What Is Most Important to You in a FTA Receiver

[Cosmo Blatz]

My old Uniden analog receiver weighed about 25 pounds and worked great for years. Why do the new receivers have to be 'mini' or 'micro'?. Give me an FTA receiver large enough to have proper ventilation and a quality power supply! A larger chassis would also make it easier to hook up all the I/O connections.

So, I guess what I want is a larger box with good ventilation and a hefty power supply. No games. No internet. No Ethernet. Maybe it could have a 'real' reset button on the front that actually resets the STB when pressed. Oh yeah, and a remote control where 'down' always means down and 'up' always means up.

 

[fred555]

And one where all the minimal features actually work properly.
One that has the bugs worked out before
any attempt is made to introduce new bugs disguised as features.


NO BUGS!

 

[KE4EST]

Very interesting replies.
Keep 'em coming.

 

[KE4EST]

I could not understand why a $15 clock radio keeps perfect time but the satellite receiver was off by many minutes per day.

Because a clock radio has some form of true RTC circuit.

 

[armadillo_115]

Let me answer this a bit differently.My needs are simple.I'm ALMOST totally content with my LinkBox 9000i.So here is what I'd like BEYOND the 9000i's capabilities :
1) Faster blind scan.
2) Ability to play all FTA formats!
3) Remember the channels I have renamed when I blind scan again in the future.
4) Allow ALL editing in the box...make Editor Software obsolete.
5) Allow me to save a back-up and RETURN it if needed. ( I have heard the 9000i will not let you re-install the back-up.Have not tried this yet myself)
6) RTC is necessary for other people...but I couldn't care less about the clock myself.
7) I can do without the IPTV crap...although the wife does fire up YouTube occasionally.(The Roku handles that job just fine,but it takes a couple extra minutes to switch from FTA to Roku) IF the IPTV will have ANY negative effect on
the FTA part...then I don't want it !
8) Built in motor control would be nice.One less box on the shelf.
9) Most important to me: Give me a FTA box that I can count on using for a looong time that just works! I'm not sure yet how long this 9000i will hold up.
10) Oh...and don't increase the price too much.(Champagne taste on a beer budget. )

I could make a similar short list of the few improvements I would like beyond the Micro HD's ability.But it has been a while and my memory is fuzzy.

 

[Magic Static]

Yes sir, every body wants a very good FTA receiver,with FTA related features , fast blind scan, comprehensive channel editor, reliable DVR settings. We don't need IPTV or Android apps. Our Smart TV sets all do that now, but they will never do FTA.

 

[. Raine]

A Linux based HiSilicon 3798 box with dual DVB-S2 tuners, and most importantly, Open Source!

Open Source would be real, real nice and also could prolong the life of the receiver considerably, because it would allow people to customize it. I myself like to be able to customize my menus and such and have the ability to fix things myself too.

If the receiver had enough oomph to it, it could ship as a receiver with just basic FTA functions, but things could be added to it by users. A standard, no frills firmware that works with no bugs shipped with the receiver for those that want just a basic receiver, but open source so users can customize it and add whatever to it, that could keep interest in the receiver alive a lot longer than your average run of the mill receiver that becomes obsolete or no longer has support after a year or so. It would need to be a fairly decent chipset, memory, etc.

 

[KE4EST]

..........

1) Faster blind scan.
I know this is important to someone who sits and blindscans all day.
Don't get me wrong I don't want it to take 30 minutes to scan a bird, but accuracy is more important than speed to me.
2) Ability to play all FTA formats!

