Review of Manhattan RS-1933

[stone1150]

A PCI tuner using a transport stream analysis tool. With the incomplete memory writing of fairly large audio channel signals with the Manhattan, that's what it takes to find out the PID values needed to define other signals.

For the christian radio one, I'll see if my other non-PCI receivers can use more than 20 audio channels. I know the Unity 4000 (?) or 5000 can because that's what the christian radio stations use but that is commercial and not consumer.

I think that says it all right there.... The Pansat 9200 is a higher end receiver. And if that can't get it........ And the unity is as you stated, a commercial receiver. So the statement

"Your attached pics were of the channel list. My methodology uses the TP List
because in the TP list, it's one entry per signal. In the channel list, it can
be one channel entry per signal or 100 channel entries per signal so it's not a
fair way to evaluate a blind scan if your blind scan test misses a 15 channel
signal, "

And the one that was made in the beginning.....

My main interest in this receiver was the blind scanning because I got tired of
having to do the manual method involving a few steps to figure out Symbol Rates
and try them with my DVB-S2 receivers in order to try to find new DVB-S2
signals. Contrary to the denials in some of the Manhattan threads, this
receiver at this point is DEFINITELY is not for the hard-core FTA'er but rather
for the one who just wants to scan in a group of channels such as the
internationals or religious on Galaxy 19 and do the occasional rescan for new
channels.

The blind scan function of the receiver is awful. On a
fairly light use Ku-band satellite (SatMex 6 Ku), there are 17 known lockable
(DVB-S/DVB-S2) signals and the receiver found 14. That is not too bad (82%
found) but it's missing a few of the ones with video services.


Where this thing really was poor was a high density, mixed DVB-S/DVB-S2 bird
like SatMex 5 C-band. Out of 48 known lockable (DVB-S/DVB-S2) signals, the
Manhattan blind scan only found 18 for a found percentage of 38%.

I
then tried the dull Galaxy 19 Ku-band sat (dull as in every transponder with a
video or audio signal is transponder-wide MCPC) and Manhattan found every single
one of the easily lockable signals.

Based on how many have commented
about how they like the speed of the blind scan feature, I feel the receiver
might have been designed for speed rather than accuracy. I certainly believe
that there could be an improvement to the blind scan function at some point
since it should be a firmware-based fix and that it will make scans much slower
for the benefit of accuracy. That should make the blind scan function more
acceptable to a hard-core FTA'er who wants to know with almost a 100% blind scan
found percentage EVERYTHING that is out there to be watched or listened to.

Is not exactly an honest one since you are obviously comparing apples to oranges.
That said, maybe the features you want could be incorporated into a FTA receiver that is ment for the consumer. But why don't we compare apples to apples in the future............ Expecting any consumer FTA unit to perform like a commercial receiver or a PC tuner card is unrealistic in my humble opinion as they are simply not built the same. And to the best of my knowledge, the Manhattan was never advertised to be like a PC card or commercial receiver or made for the hard core user .

Now the last suggestion about a slow and a fast scan might be a good one. But even slowing it down, any receiver, (stb) will not do what it was not designed or intended to do and it will not perform like a PC tuner card or commercial receiver.

Have a great day!

 

[mr3p]

As someone trying to read thru the comments without bias, I do think the best comparisons of the RS-1933 capabilities would be with other STB's, however I disagree with the comments that skysurfer testing has been apples to oranges or that it not exactly honest. It is entirely valid and valuable to compare the Manhattan (and any other satellite receiver) to PC tuner card, commericial receiver or whatever else one chooses as shouldn't people know what they are missing/not missing? His PC card setup may not be a "gold standard" but that type of testing is the norm for most scientific studies. No one should expect the Manhattan to perform like a PC tuner card with spectrum analyzer software however IMHO is disingenous to complain when someone takes the time to do so.

