<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/18/2013 4:07 PM, Matt Emmott
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGHPk0Y1jC0c+OwhKQa98D69L-asteGuFEvGjU514SO0ZgCnpw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Eric
Sharkey <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:eric@lisaneric.org" target="_blank">eric@lisaneric.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">
<div class="h5">On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Phill
Edwards <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:philledwards@gmail.com">philledwards@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>> For the US market, there will be 4 total
models. The matrix will be<br>
>> transcoder/notranscoder, vs 2-tuner
ATSC/QAM/4-tuner QAM/CableCard.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> How come they max out at 2-tuner models? A
4-tuner model would fantastic.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
I think you misread what Gary wrote. The cable card
version of the<br>
tuner will have four tuners.<br>
<br>
This is a pretty nice little box. If the quality is good,
having<br>
H.264 transcoding done in hardware will be a really nice
benefit to<br>
both save space and to allow easier playback on mobile
devices.<br>
<br>
I wonder what the release date for the CC box will be?</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At the risk of derailing this thread, there's a way to
encode recordings on the fly in H.264. See <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.silicondust.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=14612">http://www.silicondust.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=14612</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's missing the "in hardware" part.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>