ATI stopped using clock speeds as a measure of performance with their Athlon CPUs since so many other factors come into play. If this is strictly an HTPC, then I wouldn't worry. ATSC tuners simply dump the HD data to disk so there is no encoding by the CPU. Similarly, the HD signal doesn't need much post-processing during playback, e.g. up-scaling. This is also true for NTSC tuners with hardware MPEG encoders.

But your system will falter in multitasking other applications, if you will also be surfing the Net, listening to music, ripping DVD/CD, downloading files, checking email, editing photos ... Then a dual-core really shines.

For comparison, my Windows MCE 2005 HTPC is built around an Athlon 64 X2 3800 with 1GB of memory, an HDTV Wonder and an All-in-Wonder X600 Pro video card. MPEG encoding of SD is done in software. I have no trouble recording two programs while watching a previously recorded HD broadcast.

If this is strictly an HTPC, then I wouldn't worry. ATSC tuners simply dump the HD data to disk so there is no encoding by the CPU.

---

But your system will falter in multitasking other applications, if you will also be surfing the Net, listening to music, ripping DVD/CD, downloading files, checking email, editing photos ... Then a dual-core really shines.

Awesome! :D Thanks :)

Although it'll be a combo HTPC and a websurfing/burning/etc PC considering it's CPU I assumed that it'd be smart to leave it in HTPC mode while watching TV.

However if I find I'll want to timer record a lot of stuff from OTA HD I'll end up picking up another cheap off lease PC and make the one I'm on now strictly a HTPC.

My big concern was if I should return the card within the remaining 13 days of Best Buy's return policy if in order to use it I'd need a PC powerful enough that isn't as cheap as an off lease.

As Michael said, watching ATSC requires very little processing power - in fact, depending on the video card in your computer, it may be (nearly) zero.
Recording would be similar even without a video card with hardware MPEG-2 decoding if you have a program that does "silent recording" (can't remember if WinTV does - I know watchhdtv does)
That basically tunes the channel and saves the data stream, but doesn't do any decoding to view it - very handy if you are in the middle of something on the PC and dont want to waste processing power playing the stream when you don't want to watch it.

If you will be doing a lot of SD tuning/recording with your 1250, your processor will probably not cut it (at least on the higher quality settings), as it takes a fair amount of power to do the software encoding.

As Michael said, watching ATSC requires very little processing power - in fact, depending on the video card in your computer, it may be (nearly) zero.
Recording would be similar even without a video card with hardware MPEG-2 decoding if you have a program that does "silent recording" (can't remember if WinTV does - I know watchhdtv does)
That basically tunes the channel and saves the data stream, but doesn't do any decoding to view it - very handy if you are in the middle of something on the PC and dont want to waste processing power playing the stream when you don't want to watch it.

If you will be doing a lot of SD tuning/recording with your 1250, your processor will probably not cut it (at least on the higher quality settings), as it takes a fair amount of power to do the software encoding.

Wild that HD uses so little compared to SD. I had no idea.

Once I take it a shop to get it installed (or figure out how to do it myself) I'm planning on using Watch HDTV as well.

I'm actually using a stock HP DX5150 SFF using XP Pro so the "video card" is the onboard ATI Radeon Xpress 200 series (according to Everest). I never thought about a video card so I hope that'll be enough...

I won't be using this for any NTSC channels btw - just ATSC HD and perhaps sub channels.

You should be fine with just ATSC then,
I was using my old Compaq laptop before upgrading and it worked fine with watchhdtv - A64 3200 and the xpress 200m chipset. :)

I was using my old Compaq laptop before upgrading and it worked fine with watchhdtv - A64 3200 and the xpress 200m chipset. :)

Awesome to see you were working with actually the same specs and it worked fine - tis a small world.

Plus, even if I do decide to ditch my standalone Funai made SD PVR I'm thinking if I picked up another card down the road with hardware encoding, from what I've read earlier in this thread, it'd work and I'll have the free PCI slots to do it in a desktop.

Thanks for all the advice and info all! :) It has been appreciated.

Recording ATSC requires little CPU power but WATCHING ATSC USES CPU CYCLES. As mentioned, it depends on the video card and if you have the right codec that unleashes its power.

Note : the HVR-1250 is NOT intended for ANALOG recording.

By the same token, it is very much program dependent, you most likely won't get smooth playback with the WinTV software but WatchHDTV with the right codec/video card combo should work just fine. And all these are non-issue for almost any dual core cpu.

HVR-1250 is the most impressive card I have for ATSC given the price.

HVR-1250 is the most impressive card I have for ATSC given the price.

Hey PPL! It was actually your recommendation over @ RFD that made me decide to get the 1250 when I ended up getting a PC with a PCI-e.

Reading as I go here, think I got the card thing sorted out for what I need but let me run my setup by all the folks a little more in tune with tuners.(feel free to :rolleyes: )

I have a Bell HD Receiver. The reason I assume why this or competing offerings won't work to record HD via a HVR-2250 is simply because HD is output over component, not coaxial and the internal cards only accept coaxial inputs as opposed to HD-PVR which accepts the component?

