39 replies to this topic

[smallman]

Hi there,

Just wondering if anyone has used a DigitalNow TinyTwin Dual Digital USB Receiver before
and as far as picture quality concern - is it any better or worst than the obsolete TinyUSB2 ?
Can I run the TinyTwin on a Windows XP machine ?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

cheers
Smallman

[therat]

I have the TinyTwin here coupled with DNTV Live! and using Powerdvd 7 decoders and picture quality is excellent.

I'm running winXP SP2 with no issues.

I've never used the TinyUSB 2 so can't compare.

[OgdenP]

Same here. I love my TinyTwin.

[digitaladvisor]

smallman, on Sep 12 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

Hi there,

Just wondering if anyone has used a DigitalNow TinyTwin Dual Digital USB Receiver before
and as far as picture quality concern - is it any better or worst than the obsolete TinyUSB2 ?
Can I run the TinyTwin on a Windows XP machine ?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

cheers
Smallman

No Diff! You tune with ANY DVB-T device with GOOD drivers.

Quality is TOTALLY subject to YOUR graphic card combined with decoders, NEVER the tuner card.

DA

[evil_josh]

digitaladvisor, on Sep 13 2007, 10:53 AM, said:

No Diff! You tune with ANY DVB-T device with GOOD drivers.

Quality is TOTALLY subject to YOUR graphic card combined with decoders, NEVER the tuner card.

DA

Unless of course if you live an an area of marginal reception and the USB receiver is not very sensitive - in which case the tuner will significantly contribute to PQ as you will experience a blocky, jumping picture.

[digitaladvisor]

evil_josh, on Sep 13 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

Unless of course if you live an an area of marginal reception and the USB receiver is not very sensitive - in which case the tuner will significantly contribute to PQ as you will experience a blocky, jumping picture.

True - but the Tiny USB's (Digital Now) in mono tuner/dual are both sensitive tuners.

DA

[pietro]

I have one on my Vista HTPC and one on my XP laptop, one with VMC and one with DNTV live. I think it is a fantastic piece of equipment especially after having problems with an Hauppage PCI card. If you get a good signal I don't imagine you will have any problems.

[murrayt]

DA

Just for completeness I think it would be useful for all,  to qualify your comment above

Digitaladvisor said:

No Diff! You tune with ANY DVB-T device with GOOD drivers.

Quality is TOTALLY subject to YOUR graphic card combined with decoders, NEVER the tuner card.

I don't have a Tiny so cannot test directly but in other threads some rate the Tiny as exceptional, and others rate its tuner sensitivity as nothing particularly special, indeed even less than average. But put that aside, I suspect that it's performance is about average one way or the other. So in an adequate signal coverage area it would perform acceptably, and in marginal areas may dissapoint. Drivers are just drivers, at the end of the day assuming it can adequately tune the device and deliver the transport stream for decoding then it will be doing a good job.

I suspect that what you are seeking to convey is that for a sufficient enough signal that enables the tuner/demodulator to recover the signal with a minimal error rate (bearing in mind that error correction is a function of the tuner/demod) that then in that circumstance, the PQ is governed by the video subsystem's ability to render the video. So in that instance the graphics card combo and the video decoder's capability will in fact govern PQ. But where signal levels are reduced, or significant interference is presented to the tuner, or just plain lower than desirable tuner sensitivity/performance exists, then that alone will govern the PQ in terms of viewability, and therefore acceptance.

[dezzy]

murrayt, on Sep 13 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

DA

Just for completeness I think it would be useful for all,  to qualify your comment above

I don't have a Tiny so cannot test directly but in other threads some rate the Tiny as exceptional, and others rate its tuner sensitivity as nothing particularly special, indeed even less than average. But put that aside, I suspect that it's performance is about average one way or the other. So in an adequate signal coverage area it would perform acceptably, and in marginal areas may dissapoint...

Hey Murrayt,

Just for completeness I think it would be useful for all,  to qualify your comment above.

You appear to have no factual basis nor personal experience to make any statement about the Tiny tuner.  Why do so?

You have not said anything that may be of use to the OP.

