Indeed, when Freeview comes to my area next year my local transmitter at Newhaven (like many other relay transmitters) will not even include the full Freeview line-up.

A dish offers so much more...

Automan.

LOL! (I'm not laughing at you - I'm laughing because I thought of posting something similar - albeit a little more gentle - but decided not to bother).

I did wonder at Graham's post, especially the "(requires a free firmware patch)" tagged on to the end of one feature (which of course applied to several of them). A little unfair of him not to mention that this "firmware patch" is a hack that presumably voids your warranty.

While parts of the Humax hack seem stable (e.g. ftp), parts of it don't work as they should (e.g. DLNA with Sony TVs), and parts can create so many problems that "normal" users (who won't ever read Digital Spy, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to type this!) should probably avoid them (e.g. the channel editor).

The three main boxes all get you the same free channels and let you record them. Some are more hackable. Some have more features. Some have nicer GUIs. Some are more user friendly. It's not a crime to prefer any of them.

Some people upgrading from Sky seem to have more negative comments about the Humax than other boxes (maybe it's the ease of use?) - but the vast majority of owners of the Humax, Echostar, and Samsung STBs seem to be happy with these boxes now.

Cheers,
David.

It's a licensing condition to use the data.

Don't get your hopes up - the BBC applies very strict licensing conditions to implementers of iPlayer outside the PC world. So any STB or TV that has iPlayer is likely to protect HD content in the future.

You can always build your own PC-based device. Then it can do whatever you like. But then you won't have access to the HQ encoded-for-TV versions of the iPlayer streams which, for anything filmed in 50i, look far better than those 25p stuttery field-merged conversions that are available on the PC.

Cheers,
David.

The only feature mentioned in the list that requires a firmware update is the media server as mentioned. None of the others require any modification to the standard firmware of any description. (Which one did you think required the box to be modified ?) Bit of a moot point as to the warranty, as it's easily reversible anyway.

I have the Hummax 320 and love it. If I was getting a Freesat recorder now I would get the Samsung, no brainer really as it is much more up to date. However I have no plans to change. I may be tempted by a Freesat YouVeiw box if such a thing ever gets made.

No auto padding, no manual recording capabilty, as yet no archive to usb.

A what?

Edit: Penny drops: Not a 9200T, not a 9300T but a Foxsat HDR with a 320GB HDD.

I just sold my 320gb Humax for £170 on ebay (It got 75 watchers in 2 days so there's still massive interest in them!). Cost of the Samsung 500gb - £170 with cashback, so yeah a no brainer really, I'm getting the Samsung. Funny thing is I bought the Humax on ebay 3 weeks ago for £100 on ebay because the seller did a really crappy listing!

No, sorry, you're right - one required a screwdriver and the other required third party software (but not on the box). You didn't mention the hack's channel editor as a feature. Probably just as well


What, you can delete files from a HDD without leaving a trace? Who do you work for, NASA?! Whether Humax would care is another matter. You'd hope, with any obvious hardware fault, that they'd just cough up - though I suppose they could claim that streaming content to multiple devices simultaneously is not what the box was designed or sold for.

Cheers,
David.

Personally I wouldn't buy a PVR without auto-padding, because I think Accurate Recording is too unreliable. But many people could live quite happily without the three features you mention, and some don't use them even when they're available. Also, the Humax implementation of auto-padding is flawed enough to put some people off using it who might otherwise use auto-padding.

The Humax implementation of Accurate Recording is also flawed though. Take your pick and lose either way.

err so what. I couldn't give a toss about any of these and remember I have the Hummy.

We are in the Freesat recorder section, discussing the merits of a Samsung and Humax freesat recoders and you are confused by the phrase Humax 320 (as opposed to the newer Humax 500). >Insert here some highly derogatory remark to suit<

The Humax ain't the only one with auto padding & manual recording (archiving to usb is a moot point legally, especially HD stuff, innit?)
Our Sxxxm does both fine, as well as easily setup favourite lists (that includes non-freesat channels), just thought a pause in the Humax vs everyone else scenario....

