Why am I losing the start and end of some recordings

Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
edited 14 April 2017, 6:24PM in Archived Posts
Loss of start and end of recordings all channels except channel 5 does anyone have a solution
http://community.youview.com/youview/... does not answer my question
«134

Comments

  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 12 May 2017, 8:45PM
    Good idea to raise this as a specific question/problem :)

    I would hope others who are experiencing significant problems with recording starts/ends being missed will +1 the topic to help highlight/clarify the scale of the issue.
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 4 March 2017, 10:29AM
    As I mentioned over on this other topic I am not experiencing any significant problem with recordings starts/ends being missed. Since then I've been a little more aware of starts/ends when viewing recordings. Roughly speaking there are 40 scheduled recordings on our box for a week of which almost all are series links. These records are spread across a variety of channels: BBC1, BBC1 HD, BBC2, BBC3, BBC HD, ITV1, ITV1+1, ITV1 HD, C4, C4+1, C5, Dave, CITV, 301. Some of these recordings are purely watched by other members of the household so I cannot be certain about all items but the vast majority are ones I watch and for those all have had the end of the programme (except sports items on 301 where they regularly get chopped and only manual recording would allow enough flexibility). A few of the recordings have started very promptly or maybe even a few seconds in to the programme and one recording was missing a couple of minutes from the beginning. Whilst I was not pleased to miss the beginning of the programme I would generally assume there had been a minor glitch or scheduling slip resulting in an unresolvable clash and hence the few missed minutes. Something of particular note to others in the household is that on our old PVR recordings on CITV set via the EPG were very unreliable and regularly failed to capture the start/end of a programme to the point that we had to resort to setting recordings via manual timers. In contrast with the YouView box they tell me all their recordings set via the EPG generally accurately capture the entire programme.

    My impression from the question at the beginning of this topic and the comments on the other topic is that others are experiencing much more significant losses of the beginning and sometimes the ends of recordings.

    I would consider accurate recording a key feature of a PVR without which people can rightly state it is not fit for purpose. As such it would be very good to confirm the scale of the issue and details that may help YouView pinpoint the problem and hence address the issue.

    Some more specific details that may thus help could include:
    • Which channels people are recording where this problem happens regularly?
    • When it happens is it generally the beginning of the recording or is it just as common to miss the end?
    • What is the typical amount of the recording missed at the beginning and/or end?
    • Roughly what precentage of recordings are being spolit by this issue?
    More details relating to these questions might help to reveal the scale of the problem and whether there is a pattern to the issue, e.g. is it certain channels or most/all channels, is the problem happening with certain programmes for all people or just some, could it be happening to more people but the loss is generally at the beginning and very short so perhaps some people are not really noticing.

    Something else that people could note is whether their box is set to high or low eco mode. Whilst this should not really have any bearing on the issue if one is running in high eco mode the box is effectively being fully rebooted daily (i.e. each time it is put in standby) whereas in low eco mode it is not. A reboot of the box might mask/clear a problem and hence some problems might be more obvious/only tend to affect those in low eco mode.
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 5 November 2015, 11:30AM
    Hi Keith
    my problems are mostly the beginings that are missing, I would guess about 30 seconds worth. I have lost the end of a few programmes most notably the first episode of the new series of Homeland, unfortunately I have no idea how much was missing.
    It appears across all major channels except 5, could this be a help in finding the cause.
    I have spoken with BT as I also have a vision box, works perfectly and they confirm that they are also getting complaints from customers who have the Youview box with the same issue.
    My biggest disapointment is surely Humax must have tested these boxes and either knew of the issue or had no problems and if that is the case what has changed from the trial boxes to the new models.
    My box is set to eco mode
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 4 March 2017, 10:29AM
    Hi Mike - I thought I would look back to the trials to remind myself what came up on this issue amongst us customers/triallists at that stage. There were a couple of topics on the matter. I'll try to broadly summarise those topics in the next two paragraphs.

    YouView implements/utilises the 'Accurate Recording' standard which all the broadcasters signed up to many years ago. This broadly means the broadcaster transmits a signal to mark the beginning and end of the programme and thus the YouView box should react to that and provided it reacts in a timely fashion the recording should start and end correctly. One could imagine if the YouView box took 20 seconds to react to a start signal and that signal were exactly on the moment the programme started then one would see lots of recordings missing the first 20-30 seconds. Having looked at the starts of some more of the recordings I have at present what I am seeing is that in general they are actually starting almost exactly at the beginning and generally a few seconds early as if being triggered quickly and correctly in general.

    Within the trial process there were some people noting some recordings being chopped at the beginning and occasionally at the end. The broad thrust of many comments from customers in the trial was that they understood that 'Accurate Recording' should work and was a good idea but sadly on occasion some broadcasters failed to send the correct signals in a timely fashion and as such the YouView system needed to offer the user more flexibility by implementing an intelligent auto padding option (e.g. a user could specify how much padding to add to recordings in general but the box would add in some extra intelligence when this introduced additional clashes to avoid creating a bigger problem).

    You mention above that Humax should have tested this issue. My understanding is that for YouView systems the testing really needs to lie with them as the software developers, and the hardware manufacturers such as Humax and Huawei can only really be expected to be responsible for the hardware side of things.

    As with many things in life sometimes one has to be pragmatic and work around the short comings of others/systems/processes/technology. In this case that would mean YouView need to offer the end user work arounds to the short comings of the broadcasters and their failure to always perfectly comply with the 'Accurate Recording' requirements. How YouView should work around such short comings would seem to me to be to implement intelligent auto padding for those that want to use it to address the sort of problem you raise here where the beginning/end may be cut by a minute or two, and then to implement the ability to manually set and modify schedule recordings for larger problems such as live sporting events where one may wish to add significantly more time.
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 4 March 2017, 10:29AM
    Just to follow up on my post above, the one recording I had this week that was missing a few minutes from the beginning actually resulted in a repeat being recorded this morning. So it would seem the missed minutes were noticed in some way by the box and it silently scheduled a recording of the repeat. On the one hand this is quite clever but on the other hand of little use to me in this case as I've already watched the original recording now so whilst I can now see what I missed it is not that helpful/convenient. What I can now see is it missed 3 minutes of the beginning of the programme. If it was regularly missing this amount from recordings, even if it could recover by recording a repeat, I would not consider it satisfactory. For what is currently a very rare occurance for me I would thus still put this one down to some temporary issue or schedule slip resulting in a last minute clash unless I start to see more of these incidents.

    Whilst not entirely relevant to this topic, what would be useful would be if in such a situation when one tries to play the chopped recording that the box brings up a message to say it has already scheduled a recording of a repeat so you may want to wait until that records in order to get the full programme in order in one go.
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Keith1 said:

    Hi Mike - I thought I would look back to the trials to remind myself what came up on this issue amongst us customers/triallists at that stage. There were a couple of topics on the matter. I'll try to broadly summarise those topics in the next two paragraphs.

    YouView implements/utilises the 'Accurate Recording' standard which all the broadcasters signed up to many years ago. This broadly means the broadcaster transmits a signal to mark the beginning and end of the programme and thus the YouView box should react to that and provided it reacts in a timely fashion the recording should start and end correctly. One could imagine if the YouView box took 20 seconds to react to a start signal and that signal were exactly on the moment the programme started then one would see lots of recordings missing the first 20-30 seconds. Having looked at the starts of some more of the recordings I have at present what I am seeing is that in general they are actually starting almost exactly at the beginning and generally a few seconds early as if being triggered quickly and correctly in general.

    Within the trial process there were some people noting some recordings being chopped at the beginning and occasionally at the end. The broad thrust of many comments from customers in the trial was that they understood that 'Accurate Recording' should work and was a good idea but sadly on occasion some broadcasters failed to send the correct signals in a timely fashion and as such the YouView system needed to offer the user more flexibility by implementing an intelligent auto padding option (e.g. a user could specify how much padding to add to recordings in general but the box would add in some extra intelligence when this introduced additional clashes to avoid creating a bigger problem).

    You mention above that Humax should have tested this issue. My understanding is that for YouView systems the testing really needs to lie with them as the software developers, and the hardware manufacturers such as Humax and Huawei can only really be expected to be responsible for the hardware side of things.

    As with many things in life sometimes one has to be pragmatic and work around the short comings of others/systems/processes/technology. In this case that would mean YouView need to offer the end user work arounds to the short comings of the broadcasters and their failure to always perfectly comply with the 'Accurate Recording' requirements. How YouView should work around such short comings would seem to me to be to implement intelligent auto padding for those that want to use it to address the sort of problem you raise here where the beginning/end may be cut by a minute or two, and then to implement the ability to manually set and modify schedule recordings for larger problems such as live sporting events where one may wish to add significantly more time.

