Channels - Appreciation

Channels Apple TV
#1

For the last 2 days our one Comcast STB has had pixelated/garbled transmission on all 4 major network broadcasts…other cable channels are OK.

These are really the times, I truly appreciate Channels. All four are coming in clear as a bell through the cablecard (using HDHR Prime).

Thanks to @tmm1 and @maddox for the their visions/perseverance of adding Channels Apps to view Live TV on the multitude of platforms offered. It’s been a godsend to keep the natives calm in my household…while CC continues to troubleshoot their transmission problems.

Of course, I love Channels also for the multi faceted, user friendly DVR implementation. Only 1 failure in 2 years is stellar performance IMO. Beats Comcast hands down.

7 Likes
#2

My wife and I sure are happy with it, I tell ya whut.

Had a hospital appt. this morning. Brought my iPad. Did the remote thing and watched something that’d been recorded yesterday while I waited. Very cool :slight_smile:

I’ve received Official Dispensation from the Family CFO to acquire the NAS :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#3

Now, I’m jealous!

#4

???

#5

Just thinking your proposed acquisition of Synology may be better suited to Channels than my Qnap 251A.

Grass is always greener :innocent:…we’ll have to have to stage a contest for length of time for comm skip and also transcoding speed…although I now primarily only need remux as many of my channels are AVC. Of course, we can only test broadcast of mpeg2 (cable re-trans of “Prime Time” networks) against your OTA. Seems like it might be an interesting test.

BTW: my requirement for cable is due to non viable OTA broadcasts in our area, hence the need for “cable”. Backwoods!..can’t even get a cell signal here.

One more ?, since the household CFO has blessed your latest requisition…what about WD Red 4tb acquisition? I’m interested, as I respect your opinion on h/w options.:blush:

#6

[quote=“DebbieFL, post:5, topic:6632”]
Just thinking your proposed acquisition of Synology may be better suited to Channels than my Qnap 251A.[/quote]
Not from what I’ve read. The Qnap actually has a good deal more processing power. But the Qnap 251 is also another $60 more and, since I don’t need the add’l processing power I’ll save the $60 :slight_smile: Plus there’s that aforementioned informal poll of other IT geek types on another forum. Vote was 8:2:1 for Synology:Qnap:WD.

[quote=“DebbieFL, post:5, topic:6632”]
BTW: my requirement for cable is due to non viable OTA broadcasts in our area, hence the need for “cable”. Backwoods!..can’t even get a cell signal here.[/quote]
Fascinating.

One of my best friends has a cabin in the middle of nowhere. He’s got a ClearStream 2V “digital” antenna atop the cabin, and, after some guidance from me, is pulling down several stations clear as a bell.

Thanks for the kind words :slight_smile:

That blessing included a pair of WD Red 4TB drives.

I’m going with WD because they lately have a better track record than most other drive manufacturers IME. My other favourite is Fujitsu, but they don’t have anything in that class and price range.

I’m going with the 4TB because, in tests and reviews I read, it appears to have somewhat lower power consumption than their smaller drives (tho WD’s specs say otherwise) and it has better performance than the smaller drives. (ISTR it runs quieter and cooler than the smaller drives, as well, but don’t quote me on that.)

I’m going with Red (5400 RPM), rather than Red Pro (7200 RPM) for energy and cost savings, and because the Red’s 150MB/s throughput is more than enough for more streams than we’ll be trying to run at once–by a factor of about ten.

Bottom line: The WD Red 4TB seems to hit a kind of “sweet spot” between capacity, performance, power consumption, and price.

ETA: Even I balked at $570 for the NAS + 2 drives, so, for now it’s gonna be one drive, which dropped it to $440. I’ll add the second drive later, after our finances have recovered a bit :slight_smile: