Cablevision preventing Timed DVD Recording - What To Do?

[vhelp]

Cablevision quality is, as some have noted here, poor.

if cablevision quality is as bad as you say, then what do you think the tivo quality will be like when you capture from cablevision with the tivo ? correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it still mpeg-2 ? can you get you hands on some tivo (SD and HD) unprocessed capture samples ? i'd like to see how quality fairs when:

cablevision -> tivo -> sample.mpg
vs.
cablevision -> Magnavox 513H -> sample.mpg
vs.
directv -> hauppauge hdpvr -> sample.ts

i know others have said that the hdpvr max bitrate is 13.5Mbps while other h264 cards go much higher, but i equate the difference being due to the hauppauge using a higher quality h264 encoder chip, thus not needing the higher bitrate than the competitors that max at 30Mbps. the hdpvr has a good quality h264 encoder chip, no doubt.

i've posted samples of my hdpvr, scattered across various posts, but i wouldn't mind posting some new ones of specific channels if it can help in this discussion. directv has pretty decent quality imo.

[hrsweet3]

I plan to revisit my Hauppauge tomorrow. Fortunately, I wrote up a procedure on how to use it! The problem that I am experiencing with Cablevision now is mostly audio skips and they are getting so frequent as to make it hard to understand what is being said. There also are a few video pixel spasms.

Cablevision may be driving me to Satellite and Internet program sourcing. I'd really rather stay with them. I'm not the type that gets mad easily but this business pulling scheduling away really got to me.

[jagabo]

Cablevision quality is, as some have noted here, poor.

if cablevision quality is as bad as you say, then what do you think the tivo quality will be like when you capture from cablevision with the tivo ? correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it still mpeg-2 ?

Yes, the Tivo will "download" and store the exact same MPEG2 stream.

[jagabo]

i know others have said that the hdpvr max bitrate is 13.5Mbps while other h264 cards go much higher, but i equate the difference being due to the hauppauge using a higher quality h264 encoder chip, thus not needing the higher bitrate than the competitors that max at 30Mbps.

Wrong. I've personally compared the Hauppauge HD PVR 2 at 13.5 Mb/s and El Gato Game Capture HD at 30 Mb/s. The Elgato had clearly superior quality. Both were capturing from Blu-ray set to output 1080p60.

[yoda313]

He watches TV maybe once a week, gets all his other info on the internet. He figures he'll save $85/mo cutting his TV service, and won't live with the FIOS nonsense.

I don't get these people that are ditching tv altogether.

I guess these aren't sports watchers.

You really can't do sports online well.

At least not something like football (american football). Unless the big ten network and fox (the ota fox for Lions Football) have a streaming app I would have to have tv for that at a minimum.

Throw in hockey and thats another must for tv. The Red Wings are only on the local fsn station - and nbc during playoffs.

I don't know how you can watch sports reliably online. About the only thing I know for sure is the espn app on the xbox 360. I know there is the nhl and mlb packages you can do on the ps3 and xbox but are these completely live?

I did look into doing it for mlb for the playoffs last year as they threw some Detroit Tiger games as a mlb network only deal - although I'm not really a baseball fan - I was researching it for my father who is a baseball nut.

But they were delayed on the console so you could only do it live on the cable network - I didn't check the pc however. And I don't know if they'll do that again this year or not - the delay that is. I'm sure they'll have more mlb exclusive playoff games again which really sucks. I hope the nhl doesn't do that or I'll end up having to sign up for another contract deal.

Sorry to go off topic there but i just had to broach the subject about sports and watching tv online only.

[Novice20]

Cablevision quality is, as some have noted here, poor.

if cablevision quality is as bad as you say, then what do you think the tivo quality will be like when you capture from cablevision with the tivo ? correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it still mpeg-2 ?

Yes, the Tivo will "download" and store the exact same MPEG2 stream.

The poor quality from cablevision is not, as best I can tell, from their feed per se, but rather from their poor quality DVR recording. I don't recall the skin color problem when recording live feed to the MAG. It appears that it's the DVR which is poor; the feed just sends across the cable the poor quality of what was already recorded,

[usually_quiet]

Cablevision quality is, as some have noted here, poor.

if cablevision quality is as bad as you say, then what do you think the tivo quality will be like when you capture from cablevision with the tivo ? correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it still mpeg-2 ?