    Keith thanks for all the info it makes interesting reading and some points I agree with.
    Interestingly last night the final episode of Good Cop was broadcast and because it started, I assume bang on time with an action scene in full flow I thought I had again lost the begining of the show. So I stopped the recording and went to iPlayer to watch and low and behold that started from the same point.
    What I gained from this was there really does need some kind of Padding to indictae where the actual start of a programme is That is where the broacasters splash scene or adverts serve as a refernce point.
    I disagree with your point that Humax should only be responsable for the hardware as they have put their names to it they must bear responsiblilty for not ensuring quality control and that the system worked correctly before general release.
    The fact that you say this problem was highlighted during the trials indicates to me that maybe some financial pressure has been brought to bear to launch the box before it is fully ready which is foolhardy as the bad press will do more damage in the long run.
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 4 March 2017, 10:29AM
    I'm not completely decided on my thoughts on how the manufacturer and YouView relate in terms of responsibilities. With previous PVRs it was clear to me it was all under the manufacturers name and hence they were ultimately responsible. However, with the YouView venture it feels more like buying say a PC from Dell or HP etc where it comes with MS Windows installed. If I bought such a system I would expect to hold HP/Dell etc responsible for the hardware and that it meets the required spec to run the OS. However, if I had problems with the preinstalled OS or even applications I would generally expect the OS creator to be responsible for that. Within some initial period though I would expect to have bought the device for a purpose and hence if it failed to meet that purpose would fully expect to be able to return it to the point of sale (assuming I had been clear why I was buying it/it was clear what they claimed it could do when selling it) which is likely to be a retailer rather than the PC manufacturer (although of course in this example I could buy a PC direct from say Dell and then hold them responsible for all aspects).

    So with a YouView box if it fails to reliably record programmes I think no retailer could argue that it was not failing to fulfill a key purpose and hence I could return it as not fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act. As such I would not need to worry about whether it is YouView or Humax who have failed to thoroughly test the device unless I wish to be clear who is strictly at fault. If of course I broadly like the device and want someone to address the issue (rather than return the device for a refund) then knowing who is responsible and should take action becomes important and in this instant I would say only YouView can address the issue since if anything is to change to address this it will be within the YouView software part of the package (unless one considers the broadcasters are actually at fault in failing to provide accurate 'Accurate Recording' signals which would then seem to be something either YouView would have to deal with directly if they have a right to expect it to be accurate or they would have to adapt their product not to solely rely on it, again taking responsibility for resolving the issue by working around it).

    In terms of the launch schedule and its relationship to the trials it appeared to me that although a reasonably large trial was conducted a launch schedule had already been set before the trial began. The original trial period actually turned out to be short, say 1 month but was extended to run beyond the official launch date. So whilst I can see the feedback from the trial as being very valuable I can see no way in which the schedule had any time to use that feedback to improve the device before launch. The trial with some 2000 people though just seemed to be a final step tied in with the launch schedule and I expect smaller trials and tests must have occurred before that. I made some other references to the trial process in another post here.

    The issues of launching despite points raised in the trial was raised by triallists including the potential and unnecessary negative publicity it could result in. I of course have no idea of the internal planning and decision making process within YouView but have made some comment on this other topic as to why it may have launched when it did.
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 4 March 2017, 10:29AM
    Thinking more about padding and 'Accurate Recording' there seems to be a fundamental incompatibility which needs additional intelligence to overcome. If 'Accurate Recording' is triggered by a signal then until that signal occurs one cannot know exactly when the recording will start and hence one cannot thus start it early by the amount of padding. As such any intelligent padding system has to actually start buffering a recording based on the EPG start time minus the padding amount set and then once it receives the 'Accurate Recording' signal it can always bin part of that buffered recording if it is more than the padding defined. If of course the programme starts even earlier the recording will just have to start at the 'Accurate Recording' signal point without any padding but this should be rare and still a good catch by the device stopping you from missing more had it just begun recording at the EPG specified time etc.

    So it could be relatively straight forward to write a comprehensive algorithmic approach (provided one considers all reasonable cases) to combine 'Accurate Recording' and padding whilst including extra intelligence to overcome the fact one needs future knowledge to start a recording with padding and also further intelligence to handle clashes that the padding may introduce in an appropriate fashion. If and when YouView might do that is something only they could answer.