Assuming I am on the right track and need the HD-PVR. I plan on integrating the Bell receiver with the HD-PVR and using it with Sage. If I need 2 tuners ie record 1 program while watching another how do I accomplish this with the listed equipment? (the Bell receiver has 2 tuners but unsure if using the external HD-PVR nullifies the ability to take advantage of it)

I have a Bell HD Receiver. The reason I assume why this or competing offerings won't work to record HD via a HVR-2250 is simply because HD is output over component, not coaxial and the internal cards only accept coaxial inputs as opposed to HD-PVR which accepts the component?

That's exactly it.

Assuming I am on the right track and need the HD-PVR. I plan on integrating the Bell receiver with the HD-PVR and using it with Sage. If I need 2 tuners ie record 1 program while watching another how do I accomplish this with the listed equipment? (the Bell receiver has 2 tuners but unsure if using the external HD-PVR nullifies the ability to take advantage of it)


If you want to record two channels, you'll need two HD-PVR's. (see condition below)
If you want to watch one and record another, that depends on the receiver's functions. If it's just a receiver, why does it have two tuners? PIP? Dual outputs?
Depending on if it can display to two separate devices or not will answer this question. (i.e. can you output one channel over component and another over [insert second output method here]?)

Well it's the Bell dual tuner HD PVR, 9200 If I recall it has 3 tuners of sorts. You can record 2 programs and watch a third. No idea if I can incorporate this into Sage. I don't care about the ability to record 2 feeds, just as long as I can record 1 and watch another but at the same time upgrading to WHS/Sage in my mind should only cost money, not features. I can't see myself spending an additional $500 just to be able to replicate what the Bell PVR can do out of the box. I may have to play with it but if anyone has any experience using the the HD-PVR with the 9200 your input would be appreciated.

The Rogers 8300HD also can record two shows at once - but you can only get access to one of the tuenrs on the component outputs. Using HD-PVRs and Sage is expensive but is MUCH more functional and elegant than a cable company PVR - I liken it to the difference between a Lada and a Lexus. (I have not used the Bell PVRs but the Rogers one has one someone called "Soviet-type of sofware and UI")

Hi All,

I've been reading some good stuff about the hvr-950q, and was thinking of buying one, but the hvr-950 is on sale at dell.

The 950q has the 6th gen receiving chipset, but does the 950? (I don't need clearQAM, but do need 6th gen)

thanks!

Old 950 isn't as good as the 950q.
Good tuner nonetheless, but it's 5th gen.

Thanks for the advice, I picked up a hvr-950q over the weekend, and I'n getting better results than my older Dvico HDTV5, which has a previous gen chipset.

Interesting, where the Dvico would show between 1-5 bars lit up in Media Center signal checker, the new hvr-950q seems to jump from either 1 bar (no picture) to 5 bars, perfect picture, with nothing in between, which I think is a result of a better 'lock' on channels (I guess).

Still having trouble getting weak channels, but the new tuner is an improvement.

(fwiw, I decided to get a 6th gen USB tuner since my tv's tuner was getting channels my older, USB tuner wasn't)

Yeah, that's how my 950(old) and 1250 are.
It will only register a certain amount below lock before it just 'gives up' and says zero.
So when it's 'zero' signal, it may really be like 25%, but it needs 50% to lock.
Once you get to like 40% it will start to register again.
Just a quirk of their chipset, I believe.
Or a different way of viewing signal strength, as opposed to other types that software is designed around. (If this happened in wintv, though.. something's up. Wintv could always distinguish between 1 bar and 10 bars in the channel scanner)

If you want the best measure of signal, use the meter from hauppauge. You'll get SNR values.
My tuners lock at around 17-18 SNR, with max around 32.
Your newer gen should be able to pull in a higher SNR than older tuners on the same line, but I believe it will still have a similar cutoff point.

Hi All,

I've been reading some good stuff about the hvr-950q, and was thinking of buying one, but the hvr-950 is on sale at dell.

The 950q has the 6th gen receiving chipset, but does the 950? (I don't need clearQAM, but do need 6th gen)

thanks!
I have a 950q and it doesn't recieve nearly as well as my Samsung TV. Are you sure it has a 6th generation chipset?

I have a 950q and it doesn't recieve nearly as well as my Samsung TV. Are you sure it has a 6th generation chipset?

Don't forget there are two parts to a DTV receiver (the tuner and the decoder). The chipset only refers to the decoder. The quality of the tuner also has an effect on reception.

I have the 1600 and a samsung and the samsung out performs in reception everytime it will receive when the 1600 is needing an extra 25 to 30% more signal?:)

I have finished building my rig with the Gigabyte MA78GM-S2H and it is running great so far.

It will be hooked up to a Sony 42" LCD with no other video sources other than direct coax into the TV (no Shaw box on theis set).

I am debating whether to bother with a tv tuner card at all.:confused:

Q1) I am looking at the Hauppage HVR-1600. To get any clear QAM with Shaw (if any but there were some at one point) will I have to split the signal and run coax to the analog input on the card and the other to the ATSC for the sub channels and open QAM?

Q2) I like the idea of just using WMC soley without switching inputs on the TV just to go back and forth from videos on the rig to the TV tuner to watch TV. I am also missing a guide with the direct coax input.
I am concerned that the video quality from the card will look poor and make me switch back to the direct input.....so why bother Can anyone comment on this?