 

[stone1150]

Well my bad. Probably a bad choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make is simple. The PC card has much more in the way of resources as it is designed to work with a PC. It utilises the PCs power and circutry to an extent. The STB does not have that luxery. Any way one slices it, a 4 cylinder engine will never perform like a 8 cylinder. That is what I was trying to say. To say that receiver "A" has a junk whatever when it is compared to a similar receiver is an honest comparison. To say that Receiver "A" has a junk whatever as compared to a commercial receiver is not an honest evaluation as the commercial receiver has so much more as compared to a fairly simple FTA unit that the consumer can buy. In the most simple of terms..... A 20 thousand dollar family car will not do the same thing that a 200 thousand dollar Italian sportscar can do. To expect that is unrealistic. That is what I was trying to say. I was not calling anyone "dishonest". If people want to think that a commercial receiver, built to do a specific thing is a fair comparrison to any model consumer level FTA unit that is up to them. But in the end, it still is what it is. And I don't know of too many scientific studies being done for the benefit of a hobby like FTA my friend. Just trying to keep things in perspective. Comparing a more complex PC card with many recources at it's disposal like the ability to run different software, as compared to a set top box that only has it's firmware to rely on is apples to oranges unless the PC card only works with the same processor and recources that a set top box has.

His PC card setup may not be a "gold standard" but that type of testing is the
norm for most scientific studies.[/QUOTE]

Now that don't make sense to me.... All scientific studies always compare under the same conditions. Not to do so would be unscientific to say the least. I don't know of any that compare "luxery" cars to a "volkswagon". All scientific studies compare things that are in the same group. Scientific studies compare family cars to family cars. They don't compare family cars to sports cars. I don't know how much more clear that I can be here...
Have a great day!

 

[Mr Tony]

couple things I stumbled on

If you are in the "motor setup" mode and do a blind scan, regardless of what you select for polarity (V only, H only, auto) it will scan both polarities
Also if you are in "fixed antenna" mode and blind scan say vertical only, the antenna setup now defaults to V only and not auto

 

[brentb636]

Tony, I assume you're using the May 2011 software. Would that be correct ? I have a one unit with May software and one unit with July software. Trying to follow your progress.

 

[Mr Tony]

nope August software

 

[brentb636]

Darn, I've got to wait for that ! Does it allow you to dump your current software and channels, and then load another software version ?

 

[mr3p]

Now that don't make sense to me.... All scientific studies always compare under the same conditions. Not to do so would be unscientific to say the least. I don't know of any that compare "luxery" cars to a "volkswagon". All scientific studies compare things that are in the same group. Scientific studies compare family cars to family cars. They don't compare family cars to sports cars. I don't know how much more clear that I can be here...
Have a great day!

Maybe you should stick with supporting the Manhattan rather than play scientist? The conditions in this experiment are the same, the specific satellite/transponders, same satetllite dish/cables, similar time of year/day etc. The variable in question is the receiver's blindscan and it's ability to detect all available signals. It is desirable to include a "reference" receiver in the test so that you know what is possible. For example, let say a specific transponder or feed was not found by the Manhattan, one might conclude that the Manhattan has an issue, however if the same transponder/feed is not found by the reference receiver, there is no incorrect assumption made. The fact that a PC card with spectrum analyzer is more sensitive or finds more feeds isn't really suprising. In fact knowing what is possible allows one to conclude just how well the Manhattan performs. If the only comparison you want is to a similar class receiver, I guess that means an Openbox, which is nearly half the price and do the advantages of the Manhattan justify that price difference? I don't know at this point which is why I haven't purchased either. I personally would love to see more benchmark testing with receivers however as Brent mentioned, different firmwares will make comparisons difficult. The Manhattan's capabilities are what the are and unless there is something to hide, which I don't believe there is, there is no good reason to object to such comparisons. As a potential customer, I want to know everthing there is good/bad about the Manhattan.

 

[Mr Tony]

Darn, I've got to wait for that ! Does it allow you to dump your current software and channels, and then load another software version ?

I dont know. I started from scratch when I loaded it. Again I had major issues with interference and the remote. It seems to be working better now. The unit just has to be 6-7 inches away from the entertainment center

 

[skysurfer]

I think that says it all right there.... The Pansat 9200 is a higher end receiver. And if that can't get it........ And the unity is as you stated, a commercial receiver.