    In terms of 'Accurate Recording' being too accurate when programmes start with a sequence before the titles (which seems very common these days) a simpler approach if this is an issue would be for the broadcaster to adjust their 'Accurate Recording' signal to occur a few seconds earlier. This seems to happen with quite a few of the recordings I've checked and just means one captures a few seconds of an advert (except on BBC channels) or the broadcaster's splash screen etc.
  • edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    From a purist point of view, the issue is one for the broadcasters to fix but addressing their 'Accurate Recording' signals. Pragmatically some padding would be useful and I have asked for it myself in an earlier thread.

    HOWEVER padding always brings complications:

    Are users happy to trust the box to drop padding when recordings are concurrent on the same channel?

    If the box is set to pad unless it gets an 'Accurate Record' signal what happens if the signal is sent too early and the end is missed?

    What happens when abiding by the padding creates a 3-way recording/watching conflict? If I'm recording BBC One and Really at 9pm and have 5 minutes of padding on the end of my recordings, what happens when I also want to watch/record Film4's premiere of BIG FILM at 10pm?

    I don't have the answers, I just raise the issues to further the discussion and seed the idea that this could be a tougher to resolve than some people think.
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Keith1 said:

    I'm not completely decided on my thoughts on how the manufacturer and YouView relate in terms of responsibilities. With previous PVRs it was clear to me it was all under the manufacturers name and hence they were ultimately responsible. However, with the YouView venture it feels more like buying say a PC from Dell or HP etc where it comes with MS Windows installed. If I bought such a system I would expect to hold HP/Dell etc responsible for the hardware and that it meets the required spec to run the OS. However, if I had problems with the preinstalled OS or even applications I would generally expect the OS creator to be responsible for that. Within some initial period though I would expect to have bought the device for a purpose and hence if it failed to meet that purpose would fully expect to be able to return it to the point of sale (assuming I had been clear why I was buying it/it was clear what they claimed it could do when selling it) which is likely to be a retailer rather than the PC manufacturer (although of course in this example I could buy a PC direct from say Dell and then hold them responsible for all aspects).

    So with a YouView box if it fails to reliably record programmes I think no retailer could argue that it was not failing to fulfill a key purpose and hence I could return it as not fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act. As such I would not need to worry about whether it is YouView or Humax who have failed to thoroughly test the device unless I wish to be clear who is strictly at fault. If of course I broadly like the device and want someone to address the issue (rather than return the device for a refund) then knowing who is responsible and should take action becomes important and in this instant I would say only YouView can address the issue since if anything is to change to address this it will be within the YouView software part of the package (unless one considers the broadcasters are actually at fault in failing to provide accurate 'Accurate Recording' signals which would then seem to be something either YouView would have to deal with directly if they have a right to expect it to be accurate or they would have to adapt their product not to solely rely on it, again taking responsibility for resolving the issue by working around it).

    In terms of the launch schedule and its relationship to the trials it appeared to me that although a reasonably large trial was conducted a launch schedule had already been set before the trial began. The original trial period actually turned out to be short, say 1 month but was extended to run beyond the official launch date. So whilst I can see the feedback from the trial as being very valuable I can see no way in which the schedule had any time to use that feedback to improve the device before launch. The trial with some 2000 people though just seemed to be a final step tied in with the launch schedule and I expect smaller trials and tests must have occurred before that. I made some other references to the trial process in another post here.

    The issues of launching despite points raised in the trial was raised by triallists including the potential and unnecessary negative publicity it could result in. I of course have no idea of the internal planning and decision making process within YouView but have made some comment on this other topic as to why it may have launched when it did.

    Hi Keith
    I think it has to be Humax who are ultimately responible as their name is on the product and the warranty is in their name, either way the shop has agreed to return the box without any hassle...always good to deal with reputable company. I will return tomorrow as have been in work today and not had time but I shall keep an eye on this web site and certainly purchase another when the problem is sorted although I would think I will now have to sign up for at minimum 12 months of Sky.

    It seems from what you said about the trial it was more a PR exercise to get good feedback to use at launch rather than development of the box.

    One point I have been speaking to BT who are telling customers that the youview box is up and running and there are no problems !!!!!!!!!!
  • VisionmanVisionman Posts: 9,496Member ✭✭✭
    edited 26 February 2017, 2:39PM
    Indeed.

    BT Vision 1.0 has the facility to pad programmes. But it can cause conflicts and sometimes failed recordings too, under certain circumstances.

    BT Vision 2.0 doesn't, as it uses the same dynamic EPG that all YouView users on here do. And their getting the same issues too.

