I have now by passed aerial amplifier
signal strength comparison
mux 9200T hdr2000T
49 52% 27%
50 50% 25%
54 n/a 28%
55 52% 26%
58 52% 26%
59 52% 25%
31 n/a 0%
Like other tests carried out. Signal strength reported by HDR-2000T is approx half that of PVR9200T
grahamlthompson - 2 hours ago »
Ironically picked up during a autotune because the new box has more sensitive tuners.
What gave you the impression that HDR-200T had more sensitive tuners? Certainly at the lower end of the scale it has less 'sensitive' tuners. What is does have is auto-tuning that is misleading. The HDR-2000T auto-tuning is not helpful like the latest HDR-FOX T2 software. In fact the HDR-2000T auto-tuning is misleading as it asks which region you want and then goes ahead and does the same thing regardless of which region you select. This can result in weaker channels than expected. Until this gets fixed the HDR-2000T will need to be manually tuned to be sure of being tuned correctly.
I did buy a HDR-2000T but took it back for another reason (4:3 aspect selection having no effect and no I am NOT the person who ranked the HDR-2000T on amazon as 1 star due to that fault). When I bought the HDR-2000T I had been expecting its ability to pick up poor signals to be inferior to a pre-2013 HDR-FOX T2 or a 9200T. The reason I was expecting the tuners to be less sensitive was because the latest versions of the HDR-FOX T2 appear to have been made with the same tuners as the HDR-2000T and there have been reports that the tuners on these latest HDR-FOX T2s were not as sensitive. What I did not know for sure was if these reports were being based on just the inbuilt metre readings or by actual comparison of the TV picture using border-line signals.
After I bought a HDR-2000T but before I realised that there was an issue with the 4:3 aspect selection I ran some experiments to see how the strength of the HDR-2000T compared.
The first was to look at the signal strength metre. Although the HDR-2000T was showing a lower strength than the HDR-FOX T2 that does not necessarily prove anything at all. Different models even within the same range have been known to report a difference in strength. I.e. there is not a standard calibration and therefore one model’s 49% may be the same as another model’s 60%.
Secondly I set up my aerial into the HDR-FOX T2 so that it could just pick up one of the SD mux’s as watchable if you don’t mind an occasional pixilation. The aerial was then moved over from the HDR-FOX T2 RF input to the HDR-2000T’s. The HDR-2000T was unwatchable to the extent that you couldn’t even tell what sort of programme it was. I then moved the aerial back to the HDR-FOX T2 to check that the reception hadn’t just changed. The reception hadn’t changed as the HDR-FOX T2 ws still watchable. The next thing I did was to check that the HDR-2000T was receiving from the same mux as the HDR-FOX T2. Phew – it was.
I then switched to my more usual aerial and transmitter and daisy chained the aerial signal. With this set-up HD can sometimes get interference on my HDR-FOX T2 . The HDT-FOX T2 was picking up all channels OK, but although the non-HD channels on the HDR-2000T appeared fine the HD channels did not even make a squeak. I reversed the aerial daisy chaining and the situation remained unchanged with the the HDR-2000T unusable on HD.
There was not anything wrong with the tuners of the HDR-2000T as I’d expect a similar digital cliff edge if I were to use a vestel. It is just that the HDR-2000T are not so ideal as the 9000T series or original HD/HDR-FOX T2 in reception border line areas or where the aerial system is lacking.
I had to to fit an attenuator to my HDR FOX T2 to get reliable HD channel reception. The tuners in the newer boxes are likely to be of better quality simply down to progress. Like most things electronic scalers, encoders, encoding codecs are better than they used to be. The scaler in my £100.00 Blu-ray player is a lot better than my Denon 1920 DVD player. When new the Faroujda scaler in the Denon was state of the art. Out of interest dug out my old 9200 from the loft and checked the signal. Much the same results as the HDR FOX T2 (I don't have a HDR-2000T but would imagine it's going to be similar.
Samnatjoshdan - 55 minutes ago »
I have now by passed aerial amplifier
signal strength comparison
mux 9200T hdr2000T
49 52% 27%
50 50% 25%
54 n/a 28%
55 52% 26%
58 52% 26%
59 52% 25%
31 n/a 0%
Like other tests carried out. Signal strength reported by HDR-2000T is approx half that of PVR9200T
Did you still get 100% quality ?
According to Humax Towers the HDR 2000T tuning is the same as the latest release for the HDR T2 which appears to be correct from my tests.
I can pick up 3 transmitters, and both the HDR T2 and HDR 2000T correctly tune in the strongest signals from one transmitter - I used to get a mixture of all 3 previously, and therefore had to manually tune.
grahamlthompson - 26 minutes ago »
I had to to fit an attenuator to my HDR FOX T2 to get reliable HD channel reception. The tuners in the newer boxes are likely to be of better quality simply down to progress.
Humax have always had quite sensitive tuners compared to other manufacturers which was very desirable prior to analogue switch off. I wonder if the new tuners are a bit less sensitive?
grahamlthompson - 52 minutes ago »
Samnatjoshdan - 55 minutes ago »
I have now by passed aerial amplifier
signal strength comparison
mux 9200T hdr2000T
49 52% 27%
50 50% 25%
54 n/a 28%
55 52% 26%
58 52% 26%
59 52% 25%
31 n/a 0%
Like other tests carried out. Signal strength reported by HDR-2000T is approx half that of PVR9200TDid you still get 100% quality ?
I do get 100% quality.
The only reason I started thinking signal strength was problematic was because I had a couple of failed HD recordings in early hours of morning (recording failed : lack of signal). All my SD channels recorded ... just failed HD channels.
Have scheduled multiple programs for early hours tomorrow to test it out again.
If it records everything I set then great .. then i'll keep and use with backroom TV. (not ideal as its not compatible with my main sharp aquos LC-60LE651K TV)
Martin Liddle - 3 hours ago »
grahamlthompson - 26 minutes ago »
I had to to fit an attenuator to my HDR FOX T2 to get reliable HD channel reception. The tuners in the newer boxes are likely to be of better quality simply down to progress.Humax have always had quite sensitive tuners compared to other manufacturers which was very desirable prior to analogue switch off. I wonder if the new tuners are a bit less sensitive?
The HDR-2000T is less sensitive for weak signals. My long post #12 was to expalain this. I could have made it longer with more detail of my comparison between an old HDR-FOX T2 and the HDR-2000T!
I wonder if the signal was increased more and more whether an old HDR-FOX T2 would win out over an HDR-2000T or a recent HDR-FOX T2.
Barry - 4 hours ago »
I can pick up 3 transmitters, and both the HDR T2 and HDR 2000T correctly tune in the strongest signals from one transmitter - I used to get a mixture of all 3 previously, and therefore had to manually tune.
The HDR-2000T asks which transmitter you want to store the auto-tuning for. It then ignores your choice entirely. If what it did was to store the strongest mux then why ask for which transmitter to store?
Or are you on a new release of the software for the HDR-2000T?
An HDR-FOX T2 using 1.02.32 or 1.03.06 also asks which transmitter to store from and takes that into account. The choice of transmitter tales precedence over which mux is strongest. Which software version for the HDR-FOX T2 are you using?
You must log in to post.