3) Remember the channels I have renamed when I blind scan again in the future.
Boy, that sure would be nice!!
4) Allow ALL editing in the box...make Editor Software obsolete.
I agree with allowing editing in the box, but would also like good editor software, for when I want to do a bunch at once. Don't make it obsolete.
5) Allow me to save a back-up and RETURN it if needed. ( I have heard the 9000i will not let you re-install the back-up.Have not tried this yet myself)
For Sure!
6) RTC is necessary for other people...but I couldn't care less about the clock myself.
I'm guessing you don't do any timed recordings.
7) I can do without the IPTV crap...although the wife does fire up YouTube occasionally.(The Roku handles that job just fine,but it takes a couple extra minutes to switch from FTA to Roku) IF the IPTV will have ANY negative effect on
the FTA part...then I don't want it !
I agree I don't care anything about the IPTV stuff.
If it doesn't hurt the FTA side though it is fine. I wouldn't mind a good media player or Kodi though.
We use Kodi A LOT in this house, to stream stuff off of my own server.
8) Built in motor control would be nice.One less box on the shelf.
That will not happen.
9) Most important to me: Give me a FTA box that I can count on using for a looong time that just works! I'm not sure yet how long this 9000i will hold up.
Open source code would help make this happen.
10) Oh...and don't increase the price too much.(Champagne taste on a beer budget. )
If you want too cheap, you will not get any of the above.

 

[armadillo_115]

I agree with allowing editing in the box, but would also like good editor software, for when I want to do a bunch at once. Don't make it obsolete

Obsolete was too strong a word.What I should have said was: "Make the Receiver handle editing so well that Editing Software would rarely be needed by users like myself.

8) Built in motor control would be nice.One less box on the shelf.
That will not happen.

Is there some reason why that can't happen? (Cost?) I have seen old receivers with motor control.

9) Most important to me: Give me a FTA box that I can count on using for a looong time that just works! I'm not sure yet how long this 9000i will hold up.
Open source code would help make this happen.

True about the Open Source.But I was referring more to the box physically lasting.For example: Coax connector should be soldered on at the factory rather than just press fitted.If so,I wouldn't have attempted to fix it myself.
The 9000i remote buttons suck.Mine got spongy and unresponsive in about 1 month! $20 got me the original LinkBox 8000 remote that seems to be much better made.(Gave the old remote to the wife and she curses in Spanish while using it.lmao)
Don't even get me started on the crappy wire connectors on my cheap disecq box.Good screw terminals wouldn't have bankrupted the Chinese factory

WHOA! I left out an important requirement: Let's build these quality FTA receivers in the good ol' USA! (I know...that won't happen)

 

[ancient]

Agree with no Android, but also would prefer it have a real processor and not an Atom-based one, and run some fairly standard version of Linux - doesn't need to be Ubuntu or anything but at least something with bash scripting capability - and yes, please make it open source. A RTC would be nice but it MUST have a wired GIGABIT ethernet connection, so if it wants to sync with a network time server and fix the clock once or twice a day that's fine as long as doing so doesn't mess up recordings. Speaking of which it should have a USB3 port for connected storage devices, AND/OR the ability to save recordings to a networks share. I do NOT need or want "apps", though - I have other devices that are better for watching YouTube and such. But at the same time it would be great if it had PVR software that is recognized as a PVR backend in Kodi. I know Kodi had a VU+ / Enigma2 PVR client so if the receiver supported that it would be great, but really any PVR backend that Kodi supports would be fine, even if you have to code a new Kodi PVR addon for the purpose. Or alternately, if it can send IPTV streams to another backend on the local network (such as TVHeadEnd) that would work too, as long as it can send multiple streams simultaneously (in case you want to watch/record multiple channels). Basically I just want the receiver to be a receiver BUT I do want to be able to watch whatever it records on any network-connected device that can run Kodi. In my particular usage case, except when setting it up or scanning a satellite, I would probably never actually have a TV or monitor directly connected to the HDMI port (and I sure don't need any other types of video/audio outputs anymore), but that's just me.