Plenty of Digitalnow customers are happy with their respective purchases and unequivocally would recommend these tuners to others.  You seem to regard everybody else as mindless zombies under the power of some malevolent salesman's force.  I can assure you and the OP that I am happy with my Tiny tuner and am making this statement of my free will.

[ht1]

dezzy, on Sep 14 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Hey Murrayt,

Just for completeness I think it would be useful for all,  to qualify your comment above.

You appear to have no factual basis nor personal experience to make any statement about the Tiny tuner.  Why do so?

You have not said anything that may be of use to the OP.

Plenty of Digitalnow customers are happy with their respective purchases and unequivocally would recommend these tuners to others.  You seem to regard everybody else as mindless zombies under the power of some malevolent salesman's force.  I can assure you and the OP that I am happy with my Tiny tuner and am making this statement of my free will.

I disagree what Murrayt has summed up applies to all DVB-T tuners so is very relevant in a discussion about performance.  Perhaps the only query I have is wether poorly written drivers or poorly designed hardware could demand more cpu resources and thus impact on perceived picture quality depending on pure pc grunt.

[dezzy]

ht1, on Sep 14 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

I disagree what Murrayt has summed up applies to all DVB-T tuners so is very relevant in a discussion about performance.

Then why put a negative spin specifically relating to the Tiny tuner?  It shows unreasonable and unwarranted bias.

ht1, on Sep 14 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

Perhaps the only query I have is wether poorly written drivers or poorly designed hardware could demand more cpu resources and thus impact on perceived picture quality depending on pure pc grunt.

How does this vague generalization help the OP select a tuner?  The OP asked specific questions about a specific tuner.

The fact remains that the Digitalnow Tiny tuner has the appropriate drivers and performs well in most circumstances, including marginal reception areas.  Consequently plenty of users are happy and will recommend these.

[ht1]

dezzy, on Sep 14 2007, 10:24 AM, said:

Then why put a negative spin specifically relating to the Tiny tuner?  It shows unreasonable and unwarranted bias.
How does this vague generalization help the OP select a tuner?  The OP asked specific questions about a specific tuner.

The fact remains that the Digitalnow Tiny tuner has the appropriate drivers and performs well in most circumstances, including marginal reception areas.  Consequently plenty of users are happy and will recommend these.

Really Dezzy you have to be aware this is a discussion forum and as such topics wander on and off subject repeatedly and so people replying are addressing the flow of the discussion.  And I really do not beleive Murrayt was putting a negative spin on the Tiny tuner he is just telling it like it is for any tuner product. I would suggest that the bios is not being shown by Murrayt !!

[digitaladvisor]

Hi Ht1

This is incorrect. The Tiny USB works on silicon based tuners as SAME as a PCI twin Pinnacle. The response to signal sensitivty is better then other alternatives based on the standard "CAN" tuner models. I also own the Tiny USB model in real world day to day experience and OBJECTIVE to other models of DVB-T cards...

Nebula with AVIO Can style 1st Gen. / Divico with AVIO Can style / Aldi's Model Embedded Notebook type with AVIO capability Silicon / Pinnacle Silicon / Vision Plus 1st Gen. DVB Can syle / Dual Divico Can style tuner.

Progress has been in the area of sensitivity and ERROR correction in later models.

Failure in a digital broadcast is obvious as it is a CLIFFHANGER issue effect of signaL RECEPTION, NEVER a characteristic stutter / "Splutter" / lack of de-interlacing or any other cause of quality loss or behavior.

Progress in GPUs models from ATI/AMD and Nvidia has seen the MPEG decoding quality leapfrog as a consequence.

DA

[ht1]

Digital advisor what you are saying in no way contradicts what murrayt is saying after all as I read it he is saying the tiny twin performance is at a par with other devices and yes it is a given that with performance improvements the average has been raised over time.  It really gets back to the hoary subject that without proper comparitive sensitivity tests statements as to greater than or lesser than sensitivity are just that statements.

