I've just bought one of these darned things today, and I now seriously regret it. Just goes to show, never believe the glowing reviews. This product is a pile of pants. Within the first 5 minutes use I found these flaws..... 1) Not able to switch language track in a movie on USB or over DNLA 2) Audio output is Stereo only over HDMI!!!!! No Dolby!!! 3) All movies display as "stretched", everyone in my movies is long and thin (incorrect Aspect ratio). 4) every time the box is rebooted Subtitles come on!!! This is driving me nuts. I'm taking it straight back to the store. I wish I'd never bothered. Before anyone comments about using SPDIF, my Sony surround system prioritises to the HDMI sound where it is present. Since there is no way to disable this on either the box or my surround I am stuffed. My particular Sony amp does offer limited remapping of the Analog audio channels, but not to the SPDIF. This product is not an improvement on early Humax boxes. DON'T BUY!
My Humax Forum » Freesat HD » HDR 1000, 1010, 1100S
Just bought HDR-1000S - MAJOR FLAWS
(9 posts)-
| Fri 1 Mar 2013 19:45:13 #1 |
-
No problem with ac3 (dolby digital) over hdmi. Sounds like you imagine Dolby Digital always is in 5.1. In fact most HD transmissions are broadcast in DD 2.0 (Stereo). The only guaranteed all 5.1 is the current BBC-HD preview loop. If you are going to post a major rant you ought at least to get your facts correct.
To set the record straight - Dolby Digital (aka ac3) is a digital compression system with the capabality to transmit up to 5 full frequency discrete audio channels plus a restricted low frequency extension channel (lfe). DD2.0 (stereo) is still Dolby Digital.
Simple question if 6 channels are not present in the broadcast why do you expect them to be available ?
Incidentally the HDR-1000s in addition to ac3 5.1 also is capable of playback of aac 5.1 in addition to ac3 which makes the box capable of playback of 5.1 content from Freeview-HD via DLNA or USB.
It's true the media player capability currently lacks the capability to select from multiple audio tracks (as far as I can tell). It's hardly a major deal breaker, it's not the box primary purpose. If you want a full featured media player then you should buy one. Pvrs are built as pvrs, the large scale chips they are based on will never match the capability to handle the much larger options that these devices can handle. They are designed to work with the aspect ratios used in broadcasting which these days is mostly 16:9.
| Fri 1 Mar 2013 20:31:50 #2 | -
you would of been better buying a laptop and just connecting it to you t.v .
You didnt do you home work very well just like me with films on usb but i downloaded a converter for audio and its now perfect so stop blaming hardware you didnt read up on fully| Fri 1 Mar 2013 21:05:25 #3 | -
My hdr was a mistake as well. just sent this to humax
Hello
I have an hdr 1000 which to be honest hasn't lived up to expectations since buying it on the 30th of October. It got rave reviews and I bought it direct from Humax expecting something special. I have just been speaking to your support dept after my iplayer has gone of completely. In addition the hdr is telling me theres a software update but when I try to update it I'm told download failed even though I have 30mb download at the hdr. Your support agent sent me details of how to update the software via a usb stick and you latest beta software. It installed fine but a still don't have iplayer. I was told then told it may take at least a month before you have a new software sorted that may fix the problem. In addition the other software which you claimed was " coming soon" since I bought it has yet to come!Can you confirm it will take a month or so for the software as if this is the case it will be boxed up and sent back to you for a refund as its not fit for purpose and under consumer legislation you will have to refund me. I have also recently installed BT infinity purely so we could use the iplayer and now the Humax wont work.
Not good.| Fri 21 Jun 2013 16:24:01 #4 | -
Firstly, You need to update your software either Over The Air (OTA) or a shorter update via Internet (if you are connected). The I player works fine, the ITV player currently has less resolution (down to ITV) . Most are very happy with their purchase - what software version are you on?
| Fri 21 Jun 2013 18:25:26 #5 | -
Updated software to latest version and it still doesnt work. Spoke to 2 different agents at Humax and told it will be about a month before I get iplayer back. We went through all gthe options and tests. Reset and new firmware but still nothing. Several people have the same problem. Not good for a £300 Box. Its going back to Humax in a couple of days. Getting my Sky back in which was trouble free for 12+ years. The sky also has the 2 options that my 1000s said are " coming soon" Just simply not good enough in this day and age! Big mistake buying this.
| Thu 27 Jun 2013 18:08:29 #6 | -
Not sure under what section of consumer legislation you think you are entitled to a refund? The box is over 6 months old so it is now up to you to prove an inherent fault. Furthermore Humax are entitled to offer you a repair in the first instance not a refund. If they cannot repair the box or unable to replace it then you could ask for a refund which would be on a pro-rata basis.
I'm assuming you will have to pay Sky for the package. 12+ years subs to Sky as against a £300 outlay for the Humax, you do the maths.
| Tue 2 Jul 2013 22:28:03 #7 | -
Faust - 23 minutes ago »
Not sure under what section of consumer legislation you think you are entitled to a refund? The box is over 6 months old so it is now up to you to prove an inherent fault. Furthermore Humax are entitled to offer you a repair in the first instance not a refund. If they cannot repair the box or unable to replace it then you could ask for a refund which would be on a pro-rata basis.
I'm assuming you will have to pay Sky for the package. 12+ years subs to Sky as against a £300 outlay for the Humax, you do the maths.What about 'not fit for purpose' or 'not as advertised'.
This box was sold under the pretext that there would be 4 catch up services available (two six months ago but with the promise of the other two coming soon) to date that promise has yet to be fulfilled.
Then there is the advertised DNLA capabil;ity, which doesn't work. I think there's a good case for a refund after 6 months. How long should you put up with 'coming soon' which is still the case re catch up services with C5.
Is this another case of defending the indefensible?| Tue 2 Jul 2013 23:03:32 #8 | -
sorbiegunnerou - 3 days ago »
Faust - 23 minutes ago »
Not sure under what section of consumer legislation you think you are entitled to a refund? The box is over 6 months old so it is now up to you to prove an inherent fault. Furthermore Humax are entitled to offer you a repair in the first instance not a refund. If they cannot repair the box or unable to replace it then you could ask for a refund which would be on a pro-rata basis.
I'm assuming you will have to pay Sky for the package. 12+ years subs to Sky as against a £300 outlay for the Humax, you do the maths.What about 'not fit for purpose' or 'not as advertised'.
This box was sold under the pretext that there would be 4 catch up services available (two six months ago but with the promise of the other two coming soon) to date that promise has yet to be fulfilled.
Then there is the advertised DNLA capabil;ity, which doesn't work. I think there's a good case for a refund after 6 months. How long should you put up with 'coming soon' which is still the case re catch up services with C5.
Is this another case of defending the indefensible?We now have 4OD so only waiting for Demand 5 which is we're told due before the end of summer. I use my NAS as a server with the 1000s as the client so again DNLA appears to be working OK.
If you are saying it is not fit for purpose then the onus is now on you to prove that. You would have to obtain an engineers report, the cost of which you can reclaim from the manufacturer if your claim is backed up.
I'm simply pointing out consumer law, so not trying to defend anything.
| Sat 6 Jul 2013 22:32:57 #9 |
Reply
You must log in to post.
