• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Power Saving...

rg001c7345

rg001c7345

Member
Good evening - happy new year!

I have Power Saving set to OFF however after approx 5 mins of the Humax being in standby I lose the signal from the TV tuner.

Any ideas folks?

Thanks

Rg.
 
Fault. You could try a factory reset, otherwise you'll have to resort to a splitter instead of pass-through.
 
Hi,
One of my HDRs has started doing the same thing recently. I haven't actually timed it but it's fine for some minutes before it decides to power down the aerial pass through. It has never done this before.
There is an intrinsic Humax design fault in the pass thru operation which has bugged me for sometime whereby some boxes always power down the aerial pass through even when power saving is not selected I've only seen this on earlier models where the aerial in/out sockets are side by side rather than later models with the in/out sockets one above the other. I had always assumed that it was a batch related hardware problem but this latest observation may indicate a software bug. The only workaround I know of is to use a splitter and avoid using the pass through facility altogether as Black Hole suggests.
If you do attempt a reset I'd be interested to know if it worked.
Ian.
 
rg001c7345 said:
Thanks both - I think I'll just leave the Humax out of standby But appreciate the support here.

Rg.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, the hard disk time shift buffer area will be constantly written and re-written 24/7 it's not going to help with hard disk life not to mention your electricity bills. A splitter costs very little.
 
grahamlthompson said:
the hard disk time shift buffer area will be constantly written and re-written 24/7 it's not going to help with hard disk life
Click to expand...
I don't believe there's any real evidence that what you state about hard disk life is true. My experience is that it's false. My disks are fine and they're on 24/7. This is what they are built to do.
Of the disk failures we see on this forum, they are all high start/stop counts rather than low.
 
prpr said:
I don't believe there's any real evidence that what you state about hard disk life is true. My experience is that it's false. My disks are fine and they're on 24/7. This is what they are built to do.
Of the disk failures we see on this forum, they are all high start/stop counts rather than low.
Click to expand...

The most common failure recorded on a Foxsat-HDR is failure of the time shift buffer file (Google it). The Custom Firmware fortunately allows the simple remedy of renaming the file causing the box to recreate the file on a seperate area of the hard disk. The 1TB drive in my 2008 Foxsat-hdr boots at least 4 times every day. It still works absolutely fine and so far has had no issues with the time shift buffer. Over the 8yrs using low power sby will have saved around £160.00 or so in electricity charges. That would pay for a brand new disk every 4 years or so. Quite why you don't want to fit a simple splitter (unless you have a really marginal signal it will absolutely no effect on your picture quality, indeed in strong signal areas it may well improve picture stability) baffles me.

In any case it's not really a viable option on a Foxsat-HDR, Channel line up changes and software updates require the box to be in sby overnight, applying them manually deletes the recording schedule as on the HDR FOX T2 (There are lots of changes on a Freesat box). Not sure what effect it will have on a HDR-FOX-T2 other than making the CF suppression of unwanted channel changes unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
grahamlthompson said:
The most common failure recorded on a Foxsat-HDR is failure of the time shift buffer file
Click to expand...
Nice little anecdote but don't see the relevance to a T2. We never hear of that fault on a T2, so maybe that is something specific to Foxsats. I don't know why you bring up stuff to do with Foxsats in a section of the forum relating to T2 units, other than to try and drive your point of view.
Quite why you don't want to fit a simple splitter (unless you have a really marginal signal it will absolutely no effect on your picture quality, indeed in strong signal areas it may well improve picture stability) baffles me.
Click to expand...
It's not me. It was rg001c7345. I do have splitters.
 
prpr said:
Nice little anecdote but don't see the relevance to a T2. We never hear of that fault on a T2, so maybe that is something specific to Foxsats. I don't know why you bring up stuff to do with Foxsats in a section of the forum relating to T2 units, other than to try and drive your point of view.

It's not me. It was rg001c7345. I do have splitters.
Click to expand...

Because presumably the time shift buffer works in the same way using a fixed area of the hard disk on a HDR FOX T2, and the energy saving is completely valid irrespective of the box. My HDR FOX T2's are much younger than my Foxsat so it's the best source as to disk life and are used less. Can you explain why both points do not apply to a HDR FOX T2 ?

How many users do you know of who run a HDR FOX T2 24/7 and therefore what evidence do you have as to expected drive life ? I take it you use low power sby overnight, hence the splitters.
 
Last edited:
grahamlthompson said:
I take it you use low power sby overnight, hence the splitters.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you assume that. I already told you my boxes are on 24/7. There is no such thing as 'overnight' here.
The splitters are used because daisy-chaining boxes is just horrid engineering-wise.
 
prpr said:
I don't know why you assume that. I already told you my boxes are on 24/7. There is no such thing as 'overnight' here.
The splitters are used because daisy-chaining boxes is just horrid engineering-wise.
Click to expand...

Well Engineering wise wasting large amounts of energy and the extra CO2 it generates is worse than horrid engineering, it's environmentally reprehensible.
 
Global warming is also bollox. I would be happy if I could spend my money on whatever I like without the interference from tree huggers and environmentalist nutters.:frantic:
 
grahamlthompson said:
Well Engineering wise wasting large amounts of energy and the extra CO2 it generates is worse than horrid engineering, it's environmentally reprehensible.
Click to expand...
What are you wittering on about? You seem to be complaining about my use of splitters now.
Daisy-chaining means you have to leave everything in the chain powered or lose everything downstream. Splitters allow you to be selective about de-powering.
 
One box on 24/7 for 5yrs will have cost you around £100.00, as to 3 boxes :(
prpr said:
What are you wittering on about? You seem to be complaining about my use of splitters now.
Daisy-chaining means you have to leave everything in the chain powered or lose everything downstream. Splitters allow you to be selective about de-powering.
Really, just quit while you're behind and stop shoving whatever you think your nasty little agenda is OK?
Click to expand...

You really can't be that dense. I was complaining about wasting energy. There is a reason that all modern pvrs have to have a sby mode of less than 0.5W. What agenda ?
 
I didn't think this discussion was about energy, I thought it was about the longevity of drives left running 24/7. Obviously they are going to use more energy, but that's not the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top