I was just looking at your post about VisionSat and also saw a review on ftabins. I like their feature for auto detecting LNB and switch settings. And, there's a video clip from PVR that just looks great, great video quality, no skiiping frames.
Curious about two things: Looks like it has only 1 USB port in the front, right? Or, do they have a model that has 2 USB ports?
And, looks like their support is a bit behind. There's not been an update for IV300 for a week. So, I have to guess that its been down.
Biggest problems I find with this receiver: - Only one USB (in front) - Not easy to delete a setellite - Their support is at least one day behind freesatfix.com and FTABINS are the fastest postings - Few bugs but similar to VU-sat when it first came out
Biggest advantages I find - Superior video quality and I mean superior quality - Ability to record to external hard drive - Very inexpensive - Easy USB very fast flash (30 seconds) - Very advanced tuner with auto detect as well as smart DISEqC switch but tricky if yo get to learn it
For the money and electronics value is absolutly best choice
Just saw some postings on abadss about the bin for IV200 which are causing problems. Seems like this is good hardware with not so good support and we might have to wait before it gets better.
It does have some great reviews on satguys for true FTA.
That's correct I think they are taking Koolsat fix and modifing it to work on Visionsat There is no support for 300 the 200 has bugs when multi sats used
The type of bugs was similar to VU-sat back in November 2007 Right now only good support for: - VU-sat - SV - CS - CW That's about it
At the birth of PTA (early days) These were best support Fortec, Pansat, Black Bird, Ariza Not the case now days
Things change Who knows VS may not survive DN counter attack No doubt it has been the leading PTA support for nearly 3 years But VS is the least video resolution quality
As far as I know Ultra had the USB load option that Xtreme didn't have I compare to Samsung DTV and Motorola Digital Cable I read and compare specs Trust me VS below standard resolution of 720x480 They don't even list it on the specs That's common when it's below standard
King processor Speed and nemory are different on these 2 box
Cw 600 premium work on resolution 704X480
I ask to my friend who have a Extreme for compared 2 box and the Ultra is a buck better, Extreme look like too much compressed on picture( Bad resolution and Color)
some film from DVD look like tern because too much compressed
Compression is something else That's in the digital encoding in mega pixels Processor speed has no direct impact on analog refresh cycles NTSC is 60 cycles per scond Pal is 50 cycles per second Interlaced consists of 30 left fields and 30 right fields per second Progressive is true 60 frames per second Each frame is encoded as MPEG-2 720x480 Video resolution as converted analog output is the problem I find with VU-sat receivers That's within the DAC (Convertor) Processor speed is irrelevant in this situation The only way they improve is to use a different DAC (digital to analog convertor) I'm almost certain they have the same DAC on both Ultra and xtreme
yea plymouth you cant say the same about cw just because yours is bad i got 50"plasma i love the picture of the cw and i think its nicer then my buddys vs ultra
