You should know there are two types of antenna amps - pre-amps and distribution amps:
Hope this helps somebody.
Purchasing additional hardware is unsatisfactory when a software solution is possible. This feature would provide an augmented view of the ChannelsDVR internal scheduler that 90 percent of users would enjoy. The ChannelsDVR scheduler can indicate if other schedulers have been detected and only a minority of users would ever experience this. Most users have only ChannelsDVR using the tuners. I would purchase additional tuners to give ChannelsDVR exclusive use if needed.
Thanks for the info. I have a pre-amp which was needed to get a decent signal for one SD tuner box, I don't know if adding a distribution amp for a second SD tuner box downstream from that would work.
Certainly if nothing else I could add a second rooftop antenna and pre-amp for a second SD tuner box. But at some point all the dollars for extra hardware is no longer a solution.
Check your signal level at the HDHR. adding a splitter is only going to cost you 3.5dB. You can add one to your current setup to see what it would mean signal wise. Just hook it up inline with nothing on the second leg of the 2-way (just for a test). If all is good then you wouldnt need an additional drop amp.
Ive got 3 HDHR's for a total of 8 tuners and tuner conflicts dont concern me at all. I read this thread I cannot relate at all 
Lol, that's crazy. What's your current preamp? I am a big fan of KT-700 TV Booster from Kitz Technologies.
Not exactly an alert, but a good tool to use to look for tuner usage:
I use it occasionally to view the scheduling. You can view all recordings or filter for HDHomeRun (this would show a view where you could spot # of tuners required at any time in the upcoming schedule.
I also like this feature request and would very much appreciate the software having the ability to notify a user if there is some sort of tuner conflict. Even if it didn't provide specific aids in how to resolve it, a simple notification that the software has run out of available tuners would be useful and helpful to the user.
An alert of any kind would just add to the current greatness of the software, and would not at all detract from it.
As everyone replies to this thread, I do hope they are understanding the default situation, yes? That every client that tunes for a live session reduces the number of tuners by one?
So you have a 4-tuner HDHR device, but you have 3 TVs with clients. But 2 of your TVs are watching content live. However, you appreciate the amazing fast tuning available via Channels' apps, so you have not enabled tuner sharing.
Now, when recordings are ready to start, the DVR sees there are 3 programs set to record. But, because of the nature of HDHR tuners and their HTTP API, it doesn't know that 2 tuners are unavailable until it tries to record that 3 rd program.
End result: do you want the best TV viewing experience, or a great recording experience? Because at the moment technology dictates only one of those is possible. The defaults that Channels sets is for the best live viewing experience. If your primary goal is recording, perhaps other software would suit you better.
Hello, friend!
I would still like to see this added to the capabilities of the software, if/when time permits for the developers. I would prefer not to be ousted from the software based on a forum user due to a simple feature request if that is an option here at Channels DVR forum. Thank you developers for your consideration.
It is a DVR so I would like the best recording experience ... so you are saying that I should look elsewhere and not ask for features ? You like telling people what they need or should but you are not a Channels DVR developer.
As you say, we all understand the dynamics of using tuners for recording and live viewing. It's no different then when I was using TiVo or DirecTV DVRs. Neither of these could possibly know when I wanted to also watch a program live when it came time to record, but I always understood the tradeoffs and managed it.
But in fact I rarely watch a program live, I like recording them so I can skip past the commercials. Many other people are the same as well.
I really don't understand your attitude in this thread about something which is really fairly simple to do. It's not rocket science; everybody else has figured it out. If the developers don't want to handle the possibility of multiple apps accessing the tuner then they could provide an user-set flag for the server to know it has sole use of the tuner and can tell the user about scheduling conflicts. But this should not require customers to spend at least another $200 to fix.
1 Like
It's a CM-7777HD that I got from Channel Master five years ago.
But to be honest I'm old and my balance is not so great. I don't go up on the roof anymore and I have to pay extra to have somebody do it. That's part of the issue for me.
The signal is marginal, though most of the time I get a good enough signal. But for example, I regularly lose a couple of network channels during the dead of winter.
Well, OK. 
But you apparently also had several hundred dollars I don't have.
So perhaps “ChannelsLive” is a better name than ChannelsDVR. ChannelsDVR is DVR software and we would like additional information regarding the internal scheduling. This is not a request for additional functionality but a request to view data that is already internal to ChannelsDVR.
We are interested in doing more around recording conflicts and running out of tuners.
