In that case, why not encrypt the timeshift buffer too.

I really can't see that Freesat's contractual obligations were designed to render a live pause facility useless. Isn't live pause part of the Freesat+ spec anyway? It's up to the manufacturer to make it work. It is a bug if, in the implementation of one part of the spec, they render another part useless. Their implementation of the the live pause buffer is flawed.

How do the other PVRs handle live pause?

If they did that then SD recordings would also be encrypted, as I tried to explain they would have to treat the buffer recording differently according to the channel and it's drm flags. The Fox-HDR T2 does encrypt everything which requires it to be removed on archiving to usb so there's currently no way to avoid the lengthy usb and decryption overhead and more annoyingly no way to allow direct access using a network to the recordings. I know which approach I prefer .

I have the buffer recording capability on a Topfield 5800 which apart from testing I have never used. Series recording makes it very easy to set up a real recording on anything that looks interesting.

Personally I can't see the point of random flicking through channels and then recording content that looks vaguely interesting, eac to his/her own of course

We might be talking at cross-purposes! I'm talking about the live pause bug, I think you're talking about the request to be able to record the live-pause buffer?

Both are related but yes there is an argument that the box ought to continue recording the buffer after the programme terminates provided of course the tuner is not required to make a scheduled recording. The downside is how long do you continue recording. The current arrangement starts at the beginning of the buffer at the start of a new recording maintaining the single programme duration capability. It's also true that the buffer space is now much larger than is needed to maintain a 2Hr buffer for HD channels due to the lower bitrates used for HD channels than were used at launch.

In any case instead of pressing pause for the first time on a channel you are viewing rather than recording why not just press record instead. This has two advantages:

You can be sure that a tuner is available and will be available to the end of the programme. When recording two and watching a 3rd (unless both recordings happen to be from one transponder) then time shifting is not available anyway.

After pressing record and then accessing the ongoing recording from the media list you can pause, rewind, skip and fast forward within the recorded content with impunity.

Isn't it true that the original concept of pausing a live stream on either Freesat or Freeview for that matter, was simply to allow a quick replay of sporting events (for example) or to allow you to "go put the kettle on" and/or obey a call of nature?

It seems to me that the various manufacturers' differences in implementation of such a facility is really about the subsequent handling of what came BEFORE that point in the live stream? Am I right and just what are the requirements of the spec anyway? (For Freesat+ or Freeview+)

In the case of the Humax Freesat HDR (&HD) that "handling" involves making sure that the 0.ts buffer tracks the active stream immediately it is switched to so that following pauses have something to "play" with. In this case, the pause is just about instant and usually, if you started watching the program from the start, you can fast rewind also.

Sony however, on my 860 anyway (Freeview), do things a little differently (it would seem) in that when you hit pause on a live stream, buffer record begins from that point and actually a lot of other controls are "locked out" for at least 90 secs before you can do anything more; including "play" so that sufficient data is built up in the buffer. Of course this means that in this case "replay", as such, doesn't work and that's probably by design because I don't think that the 860 satisfies the Freeview+ spec anyway (its old now) but I'm not sure.

That's a good tip actually but when you do this on the HDR, do you know if it automatically copies the relevant portion of the buffer (if available) to the new ongoing recording so that the show is as complete as it can be? (if you see what I mean...)

I'm sure the "definition" of live pause is just to allow you to pause and resume if you are interrupted.

It can be extended by manfacturers I guess if they want to by always recording to a buffer so that you can actually rewind and start from the beginning if you've been held up in getting to the TV. This you cannot do using the "Record and Chase Play" method.

It's a further extension to allow the buffer to be saved as a normal recording. While people might find it extremely useful to do this, it is certainly stretching the definition of what live pause was meant to be.

I'm not sure about the tuner argument - Freesat TVs with only one tuner, and indeed PVR-ready receivers with only one tuner, still allow you to to live pause by using a USB memory stick. Of course, with PVRs, if the live pause clashes with a recording then live pause can't be made available.

However, none of this excuses the bug that if you use live pause on a Humax you lose the end of the programme unless you catch up to real time before the live programme finishes! Yes, the "Record and Chase Play" method can be used instead, but this isn't quite as simple and intuitive as Pause and Unpause is it!

Perhaps the problem with the Humax is that they've considered the live pause buffer as only allowing one programme to be held, whereas due to the nature of live pause (you're behind real time...) you are bound to get into the situation where you're still viewing one programme after the next programme has started. This surely is a fundamental flaw in the implementation of their live pause - it just won't work. If they only want to store one programme then what they should do is stop recording once the next programme has started and allow you to finish watching the current programme, NOT wipe the current programme and start recording the next programme. Otherwise just continue to record to a buffer until you press Stop or catch up to real time.

No it only records from the point you press record. The ability to rewind the buffer and then press record is the facility that's missing from the beta firmware.

Possibly, but the Humax does not even handle that properly, does it?

If you pause a programme for 15 minutes you're not going to see the end of it.

