US QAM tuners that work

[SLR_65]

Hi Guys,

It's time to get serious about getting a qam tuner working as my local cable co just sent a note out that they are adding a couple channels (MyTV and Retro Television Network) and they are moving several channels from the digital premium tier to the digital basic tier (History Channel, Animal Planet, etc.) and currently anything listed on the digital basic tier is available in clear qam so I'm assuming (hoping) that will continue.

I have an HVR-1600 but I'm NOT happy with it. It's entirely too picky on signal strength. I have two cable boxes and a cable modem running off my cable with zero issues. I can even split a feed to a cable box and run a TV with a qam tuner in it and it has zero issues, but the HVR-1600 wont hookup reliably even when fed directly from the cable co input. I can hookup a BIG amplifier and it helps, but even then not all are error free. Doing some net research both here and on other forums and I've found MANY have the same issues with the HVR-1600 - it just seems to have a dud for a qam tuner in it.

The HVR-1800 seems to be better, but I haven't read much on it so I'm not overly confident with it yet.

What qam tuners are people in the US using with good success? If you've got one that you just popped in and it worked please speak up! I'm sure many of us would like to know!

Thanks!

Steve

[soccerdad]

I have an HVR-1800 that has been running for a couple of weeks with good success. It does not seem to need and extremely good signal. I would say my signal into it is between fair to good but not excellent. I have it split 1-3 at the house, 1-2 in my office and 1-3 at the dvr box so it can't be that strong. The strength meters do not work durring scanning so I can't tell you what it is.

[pcostanza]

Steve, I'm curious as to who your cable company is that they actually discuss QAM. I'm disgusted with Cox's refusal to do everything but admit it exists.
I've got both the 1600 and te 2250 and the signal strength is the same. Both work great with ATSC and with Vista Media Center but refuse to work with GBPVR. In fact, the 2250 won't even get QAM with WinTV while the 1600 gets a scant few channels.

[mmatheny]

DO NOT GET A 2250 - it will make your QAM life absolute hell!

Unless you want to buy mine, in which case, ignore the first sentence.

[pcostanza]

DO NOT GET A 2250 - it will make your QAM life absolute hell!

Unless you want to buy mine, in which case, ignore the first sentence.

Spoken like a used car salesman.

[SLR_65]

Steve, I'm curious as to who your cable company is that they actually discuss QAM. I'm disgusted with Cox's refusal to do everything but admit it exists.
I've got both the 1600 and te 2250 and the signal strength is the same. Both work great with ATSC and with Vista Media Center but refuse to work with GBPVR. In fact, the 2250 won't even get QAM with WinTV while the 1600 gets a scant few channels.

Charter is my cable co.. They sent the note out just this week and detailed the additions and changes. I called them and didn't use the "Q" word, I said I had a new TV with a "digital" tuner in it and I was currently getting the PBS channels, Flix, and networks in digital format with it and asked if I would get the channels they listed as switching from the digital premium tier to the digital basic tier with that TV and no set top box. They said yes I would and specifically said those channels would be transmitted "in the clear" so newer equipment wouldn't have any problem with them and I would not need an additional cable box.

My 1600 seems to work OK with over the air signals, but it falls way short in my opinion on qam.

[SLR_65]

Soccerdad - please check your private mail on the forum.

/Steve

[dark_half]

I have not used any others but I really like my hdhomerun.

[dennit]

I have not used any others but I really like my hdhomerun.

I have an HVR1600 setup that's dialed in and is now completely reliable. As a result, I like it. I had to spend some time (too much) getting it exactly right - I found that all the amplifiers I tried made things worse, some cables I used were poor quality and seemed to kill the higher frequency channels.and I had too many splitters. Some splitters I tried just would not work.

Bottom line: I wouldn't recommend this card, but it can be made to work with careful attention to signal strength over the range of channel frequencies and careful choice of splitters and good cable.

[SLR_65]

Bottom line: I wouldn't recommend this card, but it can be made to work with careful attention to signal strength over the range of channel frequencies and careful choice of splitters and good cable.

I respectfully disagree with that . . . many cable companies wont help at all with qam reception. As long as the analog (if present) works to a standard TV and as long as their cable boxes work with the digital they could care less about making your after market equipment work. That's the situation I'm in. In this case I have no way to raise signal strength other than through an amplifier and as you found out this card is picky about them! Beyond that there's nothing I can do as I'm running Belden rg-6 quad shield, T&B Snap-n-Seal ends, high quality splitters, etc.. Even running directly to the cable co drop through about 20' of cable with no splitters, etc. I can't get a reliable lock from this card on all the digital channels. Using an amp it helps but still isn't 100%. Soooo, I'm pretty much out of luck. The cable co wont do a thing to make it work and there's no better wiring, etc. I can use, so there's really no way I can make this card work.

I'm kinda with the cable company on this (and it pains me to say that!) -> I truly feel it's not their problem as like I said earlier - two cable boxes, a cable modem, and a qam tuner equipped TV runs on this system just fine so I really feel it's just a matter of a poor tuner in these cards.

I really hope a good tuner card shows up soon - I've been spoiled by the analogs as they have truly been plug and play!

TTYL,

Steve