[DrP]

digitaladvisor, on Sep 14 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

Nebula with AVIO Can style 1st Gen. / Divico with AVIO Can style / Aldi's Model Embedded Notebook type with AVIO capability Silicon / Pinnacle Silicon / Vision Plus 1st Gen. DVB Can syle / Dual Divico Can style tuner.

I have to save that my (comparatively) ancient technotrend PCI cards (Philips tin can style tuner, Philips demod and Philips bridge) are superior to anything else that I have tried, including most standalone STBs in terms of signal level and quality.  In conditions that have other PC receivers (and standalones) glitching and spluttering, the ancient technotrends soldier on with little or no errors at all.  When I was bothering with FTA I regularly had the TTs dump > 12 hours straight (Rage, ABC TV) without a single bad packet while other receivers had quite a few - that's saying something!

What have I compared against?  Better to ask what I haven't compared against.       For a few examples the TTs perform better than the original + later model Twinhan PCI card, Airstar, Nebulas of different varieties, Tiny USB(2).

[evil_josh]

dezzy, on Sep 14 2007, 10:24 AM, said:

Then why put a negative spin specifically relating to the Tiny tuner?  It shows unreasonable and unwarranted bias.

Are you on drugs?  Nothing murrayt said could have possible been interpreted as bias against the Tiny!

Murrayt said that if you assume that the tiny twin perdformance is the sam as the Tiny2, and you live in an average/good signal area, then the drivers/codecs will be the determining factor as to picture quality.  This is good advice - if you have a PQ problem check your reception first then wory about your drivers & codecs second.

murrayt gave a very factual (and correct) analysis and I think that you were unreasonable in your accusations.  Perhaps if you yourself hadn't generalised about murrayt's post then I might better understand our concerns. but you didn't...

[CX23882-19]

DrP, on Sep 14 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

I have to save that my (comparatively) ancient technotrend PCI cards (Philips tin can style tuner, Philips demod and Philips bridge) are superior to anything else that I have tried, including most standalone STBs in terms of signal level and quality.  In conditions that have other PC receivers (and standalones) glitching and spluttering, the ancient technotrends soldier on with little or no errors at all.  When I was bothering with FTA I regularly had the TTs dump > 12 hours straight (Rage, ABC TV) without a single bad packet while other receivers had quite a few - that's saying something!

What have I compared against?  Better to ask what I haven't compared against.       For a few examples the TTs perform better than the original + later model Twinhan PCI card, Airstar, Nebulas of different varieties, Tiny USB(2).

I don't have any old TechnoTrend cards anymore (I did have a Grundig+LSI based one but sold it when the driver support dropped off) but I do use the Hauppauge Nova-t PCI which replaced them (Conexant controller, Conexant demod, Thomson tuner).  I have tried many cards since buying them (both PCI and USB, single tuner and dual tuner) and none come close to the reliability of the reception.  DVB Viewer keeps a discontinuity count for recordings, and recordings made by the Nova-t PCI are almost always perfect - zero discontinuities.

For several months I struggled away with a popular dual tuner card, and suffered signal dropout, both when traffic passed by the house and at seemingly completely random intervals.  When we had the aerial replaced and the dropout continued, I noticed that a set top box running at the same time worked perfectly.  It was then that I went back to twin Nova-t PCI and everything has been great since.

Interestingly, the reason I looked at dual-tuner cards originally was to reduce power consumption of my PC, and looking at how they're made up (silicon tuner, USB-based chipsets) I thought that they would.  In reality, the two Nova-t PCI consumed 10W total (i.e. 5W each) whereas a single Nova-t 500 consumed 12W for just one card.  I thought that silicon tuners were supposed to be lower power, plus Hauppauge are using the low-power variant of the VT6212 but yet it manages to consume more power than two cards.  OK, it's not a huge difference (negligable in fact) but it suprised me.

I was more suprised by the tuner performance though.  After all the hype about MT2060 and DiBcom demods, I expected better performance than an "old-school" Thomson tuner can and Conexant CX22702 demod.  But I found the opposite to be true.  Sure, it can't do an ultra-fast blind scan.  Nor can it lock channels near-instantly, but when it is locked, it delivers unlike the newer solutions (my own personal experience of course - obviously a lot of people have no issues).