What folks have said on the thread are the sorts of issues that have made it something that we haven’t tackled it yet, but it’s something we’d like to improve.
1 Like
Wow! I never thought everyone had such thin skin.
That is definitely not what I said. I have never advocated for anyone to be removed or banned (even if I felt such actions would have been prudent).
No. Again, that is not what I said. What I did state was that if such a feature was a requirement for a user, then Channels was perhaps not the software for them.
My longstanding stance has always been to only use/purchase software for what is actually does. Never purchase or expect a software to perform what is promised to be forthcoming, because it may never happen. Channels does not perform conflict notification/resolution; if that is an important feature for you, then perhaps Channels is not the software for you.
No, I do not have a hand in developing this software. However, I have worked with software development for DVR software, so I have some understanding of the situation.
Also, I have not told anyone what they need; I have only tried to temper expectations. I feel that offering how expectations interact with reality and the development process may help users. If you disagree, you are free to do so.
And I don't really understand why you feel it is so simple. If such a feature was truly as simple as you believe, don't you feel it would have already been implemented? This has been a long-standing feature request for years. If it is truly as simple as you say, where is your DVR offering with conflict resolution?
If you can do better, do it. If you can't, why are you angry at me? I am simply trying to put requests and expectations in line with reality.
Edit: Just a postscript: I don't appreciate others stating claiming what I have said or intended, when I have done no such thing. If you want to claim I have made a statement in support of your comment, then quote it. If I have made a statement that was wrong, then tag me in it, so I can see the error and respond. If you cannot do either of those things, then you are simply spreading lies or FUD. (And the forums here are quite searchable, unlike those at SD that purge everything after 90 days and censor anything they deem "offensive".)
Here is a thread discussing KT-700 (and CM-7777)
It seems CM-7777 is a solid preamp but people claim KT-700 to be a bit better. It has a very low noise figure which helps with reception. Might be worth a shot.
EDIT: It seems KT-200 might be better for your case
The KT-200 is a fixed gain (24db) TV amplifier with an ultra low noise figure of .4db. The KT-200 is a good choice for medium to very long distance TV reception. This amplifier was designed to help with those weak hard to get channels. Our goal, when designing this amplifier, was to have the lowest possible noise figure. It is designed for use in rural areas without strong transmitters near by. The KT-200 also has a built in FM filter for improved VHF reception.
http://www.kitztech.com/KT200.html
10 Day Money Back Guarantee
While I certainly understand and appreciate where you're coming from, this isn't a great argument in this forum, considering the sagas of other features that eventually arrived after years of requests, features we came to expect as basic functionality on other DVRs and video library platforms, like... the CLOCK. The ability to import videos other than TV and movies, too, as well as editing their metadata editing. And more.
I'm guessing none of these features are easy to implement, in fact, most of them are probably quite difficult, but obviously none of them are impossible. I'm happy to read that the Channel devs agree, and are interesting in doing more in this regard, and improving our ability to work around recording conflicts and running out of tuners.
Who knows why it hasn't been implemented. I'm sure the Channels developers have a big TODO list with other requests that have been around for a long time. They have to prioritize. But as I've said before, every other DVR has figured out a solution. It's just not that hard. As I've said before you just have to look at the guide which flags all the shows to be recorded and shows the overlaps, all the data needed is already there.
I'm not in the business of writing DVR software. That's the job of the Channels developers. The standard isn't what I can do, but what other DVR software writers have already done.
Because the reasons you cite just don't hold water, as I've pointed out before. For example, you keep saying it's so hard yet every other DVR has a solution. Where's your argument against that? I happen to think the Channels developer team is pretty top notch, believe me I've seen some pretty bad DVR software. Certainly the Channels team can handle the job if everybody else already has.
But to be honest I suppose that what really got me upset was the "solution" proposed, which was that we all spend $200 for another SD tuner. That's not really your doing. I guess $200 is pocket change for some, it's not for me. It's probably not for other people as well. A big reason why I put up an OTA antenna and paid for a Channels subscription was because it would save me money in the long run over a cable service of some kind just to get the locals.
It's worth noting that the customer who offered that as a "solution" also complained that his remote Channels DVR experience was suffering with his dial-up internet speeds, and also that Channels DVR was alerting him about how little disk space he had left. Of course both issues would also be "fixed" by throwing his own money at the problem (getting faster internet, adding a new/bigger hard drive.)
So my advice would be to take his "contributions" with a grain of salt, and to pay closer attention to what the actual developers say, and do.