Yes, the Tivo will "download" and store the exact same MPEG2 stream.

The poor quality from cablevision is not, as best I can tell, from their feed per se, but rather from their poor quality DVR recording. I don't recall the skin color problem when recording live feed to the MAG. It appears that it's the DVR which is poor; the feed just sends across the cable the poor quality of what was already recorded,

The recording stored on the DVR probably is not poor quality itself. Digital cable DVRs that record to a hard drive capture the tuned MPEG-2 transport stream, just like a TiVo would. Something is wrong with the DVR output. Check the HDMI settings on the DVR if you are using HDMI to connect to the TV. YCbCr usually works better than RGB, If that isn't the problem, maybe your DVR is defective and needs to be replaced

[sanlyn]

Well, no....their DVR is garbage. I get SD on my Toshibas from the SD box that looks better than CobbleVision's or Fios' DVRs, even when I blow-em up on my plasma. And my Hauppauge is even better. When I see Castle's Stana Katik turn green and grimy on their DVR's and her eye dissappear in the muddled shadows, I don't want to watch.

[usually_quiet]

Well, no....their DVR is garbage. I get SD on my Toshibas from the SD box that looks better than CobbleVision's or Fios' DVRs, even when I blow-em up on my plasma. And my Hauppauge is even better. When I see Castle's Stana Katik turn green and grimy on their DVR's and her eye dissappear in the muddled shadows, I don't want to watch.

Your DVR may be a big, steaming pile of manure, but the recording stored on the DVR is not the problem. The recording itself is a perfect copy of the transport stream received from CableVision. The way the box plays it back causes the problems both you and the OP are seeing.

Maybe the OP should look into the new Samsung CableCARD device, if it is released, as a possible alternative to a cable box. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478317/samsung-cablecard-stb-dvr

[jagabo]

Maybe the OP should look into the new Samsung CableCARD device, if it is released, as a possible alternative to a cable box. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478317/samsung-cablecard-stb-dvr

And with the acquisition of Boxee it looks like they're getting serious.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/video-streaming-service-boxee-bows-to-a-tv-manu...cturing-giant/

[Novice20]

Now you've lost me The Cablevision DVR recording is not in my box/ house - it's on their server. The Cablevision feed is just what they've recorded on their server. While their "live" feed may be fine it can't improve the poor quality of their server/DVR recording that they feed to through my cable box.

[usually_quiet]

Now you've lost me The Cablevision DVR recording is not in my box/ house - it's on their server. The Cablevision feed is just what they've recorded on their server. While their "live" feed may be fine it can't improve the poor quality of their server/DVR recording that they feed to through my cable box.

You did not make it clear how you were recording until now. At one time Cablevision rented DVRs with a hard drive to of their customers. I have seen the hardware they provided for that purpose pictured on their website.

In theory, Cablevision's recording service only needs one copy of a recording to serve the needs of everyone who wants to watch it. They may be copying the live stream as is and storing on that their server without further processing, then streaming it back to you untouched. It is also possible they are converting recordings to make the files smaller then re-converting to MPEG2 before streaming them back to you. There is no way for you to tell for certain without talking to someone at Cablevision who knows what is happening. My guess is you will never find that someone through the customer service department.

... and I also have my doubts that sanlyn is correct about the reason for the problem with the one episode of "Castle" he is complaining about. I recall seeing something like that happen with an episode of that show watching ABC live in HD using the clear QAM tuner on the TV.

[sanlyn]

Cablevision's DVR's are crapola. Even given the junk noise cable providers broadcast, my Hauppauge HD PVR puts their cheap DVR's to shame.

And I can add those PVR recordings to my video library.

[usually_quiet]

Cablevision's DVR's are crapola. Even given the junk noise cable providers broadcast, my Hauppauge HD PVR puts their cheap DVR's to shame.

An actual cable DVR that stores programming on an HDD does not re-encode, but stores the video and audio stream it receives as-is without converting it to another format. The DVR's output should not be much different than a cable box's output when the recording is replayed, when using the same type of outgoing connection for both the cable box and the DVR, particularly if the same company made both of them around the same time.

The HD-PVR accepts an analog component signal that has been converted from a digital MPEG-2 transport stream by a cable box, and digitizes it again to H.264 transport stream for output. The picture you get when playing back the HD-PVR recording may not look much different than the original MPEG-2, but if you think the recording process could possibly have improved the picture over the original MPEG-2, then you have learned nothing from your time here at VideoHelp.

[sanlyn]

Yes, yes, we know. Forgive me. I forgot. Analog bad. Digital good. Always. No exceptions.

Ah! Then it's not a recorder. It's a...........

[usually_quiet]

Yes, yes, we know. Forgive me. I forgot. Analog bad. Digital good. Always. No exceptions.

Ah! Then it's not a recorder. It's a...........

And your TV screen doesn't really display as analog RGB, it displays as.........

And your loudspeakers send digits flying across the room to your digital ears.

Right.

I guess you slept through physics class. I'll refresh your memory. Analog video signals are not the same thing as visible light waves, nor are analog audio signals the same thing as sound waves. Analog and digital signals are abstractions that provide a means of reproducing a natural phenomenon, but neither is perfect for that purpose. I'll take digital for the most part, though. It doesn't suffer so much from noise introduced in the signal.

[sanlyn]

My god, man, I'm so ffffing sorry for having an opinion on this stuff. Tell you what, I'll reserve judgment on everything I see and hear until I get the physics from you first. In the meantime, it seems to me your hearing and sight are either impaired or conditioned by too much bad media, and your standards are just about low enough to keep the mass market boys laughing all the way to the bank. I have no intention of joining the crowd.

[usually_quiet]

My god, man, I'm so ffffing sorry for having an opinion on this stuff. Tell you what, I'll reserve judgment on everything I see and hear until I get the physics from you first. In the meantime, it seems to me your hearing and sight are either impaired or conditioned by too much bad media, and your standards are just about low enough to keep the mass market boys laughing all the way to the bank. I have no intention of joining the crowd.

You are entitled to your opinions, even if science and mathematics don't support them. Your snobbery is showing again. My doctor seems to think my sensory perception is fine for my age.

[Brad]

I have noticed that the HDMI output from my Motorola DVR is horribly edge-enhanced in 480 mode, making the low-bitrate SD into a blocky mess.

Copying the stream from it over Firewire and playing it in VLC produces a much more pleasing image. Haven't tried the analogue outs.

[usually_quiet]

Copying the stream from it over Firewire and playing it in VLC produces a much more pleasing image.

I agree that Firewire is a great way to go, because it allows the MPEG-2 stream from the channel being tuned to be captured directly. Too bad it isn't an option for everyone. I haven't seen a Firewire port on a cable box, which is what the OP has. Instead of a real DVR, the OP is using a recording service that lets subscribers watch their recorded programs on demand using their cable box.

[sanlyn]

You are entitled to your opinions, even if science and mathematics don't support them.

Sorry, UQ, but your science doesn't support the empirical results. If you think cheap circuit boards in cheap DVRs and cheap Ethernet wire support the intentions of the technology, you're not being scientific...you're being naive. Digital video has "no noise"?. Even the science itself doesn't support that mythical argument. Your undying faith in theory apparently has madfe it difficult for you to make your own empirical observations. I do wish there were a/v products and production practices that lived up to the supposed ideal. I realize you're just having fun with this and don't believe a word of your own baloney, but do you really expect me to believe that the light waves being output by a TV monitor aren't analog phenomena?

Your snobbery is showing again. My doctor seems to think my sensory perception is fine for my age.

Interesting comment. Expecting quality after paying for it is snobbery? Your expectations are lower than I thought. What are you doing in forums like this, helping to lower the bar for all concerned?

For your age? LOL! Maybe your doc should check you in person instead of using a webcam. To say that you are able to detect image and sound coming from your a/v setup is a rather primitive standard, science or not.

[usually_quiet]

You are entitled to your opinions, even if science and mathematics don't support them.