I don't have a Pansat 9200 and I don't have a Unity receiver. When it comes to blind scan, I"m not comparing any other STB to the Manhattan. I'm comparing the Manhattan to the known number of signal I've been able to lock on SM5 C-band (a great test satellite because of the tons of signals, a lot of signals close together, and the mixed DVB-S/DVB-S2 usage on that satellite).

My methodology:

1) DVB-S STB blindscans over the years plus spectrum analyzer probables that if they didn't blind scan as DVB-S with my various STB's, I did the SR computation method to come up with a SR to try with my PCI DVB-S2 card. My PCI card doesn't do blindscanning so it couldn't automate the SR/DVB-S2 tries for me when the signal wouldn't lock DVB-S with my other STB's.

2) I went over SM5 C before my Manhattan blind scan test with the spectrum analyzer. Found a few new signals that weren't there 2 months ago. If I could get a DVB-S fix on it, I added to my list of known signals. If there wasn't a DVB-S fix, I did the SR computation method and tried the PCI card to see if it was DVB-S2. If it was, I added it to my list.

3) my list numbered at 48 signals. I then locked every single one of them with my PCI card (quickest way to check) to verify the signals on the list were still valid and SR's good, etc. That proved that the 48 channels on my list were good ones and there wasn't a bad one in the bunch to delete.

4) Emptied the SM5 C-band TP list from the Manhattan to make sure any blind scan findings would not be duplicates. After I confirmed a zero entry TP list for SM5, I did the Manhattan blind scan - one polarity at a time since I have an orthogonal feedhorn. After I blind scanned the H's and V's, looked at the TP list and there were 18 entries for both polarities combined. All 18 entries matched what I already had in my 48 signal master list so there were no new signals to add to the master list.

5) 18 blind scan found vs. 48 known lockable signals = 37.5% found.

I don't know if there is any better STB or not, but the Manhattan blind scan only works best on a dull configured satellite like Galaxy 19 Ku-band where all the signals with audio/video are all easy DVB-S, full transponder ones and the Manhattan missed none of those. I think the blind scan can be improved through firmware setting tweaking - such as adding a "SLOW" vs "FAST" option so the user can determine which blind scan profile they care about, but I know the Manhattan folks have other fish to fry first with their pending release.

Full disclosure: I bought my receiver, using the May firmware, I'm not a beta tester, I don't know any of the developers of the receiver (only the seller I bought it from at their full retail pricing) so I have no reason to offer anything but an honest assessment of things I think might be worth noting for others who are on the fence about this receiver. I hope those who care about blind scan completeness or limit of audio channels that can be written to memory on large audio channel signals have found my comments useful. EDIT: I also hope some of the positive things I liked about the Manhattan that I haven't seen mentioned before or featured on other STB's I have are also useful.

 

[skysurfer]

Expecting any consumer FTA unit to perform like a commercial receiver or a PC tuner card is unrealistic in my humble opinion as they are simply not built the same.

IMHO, that's pretty closed minded statement. If the hardware is capable and all it takes is some firmware coding to add features or give more options on existing features on what a user can get out of the receiver, then why not _try_ to make the Manhattan perform accurate blind scan if desired (or speed if one prefers the box the way it is now) or dish moving or handle mega muxes better than any commercial or other STB out there? I don't see why one should just accept the norm as "good enough for government work" by limiting the Manhattan to be a great Galaxy 19 Ku-band receiver when there are FTA'ers out there who want more out of their FTA hobby such as for occasional feed finding/watching or the hunt for the newest services or just simply watch what is already known out there on the arc.

Of course features/tweaks should be added over time. Rome wasn't built in a day but it was eventually built.

 

[stone1150]

IMHO, that's pretty closed minded statement. If the hardware is capable and all
it takes is some firmware coding to add features or give more options on
existing features on what a user can get out of the receiver, then why not _try_
to make the Manhattan perform accurate blind scan if desired (or speed if one
prefers the box the way it is now) or dish moving or handle mega muxes better
than any commercial or other STB out there?