    So the subject, and the solution, is a difficult one.
  • edited 25 April 2013, 2:10AM
    Keith1 said:

    I'm not completely decided on my thoughts on how the manufacturer and YouView relate in terms of responsibilities. With previous PVRs it was clear to me it was all under the manufacturers name and hence they were ultimately responsible. However, with the YouView venture it feels more like buying say a PC from Dell or HP etc where it comes with MS Windows installed. If I bought such a system I would expect to hold HP/Dell etc responsible for the hardware and that it meets the required spec to run the OS. However, if I had problems with the preinstalled OS or even applications I would generally expect the OS creator to be responsible for that. Within some initial period though I would expect to have bought the device for a purpose and hence if it failed to meet that purpose would fully expect to be able to return it to the point of sale (assuming I had been clear why I was buying it/it was clear what they claimed it could do when selling it) which is likely to be a retailer rather than the PC manufacturer (although of course in this example I could buy a PC direct from say Dell and then hold them responsible for all aspects).

    So with a YouView box if it fails to reliably record programmes I think no retailer could argue that it was not failing to fulfill a key purpose and hence I could return it as not fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act. As such I would not need to worry about whether it is YouView or Humax who have failed to thoroughly test the device unless I wish to be clear who is strictly at fault. If of course I broadly like the device and want someone to address the issue (rather than return the device for a refund) then knowing who is responsible and should take action becomes important and in this instant I would say only YouView can address the issue since if anything is to change to address this it will be within the YouView software part of the package (unless one considers the broadcasters are actually at fault in failing to provide accurate 'Accurate Recording' signals which would then seem to be something either YouView would have to deal with directly if they have a right to expect it to be accurate or they would have to adapt their product not to solely rely on it, again taking responsibility for resolving the issue by working around it).

    In terms of the launch schedule and its relationship to the trials it appeared to me that although a reasonably large trial was conducted a launch schedule had already been set before the trial began. The original trial period actually turned out to be short, say 1 month but was extended to run beyond the official launch date. So whilst I can see the feedback from the trial as being very valuable I can see no way in which the schedule had any time to use that feedback to improve the device before launch. The trial with some 2000 people though just seemed to be a final step tied in with the launch schedule and I expect smaller trials and tests must have occurred before that. I made some other references to the trial process in another post here.

    The issues of launching despite points raised in the trial was raised by triallists including the potential and unnecessary negative publicity it could result in. I of course have no idea of the internal planning and decision making process within YouView but have made some comment on this other topic as to why it may have launched when it did.

    >> It seems from what you said about the trial it was more a PR exercise to get good feedback to use at launch rather than development of the box.

    Or it was a sensible way to get feedback so that they could work on enhancements to be delivered soon after boxes started selling in measurable numbers thanks to the ad campaign.

    Problem is, and I do not refer to Keith in this, a number of trialists had a very over inflated sense of their own important and expertise and have littered various forums with childish 'IIIII TOOOOOLLLLLD THEMMMM! THEEEEYYY DIDN"TTTTT LIIISSSSTENNNN' 'I EXPECTED MY FEEDBACK TO BE ACTIONED IIIIIMMMMEEEEDIATELY!!!" posts and seem incapable of understanding just how long it takes to develop and check changes to a consumer tech platform.

    This is especially true of many who post on certain brand specific 'fan' forums who seem to think they're the final word in PVR wisdom.

    >> One point I have been speaking to BT who are telling customers that the youview box is up and running and there are no problems !!!!!!!!!!

    What would you expect a company trying to sell you something to say?

    And to be fair to BT, their website lists a number of limitations of YouView compared to their Vision box/service.
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 21 December 2016, 11:29PM
    Keith1 said:

    I'm not completely decided on my thoughts on how the manufacturer and YouView relate in terms of responsibilities. With previous PVRs it was clear to me it was all under the manufacturers name and hence they were ultimately responsible. However, with the YouView venture it feels more like buying say a PC from Dell or HP etc where it comes with MS Windows installed. If I bought such a system I would expect to hold HP/Dell etc responsible for the hardware and that it meets the required spec to run the OS. However, if I had problems with the preinstalled OS or even applications I would generally expect the OS creator to be responsible for that. Within some initial period though I would expect to have bought the device for a purpose and hence if it failed to meet that purpose would fully expect to be able to return it to the point of sale (assuming I had been clear why I was buying it/it was clear what they claimed it could do when selling it) which is likely to be a retailer rather than the PC manufacturer (although of course in this example I could buy a PC direct from say Dell and then hold them responsible for all aspects).