So what have you actually managed to stream to using upnp (apart from a PC running XMBC)?

I would like to be able to stream to my Samsung TV, but it appears that the TV does not like the format.

Given you mis-spelt Humax as well as omitting GB from the model description and that it is common for people to post in the wrong section and sometime not even know what box they actually have then clarification was in order.

Well in another place there is a thread on supported clients, the ones I am using have * next to them, some are via upnp and some just by mapping network drive to it :
- AC Ryan HD mini (media streamer) *
- HiSense 1080 media streamer *
- Windows 7 PCs (using media centre and VLC) *
- Windows XP (using VLC) *
- iphone (Buzz application)
- Ipad (AirVideo app)
- ASUS O!Play HD1 (media streamer)
- Apple TV (jailbroken)
- WD TV (media streamer)
- PS 3
- Xtreamer
- Android devices (Skifta and vplayer apps)

Thats not a bad list. Most TVs and BluRay players have really patchy format support, they don't play the Humax recordings on a USB stick either, at least my new Sony only plays some of them - its not in their interest to support a full range of formats.

I know the idea of a firmware patch (even though its just a matter of putting it on a USB stick and booting the HDR) is slightly scary but its the only way you're going to see these features on a Freesat recorder - they have very strict rules that the manufacturers must lock down their machines and not allow such things.

The HDR may be getting on a bit now, but after more than 3 years it still has the best set of features (if you apply the patch).

So what it would hardly cause confusion with a spelling mistake. Also I did not make the clarification you did. For all you new I could have been talking about a different model. However, given the context it would have been particularly obtuse of someone to have got that far in the thread and then be confused. You were trying to come across as an all knowing smart arse. Jog on kid.
I

I admit to my original confusion and you accuse me of me of being a smart-arse? What a weird world you inhabit that considers people who are sometime slow on the uptake as being at the brighter end of the scale.

That's a strange thing to say. Why would Sony sell more TVs if they supported fewer formats?!

The choice of codec (audio and video), the choice of muxing, and the delivery method (DLNA/UPnP vs USB vs fileshare) is a real minefield.

Worse, the exact coding parameters are outside the control of the STB. The BBC could change their HD coding tomorrow in such a way as to remain compliant with the MPEG and Freesat specs, while straying beyond what certain hardware (or decoding software) is capable of. I'm not making this up - they've done it at least once before.

That's why the best DLNA server implementations should have a transcoding or at least re-muxing module built-in to match the format to the destination. Sadly this is very rare for now, but DLNA and some silicon vendors have been pushing this approach recently.

Cheers,
David.

I may be being very unfair on them ... but I suspect the TV/BluRay vendors of adding DLNA on as a "badge" so they can get a tick against it on reviews, and of not trying hard enough to cover the numerous formats.

My HiSense media player (dirt cheap, quite old now, quite nasty build feel, no active support or recent upgrades), doesn't have any problems at all with playing these files so why should a fairly high end, brand new TV/BluRay ?

Even on formats it does play my new Sony BluRay (BDP-S480) appears to hang for nearly two minutes before playing MP4s from my DLNA NAS device, thats just rubbish.

This is why I have my suspicions that they aren't trying very hard.

Sony have a history of hating formats they don't own, but they have been getting better in recent years (they have no choice really)

Meh, internet myth passed around by idiots with selective memories.... They will remember formats like Beta, Minidisc and ATRAC and they totally ignore formats like cassette, CD, DVD and Blu-Ray all of which Sony had a major part in realizing...

... Didn't you just reinforce his point .... Sony had a hand in those technologies and therefore supported them well.

SONY were not great supporters of the Compact Cassette format (which was invented in the 1960s by Philips) until the latter part of the 1970s. In the early to mid 1970s they poured money and research into their rival and ultimately doomed Elcaset format.