I can see some improvements that can be made to all receivers. Why they are not made is anyones guess. As for my statement that you quoted me on, Call it closed minded all you want. It is fact that a pc card has much more "hardware" to rely on. Fact, it needs a computer. Fact, No set top box except for the Captiveworks 4000 has that kind of power. (And weather that is a set top box or computer is a whole other debate). Last I knew commercial receivers have much more hardware in them. More than just a processor is needed when it comes to doing certian things. That is why they are typically more expensive. Look at the 4DTV receiver as an example..... Will it do megapipe? No. Why not? Because it wasn't designed as such. But it does DCII don't it? And on and on and on it goes. So if looking and accepting hardcore facts make me closed minded, so be it. I simply call it realistic. As far as the blind scan capabilities go, there is always room for improvement in everything in life. Maybe if givin some time the Manhattan can be improved in that. They only been out a couple months and have been improved quite a bit from where they started and everyone will see that for themselves soon enough my friend because of input from people like you that know the hobby well. So from my closed mind.... Have a great day!

As far as the Blindscan being faster, or slower and more accurate, I mentioned at the end of my post that was an idea that you had. maybe you missed that. If it is possible to do that, I'm sure it will be looked into.

 

[brentb636]

couple things I stumbled on

If you are in the "motor setup" mode and do a blind scan, regardless of what you select for polarity (V only, H only, auto) it will scan both polarities
Also if you are in "fixed antenna" mode and blind scan say vertical only, the antenna setup now defaults to V only and not auto

Tony, have you still got the capability of testing out the Diseqc 1.1 switching ? I know there are folks waiting on that feature ( One is Pixl , )

 

[brentb636]

I just noticed that although the resolution is given in the "info" screen, it is the resolution that the receiver is set to, rather than the resolution of the feed itself. That's not going to work !

 

[Mr Tony]

Tony, have you still got the capability of testing out the Diseqc 1.1 switching ? I know there are folks waiting on that feature ( One is Pixl , )

I dont have a diseqc 1.1 switch anymore so I cant really try it

 

[JAS]

1st I do appreciate Manhattan trying to market a receiver for the North American market. And it appears they are listening to the consumer.

2nd I feel that there will never be a FTA receiver which will satisfy everyone's needs. Just too many different setups out there.

With that said, what I (me) am extremely disgusted with is the fact that no receiver I have bought has been fixed where all the basic advertised functions work as stated by the manufacture. Instead of fixing the existing STB they (the manufacture) come out with a new and better receiver which is advertised as fixing all the things I paid for in the original receiver. Of course this new and better receiver is to be beta tested by the costumer.

I have a AzBox Premium Plus and a Pansat 9200hd both have basic problems which have never been fixed. And both are high dollar STB's. If you do not know what I'm referring to on these STB's you can do a search to find out.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[brentb636]

1st I do appreciate Manhattan trying to market a receiver for the North American market. And it appears they are listening to the consumer.

2nd I feel that there will never be a FTA receiver which will satisfy everyone's needs. Just too many different setups out there.

With that said, what I (me) am extremely disgusted with is the fact that no receiver I have bought has been fixed where all the basic advertised functions work as stated by the manufacture. Instead of fixing the existing STB they (the manufacture) come out with a new and better receiver which is advertised as fixing all the things I paid for in the original receiver. Of course this new and better receiver is to be beta tested by the costumer.

I have a AzBox Premium Plus and a Pansat 9200hd both have basic problems which have never been fixed. And both are high dollar STB's. If you do not know what I'm referring to on these STB's you can do a search to find out.

Just my 2 cents.

You have a very valid 2 cents worth. I sold my Azboxes, since it was obvious that there was going to be no improvement. The Solomend 800 is probably as good as it will get, now maybe the Manhattan will actually fit the bill. We'll see.

 

[bobvick]

It might have been mentioned previously, but will the forthcoming software update for the Manhattan correct the problem that the receiver has moving a H-H motor for a Ku dish?

 

[Pixl]

I dont have a diseqc 1.1 switch anymore so I cant really try it

Ice,

Just take a look at the motor menu, see if 1.1 shows up as a option.

 

[stone1150]

It might have been mentioned previously, but will the forthcoming software update for the Manhattan correct the problem that the receiver has moving a H-H motor for a Ku dish?

Yes.