Also extremely important: Excellent blind scan capability. I'm not as concerned about how fast it blind scans as I am about whether it will find everything on a satellite and give me as much information as possible about each signal it finds. At a minimum I want to know the frequency, polarity, symbol rate, type (DVB-S, DVB-S2 8PSK, DVB-S2 Turbo 8PSK, DVB-S2 16APSK, DVB-S2 32APSK, etc. and yes I'd like it very much if it could both blind scan and receive all of those), FEC, Channel name, detected PIDs, and any other information it can provide on a given channel. I'd also like to be able to save the information on all detected transponders and channels to a text file (or maybe a comma-quote delimited file) that could be downloaded and used in other applications. It is 2016, there is no reason we should not be able to get a list of channels from our receivers in some relatively user-friendly format. The desire to have this type of functionality would be another reason it should run a relatively standard version of Linux, since it would make it possible to write bash scripts or other types of small programs that would make it easier to interact with the receiver.

It would be great if it had a web-based interface where you could not only do everyday tasks like schedule recordings and control other PVR-related functions, but also that would allow you to perform system functions such as starting a new blind scan on a satellite, or see "live" signal strength and signal quality meters (so I can take a phone or tablet out by the dish and watch the signal strength and quality while making tweaks to the dish and LNB). Really I'd like to be able to do everything from the web interface after the initial setup, including stream channels to my computer. Also if the receiver has an EPG then it should be possible to populate the EPG using an xmltv format file (such as is used with MythTV or TVHeadEnd) so you don't have to put up with a mostly blank channel guide here in North America.

Regarding software editors, the problem with them is that they are typically platform-specific, so that if you don't have a Windows-based machine you are out of luck unless you can get the editor to run under WINE or something like that. So again my preference would be to have a web-based interface, with the option to export and import settings as a comma-quote delimited (CSV) type file that could be edited externally in any CSV editor. BUT I do NOT want to have to use an editor to add a new transponder, that's what blind scan is for. I get that some users blind scan a lot and want speed but to be honest I'd rather it take even as much as an hour or two to scan a satellite and find EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, rather than three minutes and miss several of the services. Maybe there should be three modes of blind scanning, "fast" (2-3 minutes), "deep" (10-20 minutes), and "extreme" (30-90 minutes), of course those times are just guesses as to how long each type of blind scan might take. I'd always opt for "extreme" because I want to find EVERYTHING.

Firmware should be upgradeable over the network but in case something goes wrong (unexpected power failure, etc.) there should be a hidden button you can push while powering up that would reload the default factory settings, regardless of the current state of the firmware, so that essentially you have an "unbrickable" device (I am not into electronics, and I don't do JTAG stuff). And please do issue regular firmware updates when necessary to fix bugs. I hate companies that effectively drop all support of a receiver the minute they decide to release a newer version. I don't need a new model every year, but I do want the model I paid good money for to be bug-free. PLEASE MAKE FIXING BUGS A PRIORITY OVER ADDING NEW FEATURES. Programmers should be forbidden from working on new features while there are outstanding bugs, ESPECIALLY in the case of bugs introduced by a new firmware update (if you break it, you fix it, and you don't work on anything else until you fix it!). And there should always be the option to NOT receive automatic firmware updates, so if you don't want to be the guinea pig for new updates you can wait a week and see if anyone else is having problems. And if you say "no" to an update it should not nag you about it! And no stupid crap like having a box pop up saying new firmware is available while you are watching TV; don't be like Microsoft pushing their Windows 10 upgrades!

Finally, it would be great if the receiver had multiple tuners so you could connect more than one LNB. Start with two or four in the basic model, but allow plugging in expansion modules so you can add up to say a dozen tuners (two or four tuners per module). This type of modular design would also allow adding special-purpose tuners such as ATSC or DVB-T tuners for OTA reception (depending on what part of the world you are in), or data stream tuners to allow downloading information sent as data streams, or any new formats that might become popular (DVB-S3?). Actually what I would REALLY like to see is new design LNBs (for both C-band and Ku-band) that instead of sending back RF over RG-6 cables, would instead use underground Cat 5e or Cat 6 cable back to the receiver, so that the tuning would take place in the LNB itself. Each LNB should be capable of tuning multiple transponders simultaneously (at least four) and sending those transport streams down the data cable. So the LNB would only need the wired ethernet connection and a low voltage power connection, unless you can do some type of power-over-ethernet thing. And then the receiver would accept those streams for recording or live viewing. But I digress, you didn't ask about LNB's, you asked about receivers that presumably would work with existing LNB's. But I'm just saying that putting the tuners in the LNB's would avoid coaxial cable losses. and also reduce or eliminate the need for tuning circuitry in the receiver itself.

