Official DVICO TViX M6620N HD (ATSC/QAM) Tuner Topic - Page 56

Nearly 25% of the US is not connected to the internet. Just because you are not connected does not make one a 2nd class citizen. I do not have a smart phone and really do not have a need for one. I do have a iPad and a few other electronic toys, just click the links in my signature line .

Unless you want to broadcast the cable signal out your antenna using a splitter (in reverse), you would connect the two items through an A-B switch. You need to do your own assessment of the value of having both OTA and digital cable (raw QAM) connected. I would connect the cable to your TV to see what comes though to judge if this worth your effort. If the only digital QAM is QVC, INSP, and HSN, it might not be worth it. Additionally, you will have to see if there are any channel conflicts that would make the whole project a waste of time.

Just speculating, but you have some work & reading to do.

Also, I get 140 digital clear QAM channels. All my local channels are analog, SD and HD. But all cable feeds are local.

Pretty sure most people on the forum have some sort of internet access.

I think you would have to buy two of them. Using an A/B switch like Joe suggests would let you feed both signals into the DVR, but it only allows you to have one channel map at a time. As a result, you'd probably have to do a channel rescan every time you wanted to switch, because the options menu lets you select only air or cable, and not "both". The PHD-VRX will let you use both at once because it has 2 RF inputs, but if you read the topic on that unit, it's so buggy that half the time it doesn't even record what you tell it to, which makes it pretty useless. Someone who uses both QAM and ATSC may be able to debunk this post, but I think that's how it works. Neither DVRs nor TVs themselves seem to come with dual RF inputs these days, most likely as a cost-cutting measure. Manufacturers assume you're not going to use multiple signal sources.

 

Hmmm. Again, not quite true.

With that in mind, there are no "stand alone" DVR's since they have to be connected to something; an antenna or a CATV drop to work.
I believe the term "stand alone" means a single box, no other box and no PC involved. Considering you have been to the VRX thread, how can you state that?? Again, there is also TiVo.

As for VRX:

Consider the original post:
"I have basic cable, which only offers an analog signal. I also have an OTA antenna for HD broadcasts. Can the PVR M6620N record the analog signal from the cable company and the HD signal from the antenna at the same time?

The audio signal from the OTA broadcasts is sometimes sent out in Dolby 5.1. If I record a broadcast that is in Dolby 5.1, will the PVR replay in the same audio format?"

For the answer to the first: no.

For the answer to the second: only via optical at this time.

Actually, Joe, you can send the 5.1 AC3 via HDMI as well, as long as your audio processor can handle that.

I was referring to the PHD-VRX, not the TViX.

From that thread:
"2. Major audio problem with HDMI (This is a big issue): The PHD-VRX converts all audio streams to 2.0 PCM over HDMI. When a channel contains 5.1 Dolby Digital the PHD-VRX will send 2.0 PCM instead. There absolutely needs to be a menu audio option that allows 5.1 Dolby Digital audio from ATSC and QAM channels to be streamed over the HDMI output so that consumers can use this product with a modern A/V receiver that allows HDMI switching. On a Digital HD cable box and Digital HD satellite receiver 5.1 Dolby Digital is always sent over HDMI when connected to a A/V receiver"

Sorry if I was not clear or if I am wrong.

An antenna is not a box.
Would you have been happier if I had said, "Neither functional DVRs nor TVs themselves seem to come with dual RF inputs these days"?

I can live with functional. It is strange how many posts I see with users that have both cable and OTA. Now, since most OTA has few subchannels, the quality might be higher and major metro areas give you options and OTA has great appeal. One could say that OTA is a legacy video stream, with all the streaming media. At least it's not boring.

Never said it was. You completely missed the point. Sounds as some legal technicality that a corporation would got off the hook by. The DVR is "functional". It might not be what we expected it to be, but it does function.

I have Comcast internet and I can get the local channels with the qam tuner in my tv. With the PVR M6620N would I be able to record 2 channels at the same time from my comcast line?

Yes.

has the TVIX HD M-6620N Plus been discontinued?
yes I am talking about the Minevox (formerly DVICO)
its just because of the Back-order ETA 7/25/12
maybe never?
Edited by etrin - 8/20/12 at 5:39am

There are other authorized resellers that still have them in stock, but the model has probably been discontinued, because the price is increasing from what it was a few months ago.

what was the going price when it was discontinued?

I got mine for $270 in March. They're now selling for $325. Both prices are not including the HDD, which you must buy separately.

$320 now on flea bay.
Really pricey for a OTA only recorder w/o a HDD.

Pricey: yes.

Cable: yes.

Yes, pricey if all you seek is HDTV (OTA or cable, as Joe indicated) playback and recording. But the price includes ability to play many other video formats as well. I'm sorry to see it (apparently) go away, as it's the best DVR+video streamer in my half-dozen years of experience with the genre.

I might modify the pricey to "perhaps". Given the alternatives, what else is out there except the "t"?

I would say something, but I won't.

Real sorry state of affairs. Funny, there were VCR's from just about everyone and a selection that satisfied anyone. DVR's just the opposite.

I agree but I think that the manufactures say EVERYONE has cable or sat box and its not something that will sell.
And if they can't do better than the channel master which most seem to think is worse than the old unit they discontinued.
BUT they are looking for a premium price etc.

I looked on ebay and wifi one is $349 and $320 without.
Not sure if wifi is needed.

As usual, wrong on both counts. They are too lazy to educate the general public. All they want is a easy buck. As I already posted. And no, WiFi is not. Run your own cat5/6 line. Much cheaper, less issues, total security, no interference.

WiFi is built in.

The WiFi isn't built in; you have to attach the included antenna to one of the USB ports on the back. I noticed those cheaper WiFi-free units earlier, but the only way I could think of to make them that way would be if the reseller was opening the boxes and removing the antennas to sell them somewhere else (unless DVICo was willing to ship units without the antennas).

You're right. I remember that the USB ports are above the RJ-45. Senior moment.

Hi Folks

I decided to buy one of these babies, based on readings I had done about a year ago when I decided to build an HDTV antenna. The antenna only got completed a couple of weeks back and in anticipation of that I ordered one. Since receiving it I have had to catch up on all the recent discussion and the penny has dropped: no more firmware updates and the M6620N has quite a few bugs that desperately need to be fixed. I was beginning to think I had made a big mistake shelling out $300 plus shipping (I did not need the Wi-Fi version). But, to be fair I have got most of the features working (I.e., those that are reported on this forum to work!), and really I am quite happy with it as a self-contained, low-power alternative to an HTPC,

I have read several posts indicating a willingness of the TViX community to work on the firmware, if Dvico/Minevox (D/M) were to release the source code into the public domain. I'd be keen to get involved in such a project (though, as you might guess from the time it took me to build my antenna, I really need another project like I need a hole in my head).

The question I am posing is: What can we do to persuade D/M to release the source? It seems there is a large consumer network out there, and D/M probably don't have much to lose in IP if they were really to think about it... I.e., they would probably gain as much in terms of improved firmware routines (potentially for other products) as they would lose by making them available for public inspection. We could try to set up a distributed working group that could allocate specific bug-fixing tasks to avoid un-necessary duplication of effort,

Anyone have any further thoughts about this? Am I out to lunch thinking this is even possible?

I can't see that happening. This isn't the only DVR that members have offered to write code for the problem ridden firmware. I don't doubt there are legal issues somewhere.

These Asians don't and can't seem to understand our culture and needs as we don't theirs.


typos
Edited by videobruce - 12/13/12 at 3:41am