Exactly, that's my point!

(I had neglected to quote the question I was referring to - "Isn't it true that the original concept of pausing a live stream on either Freesat or Freeview for that matter, was simply to allow a quick replay of sporting events (for example) or to allow you to "go put the kettle on" and/or obey a call of nature?")

Only if you're recording the programme though, surely.

You can just watch the recording instead of pausing.

Yep, that about sums up the issue.

I was extremely impressed with the Humax HDR, when first released. It compared very favorably to the Sky HD implementation, despite Sky having had years to tweak its platform. However, as time has gone on I have had less and less time for the box. What's most annoying is that one proper bug fixing release, and not a particularly large one, would sort it all out.



I agree with the above. But, given this, isn't it a bit rich for Barry to get his nose out of joint because a punter questions whether a fix has been implemented correctly. The skepticism was perfectly understandable, more particularly as Humax stated previously that a bootloader upgrade was required.
Pity he isn't as passionate about customer service and pushing for the outstanding issues to be fixed.

Absolutely echo hillel's comments, particularly the final para . . . which for me furthers the mystery of gentleman B's position: employee? mate of employee? mother of employee? hovering beatific entity? Is it blasphemy even to ask?

Not useful - the source was not a Humax employee - try getting another mnfgr to release 'unofficial comment"

No but your comments bely a total ignorance of the real situation.

I have read Barrys comments for a long time in his role as a moderator on Hummy.Org. In all that time he has never posted information that he was allowed to by Humax that in the end proved incorrect.

He is not employed by Humax but does have excellent and trusted contact with Humax's managerial staff.

http://myhumax.org/forum/topic/new-f...e=376#postform

When a moderator on Hummy.org he was responsible for posting lots of scoops, like the multi remote control channels for Humax HD kit. Thanks to the incompetence of hummy.org owner much of this info is lost perhaps for ever.

Put yourself in his position it ought to be obvious that he had access to the latest beta firmware for the hdr. To find a post that dismissed the main feature of the firmware that he knows as working correctly rubbished (and incorrectly) would annoy anyone so not surprised as to his reaction. If the poster had posted the details correctly rather than assuming he was right and Humax was wrong then I know he would have posted the flaw as he did in My.Hummy.

In conclusion you ought to reconsider your comments clearly made from a point of absolute ignorance of the real situation.

How we were meant assume its obvious he has access to the latest beta? I work for a company and have access to beta software. So imagine the scenario where I have a mate who doesn't work for our company but is also very friendly with my manager at work - should everyone then assume that me or my manager are giving our mate beta copies of the software just because he knows someone in management

Also lets say that he did have access to the beta earlier than the rest of us, we could then also assume that he has had access and is using the latest v7.54 of the bootloader which has not been released as a download (but has been reported as being in the current production units).

Humax spokes person (Bob_Cat - an employee) stated numerous times that the powercut bug could not be fixed without a bootloader update and surely he would be privvy to more information than a "friend" of the management (even though in this case that information turned out to be incorrect). The Humax release notes also stated the bootloader is at v7.54 so it followed that if there was still a power cut issue it was likely to be the bootloader that needed updating.

I didn't rubbish any claims it wasn't working as I had not tested it myself (I did incorrectly state "some members" instead of "a member" - for which I hold my hand up ). I was just querying whether v7.54 of the bootloader should have been included with the Beta firmware as the complete fix for the power cut issue.

I'd have kept quiet if I'd have known it was going to cause this much hassle.

Ouch thats a bit harsh. In the "Hummy.org is back" thread (in the announcements section over on Hummy) Mike explains the problems he has had and he asks that if you feel the need to slag him off then please do it on his own site.

I recall that Bob_Cat used the word might require a change to the loader.

Exactly correct he observed it might be required. clearly in the end it was not.

How is that related to the fact that none of the hummy.org data was ever independently backed up over several years. The site also went down before with no prior knowledge and a marked lack of information. The site administrators and moderators were left completely in the dark, this is long before Mike's personal problems for which I offer sincere condolences. I have no idea if it was the site owners fault so observing this loss of data should not have occured is not in any way a personal attack

Why do you think My Hummy had an exclusive announcement of the release for general testing of the V15 beta. ?

Why was Barry the only one to have details of the Multi channel remote capability of the HD pvrs. ?

Ahem...



Edit: Just noted the bit above (I have highlighted in bold). I hope that means they have implemented it properly and not fudged it

It's fixed, Barry said it was and also that the new boot loader was not required. Both correct so he does know more than a Humax employee. What's the point of this ?

I agree the data should have been backed up. However I think he should have a chance to defend himself before being called incompetent (especially as you then retract by stating you have no idea whether it was actually his fault).

There are really two different concepts here
"Live Pause" which records from the time the button is pressed
and
"Live rewind" which has a buffer recorded as soon as you tune to that channel and can rewind into that buffer at any time.

So the Sony has "Live pause" and the Humax has "Live rewind"