion and act on it. Or do we have to contact them directly to request that?
I noted that CM-7400 (Enton) and new CM-7500 [DVR+] (echo*) are both utilize only one drive and behave same way when connecting second drive.
Yes, I did many tests include two USB drives and later did test combinations of int SATA and ext USB ...

Unfortunately for us, customers the two company made decision not in our favor: allow to use ONE drive regardless FW version.
P Smith is offline  
post #4507 of 4517 Old Today, 04:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
SEMIJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: S.E. Michgan
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Blanco View Post
The problem I have now is that I was doing some additional research on the boards of the Roku site and one of the sites that's a deal breaker for me is limited to folks with cable subscriptions. I was willing to cut the cord so long as my family could get ABCFamily through their site. But they've closed it to only folks with a cable subscription that can be verified which is so insanely stupid.
Would you be willing to pay $5, $8 or more per month just for ABCFamily? The "premium" movie channels would cost even more. (Just look at Amazon Prime or Vudu rates for an idea.) Now multiply that by the number of special-interest subscription TV channels. What would happen is two things: Many people would end up paying the same as they do for subscription TV, only with less channels, and many channels would simply disappear for lack of sufficient interest. The sports channels, in particular, would be in real trouble. They would cost many times what they do as part of a package, and there's some doubt even sports addicts would be willing to pay for them in sufficient numbers.

Channels like ABCFamily know this. The subscription TV (cable/satellite) providers know this. So the content providers sign deals with the subscription TV companies and each agrees to maintain the status quo.

Nonetheless: The end may be neigh. See Cord Cutters Grew 44% Last Four Years and Broadband Users Now Outnumber Cable Users at Top Cable Companies

Jim

Last edited by SEMIJim; Today at 10:47 AM. Reason: Eliminated a redundancy
SEMIJim is online now  
post #4508 of 4517 Old Today, 05:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Blanco View Post
It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen a website do and I was so looking forward to telling the cable company to kiss my posteirer...
Sounds like they are telling you to kiss theirs . . .

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #4509 of 4517 Old Today, 07:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamcma View Post
Well, they say people from Channel Master read this, so: these features were standard issue on DVRs years and years ago, so we would all appreciate it if they were fast-tracked on the DVR+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmup View Post
Oh, well, let's hope they take this suggestion and act on it. Or do we have to contact them directly to request that?
I doubt you will see any substantial DVR-related features added to the DVR+ and should consider it feature-complete as it stands. I suspect future additions will be primarily directed at adding Internet streaming channels - just what everyone wants.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #4510 of 4517 Old Today, 09:51 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Internal or External HDD

I am trying to decide which model of CM to buy, the one with the internal 1 tb hdd (7500tb1) or the older one without the internal drive and use an external drive with it. It appears in various reviews that the two models are identical (other than the internal hdd inclusion). Has anyone had experience with both of these models and their responsiveness. Would an external hdd (usb) be slower than the internal drive?


1 TB is more than enough for me, so the option of using bigger drives is not really a consideration for me. I am just trying to decide if I would want a (less clunky) model with the drive already inside or a (more clunky) solution with a separate drive. Any comments or thoughts highly appreciated.
ms801 is offline  
post #4511 of 4517 Old Today, 10:37 AM
Member
 
Arenal04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ms801 View Post
I am trying to decide which model of CM to buy, the one with the internal 1 tb hdd (7500tb1) or the older one without the internal drive and use an external drive with it. It appears in various reviews that the two models are identical (other than the internal hdd inclusion). Has anyone had experience with both of these models and their responsiveness. Would an external hdd (usb) be slower than the internal drive?


1 TB is more than enough for me, so the option of using bigger drives is not really a consideration for me. I am just trying to decide if I would want a (less clunky) model with the drive already inside or a (more clunky) solution with a separate drive. Any comments or thoughts highly appreciated.
Personally, I would go with the model that does not have the internal drive. For the price difference, you can easily purchase a 1TB external drive and still have some nice money left. Additionally, if the external hard drive does die on you, it's extremely easy to replace it. To replace the internal drive, you'll either have to send the unit back for repair or open the unit up yourself.