    So with a YouView box if it fails to reliably record programmes I think no retailer could argue that it was not failing to fulfill a key purpose and hence I could return it as not fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act. As such I would not need to worry about whether it is YouView or Humax who have failed to thoroughly test the device unless I wish to be clear who is strictly at fault. If of course I broadly like the device and want someone to address the issue (rather than return the device for a refund) then knowing who is responsible and should take action becomes important and in this instant I would say only YouView can address the issue since if anything is to change to address this it will be within the YouView software part of the package (unless one considers the broadcasters are actually at fault in failing to provide accurate 'Accurate Recording' signals which would then seem to be something either YouView would have to deal with directly if they have a right to expect it to be accurate or they would have to adapt their product not to solely rely on it, again taking responsibility for resolving the issue by working around it).

    In terms of the launch schedule and its relationship to the trials it appeared to me that although a reasonably large trial was conducted a launch schedule had already been set before the trial began. The original trial period actually turned out to be short, say 1 month but was extended to run beyond the official launch date. So whilst I can see the feedback from the trial as being very valuable I can see no way in which the schedule had any time to use that feedback to improve the device before launch. The trial with some 2000 people though just seemed to be a final step tied in with the launch schedule and I expect smaller trials and tests must have occurred before that. I made some other references to the trial process in another post here.

    The issues of launching despite points raised in the trial was raised by triallists including the potential and unnecessary negative publicity it could result in. I of course have no idea of the internal planning and decision making process within YouView but have made some comment on this other topic as to why it may have launched when it did.

    I think it is important for anyone involved in/with Youview to be open and honest as to mislead the customer will only backfire in the end. To give YouView credit they could have chosen not to launch a public forum (or delay it) as it was pointed out that ineviatably it would contain negative as well as positive points based on the current state of the system. Being a public forum I would hope people buying a YouView box do a bit of research and so potentially see the info here (and elsewhere) and then they can decide for themselves when and if to buy one. I'll certainly continue to track and record the positives and negatives in a hopefully open, honest and balanced way :)

    Looking on the positive side of returning your box, if you paid £300 for it then if you purchase one again in the future you are almost certain to be able to get it for £250 or less which should mean you get a better device for less money ;-)
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Keith1 said:

    Just to follow up on my post above, the one recording I had this week that was missing a few minutes from the beginning actually resulted in a repeat being recorded this morning. So it would seem the missed minutes were noticed in some way by the box and it silently scheduled a recording of the repeat. On the one hand this is quite clever but on the other hand of little use to me in this case as I've already watched the original recording now so whilst I can now see what I missed it is not that helpful/convenient. What I can now see is it missed 3 minutes of the beginning of the programme. If it was regularly missing this amount from recordings, even if it could recover by recording a repeat, I would not consider it satisfactory. For what is currently a very rare occurance for me I would thus still put this one down to some temporary issue or schedule slip resulting in a last minute clash unless I start to see more of these incidents.

    Whilst not entirely relevant to this topic, what would be useful would be if in such a situation when one tries to play the chopped recording that the box brings up a message to say it has already scheduled a recording of a repeat so you may want to wait until that records in order to get the full programme in order in one go.

    I can see all kinds of problems with repeat recording ie clashes with other programmes to be recorded etc. I have noticed with series linked recordings it shows up in the planner that episodes that have already been recorded are duplicated which again could bring up recording clashes although to date I have not noted any clashes
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Keith1 said:

    I'm not completely decided on my thoughts on how the manufacturer and YouView relate in terms of responsibilities. With previous PVRs it was clear to me it was all under the manufacturers name and hence they were ultimately responsible. However, with the YouView venture it feels more like buying say a PC from Dell or HP etc where it comes with MS Windows installed. If I bought such a system I would expect to hold HP/Dell etc responsible for the hardware and that it meets the required spec to run the OS. However, if I had problems with the preinstalled OS or even applications I would generally expect the OS creator to be responsible for that. Within some initial period though I would expect to have bought the device for a purpose and hence if it failed to meet that purpose would fully expect to be able to return it to the point of sale (assuming I had been clear why I was buying it/it was clear what they claimed it could do when selling it) which is likely to be a retailer rather than the PC manufacturer (although of course in this example I could buy a PC direct from say Dell and then hold them responsible for all aspects).