The only "card" which comes close to the Nova-t PCI (at least with my setup) is the Nova-t USB2 - and I mean the one with the Panasonic ENV57H12 can tuner, not the newer "stick" with the MT2060 silicon tuner.  I'm not saying that all can tuners are good - I found the Nebula DigiTV PCI to be rather poor and susceptible to interference (although it had awesome signal stats reporting) but they do seem to be better overall.  HOWEVER... I think that a lot of issues with silicon tuners are people feeding too much signal into them.  If I attenuate the input into the various MT2060 and XC3028 based cards/sticks I have, they perform a lot better, but they do still seem to have more issues than the Nova-t PCI.  I wonder though if some of it is due to drivers rather than a hardware flaw?

Edited by CX23882-19, 18 September 2007 - 07:38 AM.

[renura]

Hmm, amazing how these threads start in one place and end up all over the jungle

In my experience the TinyUSB device is the best USB DVB-T tuner I have ever tried (and have tried lots, I assure you). Similarly the TinyTwin is the best dual USB Tuner I have come across.

For a few years we resisted the wave of silly-con tuners (as I used to call them) as we too found them to be inferior to the can tuner equivalent, but things have changed and solutions based on silicon tuners (be it the dual Hybrid Philips solution or the TinyTwin dual USB tuner) are as good or better (in some cases) as solutions based on traditional can tuners.

Going back to the original question...............

smallman, on Sep 12 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

Just wondering if anyone has used a DigitalNow TinyTwin Dual Digital USB Receiver before
and as far as picture quality concern - is it any better or worst than the obsolete TinyUSB2 ?
Can I run the TinyTwin on a Windows XP machine ?

yes, picture quality using the TinyUSB and the TinyTwin, under the same conditions is exactly the same and yes you can run it under Windows XP.

[Venomous Sheep]

I use one of TinyTwin tuners and have had absolutely no problems (apart from a few teething issues involving tuner priority with more than two tuners - but that had nothing to do with the quality of the tuner).  Pictuar quality is great!

[dezzy]

evil_josh, on Sep 14 2007, 10:37 PM, said:

Are you on drugs?  Nothing murrayt said could have possible been interpreted as bias against the Tiny!

It seems that you need help with the English language.  Let me try to explain.

murrayt, on Sep 13 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

I don't have a Tiny so cannot test directly but in other threads some rate the Tiny as exceptional, and others rate its tuner sensitivity as nothing particularly special, indeed even less than average. But put that aside, I suspect that it's performance is about average one way or the other. So in an adequate signal coverage area it would perform acceptably, and in marginal areas may dissapoint. Drivers are just drivers, at the end of the day assuming it can adequately tune the device and deliver the transport stream for decoding then it will be doing a good job.

"I don't have a Tiny so cannot test directly.."  Murrayt has never used a Tiny tuner.  Keep this thought in mind when reading the other material that he has written.

"..in other threads some rate the Tiny as exceptional, and others rate its tuner sensitivity as nothing particularly special, indeed even less than average."  This is just gossip that includes an element that is prejudicial.  This sentence casts doubt into the mind of the reader about the performance of the Tiny tuner.  Only a mean spirited person would repeat damaging hearsay without anything to substantiate such claims.  Remember that he has never used the device.

"..I suspect that it's performance is about average one way or the other.."  How can he come to that conclusion without having used the device?  Again, unfounded speculation that is biased.

"..and in marginal areas may dissapoint ..(sic)"  How does he know this?  Again, speculation that is biased.


Murrayt ignores the numerous posts by people who actually use the Tiny tuners and who rate the device highly.  I live in a marginal reception area and the Tiny tuner does everything that is required of it 100%, all of the time, every time.  There is no need for doubt and ill-informed speculation about it.

Edited by dezzy, 19 September 2007 - 09:34 AM.

[inm8]

dezzy, on Sep 19 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

"..in other threads some rate the Tiny as exceptional, and others rate its tuner sensitivity as nothing particularly special, indeed even less than average."  This is just gossip that includes an element that is prejudicial.  This sentence casts doubt into the mind of the reader about the performance of the Tiny tuner.  Only a mean spirited person would repeat damaging hearsay without anything to substantiate such claims.  Remember that he has never used the device.