 

[KE4EST]

Is there some reason why that can't happen? (Cost?) I have seen old receivers with motor control.

It is most certainly physically possible. The problem is, production costs on developing a receiver is around $20K and up. So say I wanted to come out with a cool receiver with built in motor control.
Now how many units do you think I have to sell in order to even break even?
Not everybody has C-band. The ones that do, already have a solution for moving their dish.
The new guys that get into the hobby are just not going to see why they have to pay $300 for a receiver, when they can grab a $99 receiver and a vbox on ebay for $60 bucks.
Even if I have the best on the market, you hit it on the head, it is cost. Not cost prohibitive to me but to the buyer.
This is not main stream TV, where people will pay whatever as long as they can watch their house wives shows.
Then in a couple years another receiver comes out that can do fill in the blank, 8K, DVB-S3, or whatever new modulation scheme and we as hobbyists just have to have it.
Now you have your new box setting on your old box just to move the dish.

 

[bpalone]

I like the old Unix Philosophy of do one thing and do it well. So, the bells and whistles are low on my list, in fact almost out of sight.

4.2.2 would be nice, but not a deal killer. As as has been stated, there is really only one network using it, which I happen to like to watch it there sometimes, as the quality sure beats my OTA signal of it.

I really like the idea of Open Source, as it would make for a longer lived box and almost infinite options. Now, do you base that on a x86, arm or what? x86 has some advantage as everyone is familiar with it, but it costs more. The arm chips are becoming more familiar and are cheaper, but I am not sure that you can squeeze the same performance out, without getting into the x86 price range. With SOC, you dealing with set of rules that most everyone would have to learn to develop for or modify.

Bottom line, I agree with most folks here to keep it on point and as simple as possible. Now if one went with the CPU route, it could be held simple with the ability to make it more if one so desired. One of the reasons I like the computer approach, but don't like having to use use full blown computer to watch TV with. Other than the carrier, it is all ones and zeros now anyway.

 

[Corrado]

I'm agreeing with the open source operating system. Far too many receivers out here that had great potential only to be abandoned because the next model was in the pipeline. Many capable advanced hobbyists would benefit from access to the inner workings of many boxes that their original developers stopped supporting.

I haven't seen this mentioned but I always liked the alphanumeric front panel display of my Diamond 9000HD. I could tell what satellite radio I was listening to from the display without the TV on. That's my example of a receiver that could have been a better box if not forgotten about. It even had the ATSC tuner built in. Mine is still connected today for OTA recording of lower bitrate programming.

 

[Comptech]

How about a old Fortec Star like box updated tuner for S2. Some might be too young to remember, but they were great boxes. Add S2 support and HDMI and a Ethernet port for recording and all would be good. I guess that are what people are talking about, a simple DVB box. You want Kodi buy a $35 Raspberry Pi

 

[Comptech]

KE4EST, sounds like you are working on something. At least I hope so!

 

[KE4EST]

KE4EST, sounds like you are working on something. At least I hope so!

 

[Lehman bud farm]

KE4EST, sounds like you are working on something. At least I hope so!

At least, a step in the right direction, start with discussing what is wanted.
Then look at what was planned and the problems those had and plan to overcome those problems.
The A3 combo never panned out. The chipset was outdated before it was even released.
The 3500 receiver was a boat anchor from the onset and is still plagued with problems a year after it came out.
(Didn't even the dealers bail out on the 3500 after the fiasco that went on?)

Both those receivers had some good points but fell far short of the mark.