    So with a YouView box if it fails to reliably record programmes I think no retailer could argue that it was not failing to fulfill a key purpose and hence I could return it as not fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act. As such I would not need to worry about whether it is YouView or Humax who have failed to thoroughly test the device unless I wish to be clear who is strictly at fault. If of course I broadly like the device and want someone to address the issue (rather than return the device for a refund) then knowing who is responsible and should take action becomes important and in this instant I would say only YouView can address the issue since if anything is to change to address this it will be within the YouView software part of the package (unless one considers the broadcasters are actually at fault in failing to provide accurate 'Accurate Recording' signals which would then seem to be something either YouView would have to deal with directly if they have a right to expect it to be accurate or they would have to adapt their product not to solely rely on it, again taking responsibility for resolving the issue by working around it).

    In terms of the launch schedule and its relationship to the trials it appeared to me that although a reasonably large trial was conducted a launch schedule had already been set before the trial began. The original trial period actually turned out to be short, say 1 month but was extended to run beyond the official launch date. So whilst I can see the feedback from the trial as being very valuable I can see no way in which the schedule had any time to use that feedback to improve the device before launch. The trial with some 2000 people though just seemed to be a final step tied in with the launch schedule and I expect smaller trials and tests must have occurred before that. I made some other references to the trial process in another post here.

    The issues of launching despite points raised in the trial was raised by triallists including the potential and unnecessary negative publicity it could result in. I of course have no idea of the internal planning and decision making process within YouView but have made some comment on this other topic as to why it may have launched when it did.

    Martin Keith yes I agree with a lot of what you say and credit due I suppose to Youview for the forum and I do think the box will be fantastic when some of the small issues have been sorted it is just for me regretably for the price I paid, almost £270 to much to put up with, however had I only paid £49 from BT or even recieved a freebe then it would not have been to bad and may have been something I could put up with until issues were sorted
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Keith1 said:

    I'm not completely decided on my thoughts on how the manufacturer and YouView relate in terms of responsibilities. With previous PVRs it was clear to me it was all under the manufacturers name and hence they were ultimately responsible. However, with the YouView venture it feels more like buying say a PC from Dell or HP etc where it comes with MS Windows installed. If I bought such a system I would expect to hold HP/Dell etc responsible for the hardware and that it meets the required spec to run the OS. However, if I had problems with the preinstalled OS or even applications I would generally expect the OS creator to be responsible for that. Within some initial period though I would expect to have bought the device for a purpose and hence if it failed to meet that purpose would fully expect to be able to return it to the point of sale (assuming I had been clear why I was buying it/it was clear what they claimed it could do when selling it) which is likely to be a retailer rather than the PC manufacturer (although of course in this example I could buy a PC direct from say Dell and then hold them responsible for all aspects).

    So with a YouView box if it fails to reliably record programmes I think no retailer could argue that it was not failing to fulfill a key purpose and hence I could return it as not fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act. As such I would not need to worry about whether it is YouView or Humax who have failed to thoroughly test the device unless I wish to be clear who is strictly at fault. If of course I broadly like the device and want someone to address the issue (rather than return the device for a refund) then knowing who is responsible and should take action becomes important and in this instant I would say only YouView can address the issue since if anything is to change to address this it will be within the YouView software part of the package (unless one considers the broadcasters are actually at fault in failing to provide accurate 'Accurate Recording' signals which would then seem to be something either YouView would have to deal with directly if they have a right to expect it to be accurate or they would have to adapt their product not to solely rely on it, again taking responsibility for resolving the issue by working around it).

    In terms of the launch schedule and its relationship to the trials it appeared to me that although a reasonably large trial was conducted a launch schedule had already been set before the trial began. The original trial period actually turned out to be short, say 1 month but was extended to run beyond the official launch date. So whilst I can see the feedback from the trial as being very valuable I can see no way in which the schedule had any time to use that feedback to improve the device before launch. The trial with some 2000 people though just seemed to be a final step tied in with the launch schedule and I expect smaller trials and tests must have occurred before that. I made some other references to the trial process in another post here.

    The issues of launching despite points raised in the trial was raised by triallists including the potential and unnecessary negative publicity it could result in. I of course have no idea of the internal planning and decision making process within YouView but have made some comment on this other topic as to why it may have launched when it did.

