<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Brian Wood <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beww@beww.org">beww@beww.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">On Wednesday 10 February 2010 08:51:53 am David Liana wrote:<br><br>><br>> I've had the opposite thing happen. I can hardly tell the difference.<br>> YMMV, I guess :-)<br>><br><br></div>Just to confirm, you're saying you see similar analog performance with the 1600<br>
and a PVR-x50?<br><br>Is this using the RF tuner or with composite/S-Video input? If RF, cable or<br>OTA?<br><br>I'd expect similar performance, although more highly integrated, the basic<br>design of the encoders on both cards are similar. I'd expect that differences<br>
between the cards might be due to different tuners, but you never knew what<br>tuner you would get with the PVR cards anyway, I have 5 cards and 3 different<br>tuner models.<br><br>There were many different models of PVR, some with radios, some without, some<br>
with RCA audio inputs, some with a 1/8" stereo jack, some low-profile, some<br>standard, some with IR receivers, some with IR receivers/blasters, some with<br>no IR capability at all, you never really know what someone is talking about<br>
when they say "PVR-150".<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"> </div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm using 2 slightly different PVR-150's and comparing it to the HVR-1600.</div>
<div>1 PVR 150 has a FM tuner while the other does not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I vaguely remembering testing all three to make sure I had them configured right. And I dont remember seeming much, if any difference.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm using RF with standard cable.</div></div>