I don't know if the A3 combo ever could pull in the 16APSK signals since only one was given out for testing and that was inconclusive due to the one testing had limited dish viewing abilities.
I keep hearing of 32APSK signals cropping up but I do not know of any receivers that can handle 32APSK signals so that should be on the list of items a receiver should do.

Those asking for 4:2:2....well reality says that this is not going to happen unless someone forks out some big bucks and there is very few of those signals out there anyway. However it is always good to keep wishing!

Many would want a new receiver to do ACM, and there are some channels on 125W that can be viewed with the proper receivers and that is a real plus to any new receiver coming out,

4k signals are appearing more and more across the arc, many are sports, and not full time.

I am not up on on the 4k lingo but from what I have been reading here at sat guys there are like two types of 4k signals and and new receiver should be able to do them both and record them properly.

If one is planning on bringing out a new receiver there are plenty of questions already out there, asked time & time again, I would like to see it tested by several people who can actually see many of the satellites out there before it is released to the public.
This way any updates can be done before it's general release and avoid the same fiasco that has occurred with other receivers.

I read in another thread of a receiver named "Rex" was going to be worked on but the one starting it has lost any credibility IMO with the FTA people due to their actions.
Learn from this and do not repeat the same thing.

 

[ancient]

Those asking for 4:2:2....well reality says that this is not going to happen unless someone forks out some big bucks and there is very few of those signals out there anyway.

I think some folks have a misunderstanding about 4:2:2; I know I did until I was actually able to receive such signals. The problem typically is not that the receiver cannot receive those signals; the problem is that the receiver usually doesn't have enough CPU/GPU power to play the received transport streams. If a receiver has the ability to record such a signal, and you then transfer the recorded file (usually a .ts file) to a modern desktop or laptop computer it will usually play fine, but if it doesn't you can use ffmpeg or some similar program to transcode it into a format that's less demanding of system resources. However this doesn't happen in real time; typically it will take anywhere from two to ten times the length of the recorded program to perform the conversion, depending on the software used and the CPU power available.

So there are three ways around it, one is to give the receiver enough CPU/GPU power to decode those signals, and another way is to allow the receiver to act as a backend server to a program such as Kodi, which would hopefully be running on a small HTPC device with sufficient CPU/GPU (NOT a Raspberry Pi, and probably not any Atom processor-based device). The third way, if the user can accept the delay, would be to have the receiver run ffmpeg to post-process a recorded show after it has finished recorded, which for all practical purposes would probably mean you couldn't actually watch the show until the next day. Only the first of those options would be likely to drive the cost up on the receiver.

 

[Lehman bud farm]

How about a old Fortec Star like box updated tuner for S2. Some might be too young to remember, but they were great boxes. Add S2 support and HDMI and a Ethernet port for recording and all would be good. I guess that are what people are talking about, a simple DVB box.

For all practical purposes the Micro HD was/is a great FTA receiver.
Simple, easy to use.... So why not build upon something like that as it gives anyone a good starting point to build upon.
Add 4k support, ACM, and a few other items and your off to a fantastic start.

In N.A. you do need a good editor program with a receiver for those signals that require manual input that are around.

 

[Radioguy41]

I agree with what many have said so I won't repeat it but I'll add a couple of things:

A physical power button. Don't rely on the RC as the only way to turn it on and off.

A robust remote control with human sized buttons, all placed ergonomically. Tiny remotes with a limited number of buttons, all just barely sticking above the surface (Think Vigica C90S), are a big no-no. And stop putting the arrows tight against the OK button so ham hocks keep accidentally hitting both. Oh, yeah, don't limit the darn things to 10 feet in daylight. Having to sit up and lean forward on the sofa and aim it like a gun to get it to work is annoying. The ROC Multi-Sat V2 would be an example of a better, although not perfect, remote.

Once it's pointed at a specific satellite make all the menus default to that satellite automatically. You can't tell me the doggone thing can't remember where it just moved the dish to.

OK, who's gonna make one?