Additionally, if you're somewhat computer-savvy, with the external drive, you can copy the video files to your PC. (This has been discussed previously on this forum and involves some technical know-how.) Thus, if you think the hard drive is going flaky, you'll be able to back up your videos before the drive totally craps out. Fair warning, the filenames will have no correlation to the name of the show. So you'll have randomly-named files. OR, you could buy another drive, record to it, but use the original drive only for playing previously recorded shows, before the drive totally dies. FYI, the DVR+ can utilize only one hard drive at a time, so you'll need to plug and unplug whichever drive you want to use at that time.

The only upside I can see to the model with the internal drive is that it takes up less space on the shelf and you don't have an another cable laying getting in the way.

Just my 2 cents.
SEMIJim and pachinko like this.
Arenal04 is offline  
post #4512 of 4517 Old Today, 02:29 PM
Member
 
jamez68's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Marrero LA.
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEMIJim View Post
Would you be willing to pay $5, $8 or more per month just for ABCFamily? The "premium" movie channels would cost even more. (Just look at Amazon Prime or Vudu rates for an idea.) Now multiply that by the number of special-interest subscription TV channels. What would happen is two things: Many people would end up paying the same as they do for subscription TV, only with less channels, and many channels would simply disappear for lack of sufficient interest. The sports channels, in particular, would be in real trouble. They would cost many times what they do as part of a package, and there's some doubt even sports addicts would be willing to pay for them in sufficient numbers.

Channels like ABCFamily know this. The subscription TV (cable/satellite) providers know this. So the content providers sign deals with the subscription TV companies and each agrees to maintain the status quo.

Nonetheless: The end may be neigh. See Cord Cutters Grew 44% Last Four Years and Broadband Users Now Outnumber Cable Users at Top Cable Companies

Jim
But isnt it because of cable and satellite we have ABC and ABCFamily, FOX and FX and now FXX? There are many other media conglomerates that have multiple channels, these are only the most obvious. I would rather pay for a few channels of my choosing than 200+ a provider feels I should have. I only have basic cable so that I can watch a few programs on 10 channels and watch/record the broadcast stations OTA, so Im paying $7 per channel now.

My best friend is my PAL
jamez68 is offline  
post #4513 of 4517 Old Today, 02:42 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamez68 View Post
But isnt it because of cable and satellite we have ABC and ABCFamily, FOX and FX and now FXX? There are many other media conglomerates that have multiple channels, these are only the most obvious. I would rather pay for a few channels of my choosing than 200+ a provider feels I should have. I only have basic cable so that I can watch a few programs on 10 channels and watch/record the broadcast stations OTA, so Im paying $7 per channel now.
There is a frequent "crawl" across the screen when watching local channels about the proposed legislation in congress to eliminate free OTA tv. Is there any discussion about that here? I thought there would be but I am obviously not using the proper search terms. I'd like to get more informed about this and, as I said, I thought there would be discussion somewhere here. Link?

Chubby, old guy in Omaha, Nebraska
matonanjin is online now  
post #4514 of 4517 Old Today, 04:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,605
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by matonanjin View Post
There is a frequent "crawl" across the screen when watching local channels about the proposed legislation in congress to eliminate free OTA tv.
What legislation is this? There have been many spectrum auctions, but I've never heard of an initiative to abolish OTA completely.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #4515 of 4517 Old Today, 05:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Well that's my question. What legislation. As I interpret the messages it is not " to abolish OTA completely.". But rather it is to eliminate it being available for free. Somehow to be available only through the cable companies. I realize I am being nebulous about this but that just reflects my ignorance about the subject.

There has to be a discussion about this somewhere.

Edited to add:
I did find this:

Pay TV’s mission is to kill free broadcast TV

Chubby, old guy in Omaha, Nebraska

Last edited by matonanjin; Today at 05:28 PM. Reason: Addition
matonanjin is online now  
post #4516 of 4517 Old Today, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
 
jmanthey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here is the "activist" website: http://www.keepmytv.org/

Joe
jmanthey is online now  
post #4517 of 4517 Old Today, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,903
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 174
My take (often wrong) is this has nothing to with OTA per se. Rather it is about the cable guys having the ability to obtain (differently) and control where they offer the broadcast networks. Which could set off all kinds of retransmission changes and money wars.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...e-broadcast-tv

Last edited by Charles R; Today at 06:15 PM.
Charles R is offline  
Reply HDTV Recorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off