VIP 222K and External Hard Drive

[mixz1]

I am confused. The My Equipment page at the Dish site says you can't use an EHD on the VIP222k. The manual that comes with it says you can. I enabled the external device in the receiver setup.

I contacted Dish support and asked for external device recording to be enabled. I was told it was already enabled on the receiver (purchased new last week). I asked the tech rep to confirm that I can record to an external drive and he said yes.

I have a 500 Gb externally powered drive plugged in to the USB port on the back of the receiver. I set up a timer event for the EXT device. Nothing happens.

Am I doing something wrong? Or do I have wrong information? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[TheKrell]

Wrong information. The DVR Conversion is not available at the present time for the 222/k receivers. From the sounds of it, Dish may never offer this upgrade.

 

[mixz1]

Wrong information. The DVR Conversion is not available at the present time for the 222/k receivers. From the sounds of it, Dish may never offer this upgrade.

Thanks. User's Guide <> Web site <> Tech support rep; all in total disagreement. Wonderful.

 

[mixz1]

Wrong information. The DVR Conversion is not available at the present time for the 222/k receivers. From the sounds of it, Dish may never offer this upgrade.

And yet the single tuner, the 211 supports it. Why bother building the 222 with a USB port in the first place? And I love the fact that the CSR assured me it was working. Go figure.

 

[garys]

Problem due to dealing with tv2. Been discussed here previously, do not have time to research thread on subject at this time.

 

[RickDee]

Actually the reason posted the most is the limitation of the traffic the USB 2.0 port can handle. Supposedly it would be practical if a 222(x) with a USB 3.0 port were produced which would require an external USB 3.0 enclosure.

USB 3.0 SuperSpeed
Features and Highlights

5Gbit/s Bus Speed! There is some spec overhead but speeds of 4Gbits are achievable.
Backwards compatibility with USB 2.0 hi-speed devices.
The new 500MB/s speeds can only be achieved using a USB 3.0 Standard-B plug.
Cable makeup: 2 wires for power and ground, 2 for Hi-Speed backward compatibility, 4 wires for the new Superspeed.
Improved power efficiency! USB 3.0 has no device polling and lower active and idle power requirements.

 

[navychop]

Supposedly some early ViP222 series had a motherboard that did not support the feature. Some later ones could. There have been reports of some people going thru some special hoops to get it going. You'd have to do an extensive search here to dig it up. I don't believe Dish will ever support EHDs for this model series.

If it required USB 3, why does USB 2 work with the other ViP series?

 

[dwarren2]

I am confused. The My Equipment page at the Dish site says you can't use an EHD on the VIP222k. The manual that comes with it says you can. I enabled the external device in the receiver setup.

That was for an obsolete device. Has nothing to do with an EHD. I tried it myself last summer and had the same results.

 

[KAB]

That was for an obsolete device. Has nothing to do with an EHD. I tried it myself last summer and had the same results.

Correct....Archos/PocketDish.

 

[TheKrell]

Why bother building the 222 with a USB port in the first place?

Why indeed? Unfortunately, Echostar has a long LONG history of sticking interesting ports on the backs of their receivers, and then never getting around to doing anything whatsoever with them. My 501 had one. I think it was an external IDE bus, but whatever it was, it was provocative. The Ethernet port on your 222 is almost as useless as the USB port. Does anybody know if they allow the WiFi dongle on the 222? Now that would be an example of one useless port being used to take the place of another.

 

[DishSubLA]

That was for an obsolete device. Has nothing to do with an EHD. I tried it myself last summer and had the same results.

Right. And turning on that option just makes the timer behave a VCR timer, anyway.

 

[RickDee]

If it required USB 3, why does USB 2 work with the other ViP series?

The 211 & 211k have only one tuner so it does not have to negotiate traffic for multiple streams from two tuners. The USB port has to handle traffic both ways for the 211; record & playback at the same time. With two tuners in the 222, it overloads the USB 2.0 port which is why Dish has never enabled the capability after testing it!

The 612/622/722/722k/922 do not record to the EHD directly, so the USB port is only handling one stream at a time!

See USB 3.0 info @ http://www.usb3.com/

 

[Frank7004]

The wifi dongle works on the 222 rcvr.

 

[mixz1]

The 211 & 211k have only one tuner so it does not have to negotiate traffic for multiple streams from two tuners. The USB port has to handle traffic both ways for the 211; record & playback at the same time. With two tuners in the 222, it overloads the USB 2.0 port which is why Dish has never enabled the capability after testing it!

The 612/622/722/722k/922 do not record to the EHD directly, so the USB port is only handling one stream at a time!

See USB 3.0 info @ USB3.com - USB 3.0 SuperSpeed Product Site by USBGear.com

It doesn't seem like a major deal to limit the USB port to a single tuner's traffic. The steering could be done way before the USB port. I'd even accept a fixed tuner selection, i.e. you can only record tuner 1. But never having seen the printed layout of a 222K, I'm only guessing, with no real informed input. I don't really need the delayed viewing-rewind function during a show. I'm thinking along more traditional VCR-like behavior. Record now, view tomorrow.

 

[Anony55]

...I'd even accept a fixed tuner selection, i.e. you can only record tuner 1...

That was my thought as well. At least then you could record one sat program while viewing another.

The lack of EHD support for the 222k is exactly why I chose the 211k. I have more of a practical need to record with a single tuner than to have two tuners with no recording. Especially when you consider the ATSC OTA tuner in the 211k. Everyone's situation is different, but that's how it worked out for me.

But if the 222k could record at least one tuner, that would open up another option for people.

Also, I chose an external enclosure that has both USB & eSATA. If Dish receivers ever get up to speed (pun intended) with hard drive technology, I'll be ready.

Cheers

 

[Anony55]

Actually, now that I think about it a little more... the 211k can record 2 HD programs at a time. And you can watch a 3rd HD program from the EHD at the same time.

Granted, it has to be one from sat & one from OTA, but it does it (and via USB-2 too). In fact, I'd venture a guess that the local mpeg2 HD requires more data path than the mpeg4 HD stuff from sat.

I don't know the internal design of the 222k and how it would handle all the data. But it would seem that the problem is not a limitation with USB-2.

Cheers

 

[mixz1]

.... But it would seem that the problem is not a limitation with USB-2.

Cheers

Without question, it is not a limitation of USB-2.

 

[RickDee]

Then tell the design engineers they don't know what they are talking about because you all know more about it that they do!

 

[Anony55]

Then tell the design engineers they don't know what they are talking about because you all know more about it that they do!

OR... You could tell the design engineers to explain how a 211k can successfully record 2 HD streams at the same time a 3rd HD stream is being viewed... all via USB 2.0... without any glitches.

Sounds like there's another reason for the EHD failure of the 222k, but the USB 2.0 excuse was used instead. It's not rocket science... it's just common sense.

BTW, if the design engineers really do believe that a limitation of USB 2.0 is the cause, then yes, we do know more about it than them.

Cheers

 

[mixz1]

To Anony55: +1 and dead on. Blaming it on USB 2.0 is an excuse. To RickDee: I may be new to satellite TV but I'm not new to engineering with over 30 years of experience. The constraints that design engineers have to work under can result in choices being made for them instead of by them. It's definitely not rocket science to engineer a functional record/playback port based on the USB 2.0 standard.