There's nothing biased about that comment at all. As murrayt stated, he hasn't used the device himself, but from what he has heard some users like it, some users think its ok, and some users don't like it. Statistically, isn't this is most logical outcome for a fairly popular product? I suggest to you that he would been being biased had he not mentioned the cases where it wasn't considered perfect, but I bet if he did that you wouldn't be digging into him like you are now.

Quote

"..I suspect that it's performance is about average one way or the other.." How can he come to that conclusion without having used the device? Again, unfounded speculation that is biased.

Given user reports, and not having used the device himself, the only sensible assumption one can make is that the device is somewhere in the middle of he pack. Since when did being neutral become biased?

Quote

"..and in marginal areas may dissapoint ..(sic)" How does he know this? Again, speculation that is biased.

I think what murrayt was getting at is the TinyTwin, unlike what some people suggest, is not a magical device. If you have terrible reception there is little the tuner can do about it. Sure, a tuner with higher sensitivity will help your SNR, but at the end of the day a lot depends on the quality of the signal that you feed the tuner. Making people belief that the TinyTwin will resolve their reception issues is misleading and wrong.

Having said all that, I plan on buying a TinyTwin myself. The price is right and from what I've read the device performs comparably well to other devices on the market. However, just because I'm buying one It doesn't mean I have to join the TinyTwin royal guard

Edited by inm8, 19 September 2007 - 10:10 AM.

[charlesc]

murrayt, on Sep 13 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

... and others rate its tuner sensitivity as nothing particularly special, indeed even less than average.

murrayt, you like to be quoted, so I have done that above.

For the other posters, I must admit I think dezzy is correct in a lot of what he is saying.  I do not want to descend into a lot of negative posts on this one, but a few searches of the forum will reveal this is not an isolated case of negative 'bias' towards DigitalNow products.  I don't know what the history was on that one, but something seems to drive it.

I have got to admit, I was quizzical when I read the comment above.  While I have seen many comments on the good fringe area reception of the Tiny USB2 product, I don't recall having seen 'even less than average' reports before.  Maybe those posts can be linked to here, it would be good to validate them and try and see what was going on in that situation that gave 'poor' results.

EDIT:  And it probably should be clarified that the discussions may be covering two different products here, the older Tiny USB2, and the new TinyTwin dual tuner.

Edited by charlesc, 19 September 2007 - 10:18 AM.

[ht1]

charlesc, on Sep 19 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

For the other posters, I must admit I think dezzy is correct in a lot of what he is saying.  I do not want to descend into a lot of negative posts on this one, but a few searches of the forum will reveal this is not an isolated case of negative 'bias' towards DigitalNow products.  I don't know what the history was on that one, but something seems to drive it.

Perhaps this perceived negative bias towards digitalnow products is because the moderators of the forum have allowed unfettered pushing by digitalnow of its products which tends to over shadow the fact that there are a lot of competing products out there that work just as well/better/worse.

[charlesc]

There is certainly activity on this forum concerning DigitalNow products, both in terms of users and their experiences with the product, and new info releases and wish-lists on products from DigitalNow.  This makes them quite visible.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  There is also quite a bit of flak from time to time as well.

Certainly from my own experience with buying products, I would much rather see active discussion (positive and negative) and forum support going on, all of which gives confidence when you buy.

I think with internet access and forums purchasers can fairly readily search for products, their problems, reviews etc.  And this doesn't just apply to the DigitalNow products.

[digitaladvisor]

Along with any product like Tuners, many products have flooded our market. What the consumer is faced with are bargain basement prices that tempt many to these products.

We simply have to "pray" they work and if they do then you are onto a real bargain.

The fact is: People risk getting a mal functioning device on ocassions or there expectations are too high then being practical. Many times I see this time and time gain on these boards.

If a product is good with specialisation in this area - then of course support for that business is warranted by comment - excluding those bargains everyone seems content on grabbing for a the sake of 50 or so dollars and then come here asking for help on the dramas.  

DA