Channel Master DVR+ Owners Thread - Page 151 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 90Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #4501 of 4521 Old 08-19-2014, 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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4502 of 4521 Old 08-19-2014, 10:25 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6
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 #4503 of 4521 Old 08-19-2014, 11:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
P Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mediterranean Sea
Posts: 1,951
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 #4504 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 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; Yesterday at 10:47 AM. Reason: Eliminated a redundancy
SEMIJim is offline  
post #4505 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 05:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 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 #4506 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 07:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 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 #4507 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 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 #4508 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 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 #4509 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 02:29 PM
Member
 
jamez68's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Marrero LA.
Posts: 24
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 online now  
post #4510 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 02:42 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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 offline  
post #4511 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 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 #4512 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 05:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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; Yesterday at 05:28 PM. Reason: Addition
matonanjin is offline  
post #4513 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 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 offline  
post #4514 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 09:27 PM
Senior Member
 
L David Matheny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by matonanjin View Post
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
I wasn't familiar with the legislation in question, but that article helps. If (what is now) OTA TV is made available only through the cable companies, or if cable companies are allowed to take over the advertising revenue, then free OTA TV has been effectively abolished. The programming that broadcasters transmit isn't owned by the broadcasters or by the cable companies; it's owned by the content creators and paid for by embedded advertising. Broadcasting is just a delivery system that competes with cable and Internet. Everything else is going wireless these days, which makes sense because wireless technology eliminates much costly infrastructure, so why would we want to eliminate the oldest wireless technology we have? Part of the current push is just a spectrum grab, and the rest is just cable companies trying to eliminate their competition. If broadcasters give up their licenses or have their licenses or their ad revenue stripped away somehow, they'll be left with nothing of real value.
L David Matheny is offline  
post #4515 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 10:24 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post
Sounds like they are telling you to kiss theirs . . .
Yeah I guess they are telling me that Kelson... Didn't even think about it at the time I was writing my post, I was just so annoyed...
Kevin Blanco is offline  
post #4516 of 4521 Old Yesterday, 10:43 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
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. 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?
First I'd love to see cable go ala-cart. There's so many channels now and seemingly less than ever that's worth watching. I live in the Dallas area and I can remember years ago when I lived in actual Dallas proper, the cable company actually would let you build your own package with channels you could select and those you could decline. Gosh I miss those days...

I think if consumers demanded ala-cart and the cable/satelite providers actually followed through (which I don't think they ever will...), then we'd find out very quickly which channels are really important enough to remain on and which are just showing crap and would fall by the wayside.

As far as this elimination of OTA channels, I'm sure the cable, satelite providers and contect creators would love to see this happen and if it's serious then they're probably behind it. Personally I doubt OTA will ever go away, but if cutting the cord seriously finds traction, I've heard about this jump of 44% as of late, then it'll lead to a vicious circle. Providers will both loose revenues and find it harder to negotiate with content creators. They'll inevitiably pass along the costs and more folks will just cut the cord only moving the circle further along. Content creators would concievably have to settle less cable companies drop them instantly limiting their reach.

Now I've heard for years and years that they'd like the consumer to go pay-per-view for their programming. Years ago it was through a set top box / descrambler but now I guess it could just be through your smart television that would descramble the signal. But you'd literally pay per episode of whatever program you wanted to watch similiar to how you rent something from Amazon or Itunes. Now that's something I cringe at when thinking about it.
Kevin Blanco is offline  
post #4517 of 4521 Old Today, 01:20 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,607
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 250
None of this has anything to do with the box. Let's stick to the topic, please.
Kelson, kwg and matonanjin like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #4518 of 4521 Old Today, 06:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
None of this has anything to do with the box. Let's stick to the topic, please.
You're absolutely correct and I apologize for taking taking it off track. I just wanted to sneak in a post to find out if there might be a discussion of my topic somewhere.

Sorry.

Chubby, old guy in Omaha, Nebraska
matonanjin 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