Sorry, UQ, but your science doesn't support the empirical results. If you think cheap circuit boards in cheap DVRs and cheap Ethernet wire support the intentions of the technology, you're not being scientific...you're being naive. Digital video has "no noise"?. Even the science itself doesn't support that mythical argument. Your undying faith in theory apparently has madfe it difficult for you to make your own empirical observations. I do wish there were a/v products and production practices that lived up to the supposed ideal.

At least quote me accurately. I wrote " I'll take digital for the most part, though. It doesn't suffer so much from noise introduced in the signal." I'll stand by that.

Since you need empirical observations, I'll give you one. I have two recordings of the same SD material from the same channel made with the same recording device. The difference is that my recordings from the analog version of the channel are grainy compared to recordings made from the digital version of the channel. In both cases, my cable provider started with a clean, digital satellite signal. That digital signal was subsequently converted to an analog signal for the analog channel, and MPEG-2 for the digital channel. Both signals would have picked up the same degree of noise on the way to my home, but the recorded picture for the analog version of the channel was grainy as a result, while the recorded picture from the the digital version of the channel was nice and clean and crisp.

I realize you're just having fun with this and don't believe a word of your own baloney, but do you really expect me to believe that the light waves being output by a TV monitor aren't analog phenomena?

Of course I know that light and sound are waves, not ones and zeros. However, you somehow fail to grasp that analog signals, like digital signals have to be converted to a different form before we can perceive them. Since you are so fond of empirical observations. Stick the end of an RCA stereo cable in each ear. Do you hear any sound coming from them? Stare at a the ends of a component cable. Do you do you see a pretty picture emanating from them?

Your snobbery is showing again. My doctor seems to think my sensory perception is fine for my age.

Interesting comment. Expecting quality after paying for it is snobbery? Your expectations are lower than I thought. What are you doing in forums like this, helping to lower the bar for all concerned?

You have called yourself a snob in the past. I'm not saying something about you that you haven't admitted to. ...and how does insulting anyone who doesn't agree that the small amount of improvement one gets from using high-end A/V gear is worth paying 5 times the price of ordinary A/V gear "raise the bar" around here?

For your age? LOL! Maybe your doc should check you in person instead of using a webcam. To say that you are able to detect image and sound coming from your a/v setup is a rather primitive standard, science or not.

Actually, my doctors do see me in person in their offices, where they run the standard tests for vision and hearing to make sure I have not developed a serious problem since the last time I was examined. If any person over the age of 50 thinks that their hearing and vision have not declined since their 20s, they are almost certainly lying to themselves. My prescription for astigmatism is not much different than it was in my thirties when I got my first pair of glasses. I do need reading glasses or bificals now, which is not unusual for people over 50. I don't need hearing aids yet.

[sanlyn]

I'm indeed a snob when it comes to buying equipment. Of course, there are such things as bargains.

However, I don't think the performance you're offering as "examples" are evidence of bargain goods. I think it's more likely a sign of the cheap hardware you love so much. Perhaps you should consult a few informed but more subjective reviewers rather than look only at prices.

I don't have the problems you describe. I don't say my SD recordings look like HD recordings, because obviously they can't and won't. But if you're getting grainy SD playback, you might want to trade out for better stuff.

[usually_quiet]

I'm indeed a snob when it comes to buying equipment. Of course, there are such things as bargains.

However, I don't think the performance you're offering as "examples" are evidence of bargain goods. I think it's more likely a sign of the low-price-priority hardware you love so much. Perhaps you should consult a few informed but more subjective reviewers rather than look only at prices and trust everything to science that delivers less than advertised.

I don't have the problems you describe. I don't say my SD recordings look like HD recordings, because obviously they can't and won't. But if you're getting grainy SD or analog source playback, you might want to trade up for better stuff.

My recordings were produced by a Panasonic DVD recorder, so its analog tuner was a rather good one. The grain present in the picture from the analog cable channel was there to be recorded only because the signal was degraded on the way to my home. If the signal were not degraded on the way to my home, the picture would have been as clean as the picture from the digital channel.

If your saying I need a recorder with better DNR, DNR exists only because it is necessary to clean up the noise that is prevalent in analog signals.