The great Dreambox recording experiment

[frenchman]

Right here are two files one is of a movie from my relook sat box, a 2gb recording, and the other is from the 500c using DW 1.6.5.

Frenchman

 

[señor ding dong]

Right here are two files one is of a movie from my relook sat box, a 2gb recording, and the other is from the 500c using DW 1.6.5.

Frenchman

Thanks, frenchman. The Father Ted recording is a bit grim, though not the worst I have seen. The Mission Impossible One has far less frames with errors, "only" 85 for 1 hour and 10 minutes, but many of them coming in fairly big chunks, and ideally, there really shouldn't be any at all, of course.

 

[wizbit77]

it is a bit of a mare to connect my dreambox 600pvr to my computer due to distance, and the relationship problems such a disruption causes. I have made several recordings from the movie channels using the settings exactly as Mr Dude sets out in his tut. And they are great, perfectly watchable.
There are some minor issues with ghosting. When you use the pause or fast forward it can have a little fit but most of the time great. When I manage to get the wifi set up i'll forward on the results that you need for your scientific test.
Good luck
an analytical view of the performance will benefit us all.
Wizbit

 

[cryogenic]

recording on my dm500c was always 99%, although I'd replaced the caps on the ethernet when I got it (dream used the wrong value caps according to chip manufacturer specs.
I also used neutrino but I can't post any info as my dm500 got fried (for other reasons)

 

[osborne82]

recording on my dm500c was always 99%, although I'd replaced the caps on the ethernet when I got it (dream used the wrong value caps according to chip manufacturer specs.
I also used neutrino but I can't post any info as my dm500 got fried (for other reasons)

u know uv started something now heheh everyone will be asking bout the network fix

here it is for anyone intrested

You don't have permission to view the code content. Log in or register now.

cheers

osborne82

edit: uploaded spec sheet of ethernet chip set used in dm500 page 67

 

[señor ding dong]

recording on my dm500c was always 99%, although I'd replaced the caps on the ethernet when I got it (dream used the wrong value caps according to chip manufacturer specs.
I also used neutrino but I can't post any info as my dm500 got fried (for other reasons)

Sounds interesting, as the lack of "live" breakup struck me as curious, which suggested things might get lost in the transfer part, and which could also explain why IDE recordings appear to be more stable. Could you expand on what replacing the caps means?

EDIT: Ah, Osborne seems to have come up with something.

Hmm, can't really say I fancy performing surgery on my box just to get it to record properly. I might just ditch the 500 in favor of a 600 or maybe even a PCI based HTPC setup.

 

[señor ding dong]

it is a bit of a mare to connect my dreambox 600pvr to my computer due to distance, and the relationship problems such a disruption causes. I have made several recordings from the movie channels using the settings exactly as Mr Dude sets out in his tut. And they are great, perfectly watchable.
There are some minor issues with ghosting. When you use the pause or fast forward it can have a little fit but most of the time great. When I manage to get the wifi set up i'll forward on the results that you need for your scientific test.
Good luck
an analytical view of the performance will benefit us all.
Wizbit

Ghosting is not a recording issue, and the few, short 600 recordings I have had a chance to test have been flawless. They probably weren't long enough to say conclusively, but it certainly seems to suggest that its IDE recordings are much better than what the 500 can deliver via LAN.

 

[pt-1]

I think the limitations lay within the 500s Hardware specs. I remember MGB posting something a while ago that compared to the Dbox were every Function has it's own dedicated chip in the Dream the still faster processor has to do everything on it's own.

Maybe it is time to post in the Dream's own Forum and ask the users there but of course only using legal Images.

 

[señor ding dong]

I think the limitations lay within the 500s Hardware specs. I remember MGB posting something a while ago that compared to the Dbox were every Function has it's own dedicated chip in the Dream the still faster processor has to do everything on it's own.

Perhaps. I think at the end of the day it could be a combination of things, both signal and network issues, as some channels seem to produce considerably less errors than others. A few weeks I tried an experiment with the BBC HD channel, where I recorded a few minutes via Direct File and monitored the bandwidth while it recorded. It never made it past 10mbit, and the channel averages around 17-18mbit. Needless to say, the recording was full of errors. I then tried the same with DboxWinserver, and watched the bandwidth go up to the expected 17-18mbit levels, and the recording was fine, so there appears to be some fundamental issues with the Direct Record method in general. This was on an Enigma image, btw. Neutrino starts coughing up blood when I switch to the HD channel.

Maybe it is time to post in the Dream's own Forum and ask the users there but of course only using legal Images.

I had a look over there some time ago, and there were many posts where people had the usual problems on playback, which many put down to network issues, but which in my experience will typically be caused by corrupted recordings, although they could very well have been corrupted by network issues to begin with.

 

[Ebro]

OK, here are 2 examples from my 600. I have Gemini 3.5 installed. Both half an hour each, taken last night.

 

[señor ding dong]

OK, here are 2 examples from my 600. I have Gemini 3.5 installed. Both half an hour each, taken last night.

Heh, thanks Ebro. I could tell just from the filesize they were going to be good. Perfection, in fact. Only one corrupted frame each on the MPEG end sequence, which is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Ebro]

OK, how many of you guys want to swap over to the 600PVR now... We have good quality recording available.. LOL

 

[señor ding dong]

OK, how many of you guys want to swap over to the 600PVR now... We have good quality recording available.. LOL

To be honest, between incomplete channel scans, most people needing boosters, and now a dramatic 3rd strike against the 500's recording abilities, it's hard to recommend it even over a Dbox2, and it's really only the 600's slightly unreasonable price point that seems to go against it. I'm just going to wait for a few more 600 tests to confirm that you haven't got some sort of magic box, but your results do echo what I have seen in the past with shorts tests as well, so I'm just about ready to drop my 500.

 

[dweeb4]

Could you expand on what replacing the caps means?

I believe that the caps are between the ground and supply pins of the chip and if not high enough in value (1uF instead of 4.7uF) will cause power supply fluctuation to the chip i.e. an unclean power supply which could well cause all manner of issues/glitches.

 

[frenchman]

What we need now is someone brave enough to try the mod out and post back the recording log, it won't be me as I would end up welding them alltogether

I am assuming that the 600 results are recorded direct to the internal HDD and not over the network?

Frenchman

 

[Ebro]

Yes, direct to local drive. I have no need to record to NAS anymore.

 

[alarmeng]

Sorry for that late delivery

Here you go dude

 

[señor ding dong]

Here you go dude

Thanks. Another flawless 600 recording, and a very long one too. I think that about settles it, and it's safe to say the 600 rocks, and the 500 sucks.

 

[dweeb4]

I'm willing to try a before & after mods recording as I sling a bit of solder in DIY audio but first I need to get my 500C connected to my laptop. I'm new to this so bear with me.

 

[lagigolo]

Anybody tried recording on a 600 across the network to see if any errors occur then.

Just thinking about cryo's network post.