    In addition I must say BT are losing the battle to Sky for me as they will only supply me Sky sports which is transmitted on my new expensive HD TV with their old none HD Vision box but not with an HD enabled Youview box, or even Multiroom. No wonder people chose Sky with poor customer service provided by BT........But then I suppose that ios for another Forum completely
  • Chris__M1Chris__M1 Posts: 136Member
    edited 5 November 2015, 11:30AM
    For anyone who doubts that programmes are being routinely cut, this example is consistent and repeatable.

    5 USA's broadcast at 6pm weekdays (it was Stark, and is now NCIS) is consistent in always having the last 3 minutes or so cut. From what I can see, this is entirely due to incorrect data in the EPG, which has the slot going from 6pm to 6.55pm, followed by a 5 minute "Inside Hollywood" item. In fact, "Inside Holywood never starts at 6.55pm, and the 6pm show always over-runs its slot.

    As the YouView box has no padding, the only way around this is to record the "Inside Hollywood" show too. Even then you frequently lose a few seconds of action or dialog, which - at the end of the show - can be significant.
  • edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Hi Chris

    The fault in your example with the broadcaster who provides the EPG data and who then runs the show for longer then the EPG is expecting.

    I don't think anyone's actually disagreeing it happens - I missed the end of last week's Homeland season 2 opener - but it is a problem that is ultimately best fixed by the broadcasters who can, if they want, start and end their shows on time.
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Martin1 said:

    Hi Chris

    The fault in your example with the broadcaster who provides the EPG data and who then runs the show for longer then the EPG is expecting.

    I don't think anyone's actually disagreeing it happens - I missed the end of last week's Homeland season 2 opener - but it is a problem that is ultimately best fixed by the broadcasters who can, if they want, start and end their shows on time.

    If the fault lies with the broadcaster then in my opinion there is little hope of a solution soon as I'm sure trying to get every single broadcaster to ensure they transmit the shows on time is nigh on impossible. so therefore Youview and Humax deciding to go down this route rather than add padding to the start and end of recording appears seriously flawed.
    Tonights start of X factor result show was missed as yet again was the end of the 2nd episode of Homeland resulting in the vital part of the plot being missed...............
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 12 May 2017, 8:47PM
    Martin1 said:

    From a purist point of view, the issue is one for the broadcasters to fix but addressing their 'Accurate Recording' signals. Pragmatically some padding would be useful and I have asked for it myself in an earlier thread.

    HOWEVER padding always brings complications:

    Are users happy to trust the box to drop padding when recordings are concurrent on the same channel?

    If the box is set to pad unless it gets an 'Accurate Record' signal what happens if the signal is sent too early and the end is missed?

    What happens when abiding by the padding creates a 3-way recording/watching conflict? If I'm recording BBC One and Really at 9pm and have 5 minutes of padding on the end of my recordings, what happens when I also want to watch/record Film4's premiere of BIG FILM at 10pm?

    I don't have the answers, I just raise the issues to further the discussion and seed the idea that this could be a tougher to resolve than some people think.

    "I just raise the issues to further the discussion and seed the idea that this could be a tougher to resolve than some people think. ! Martin you hit the nail on the head there and that is the reason my box is being returned to the shop, I'm afraid a recording box that does not record all that it is supposed to do is as useful as a chocolate fireguard
  • Chris__M1Chris__M1 Posts: 136Member
    edited 14 October 2012, 11:46PM
    Martin1 said:

    Hi Chris

    The fault in your example with the broadcaster who provides the EPG data and who then runs the show for longer then the EPG is expecting.

    I don't think anyone's actually disagreeing it happens - I missed the end of last week's Homeland season 2 opener - but it is a problem that is ultimately best fixed by the broadcasters who can, if they want, start and end their shows on time.

    Yes, I realise that it is the broadcaster at fault, but I think that is actually irrelevent. It is not as if the broadcaster is nothing to do with YouView.

    Channel 5 (who also broadcast 5* and 5 USA) are one of the main YouView partners. If YouView cannot guarantee that their own partners can produce accurate EPG information, then the YouView model needs to allow for a way of recording aside from exact adherence to the EPG information - either a manual mode of recording, or optional padding.
  • VisionmanVisionman Posts: 9,496Member ✭✭✭
    edited 26 February 2017, 2:39PM
    Hm, as I said above, its a difficult subject/problem to resolve. Though no doubt annoying.

    But to blame YouView for throwing their lot in with the PSB's? Who are responsible to themselves and themselves only? Ohh... thats harsh to throw in YouViews culpability..
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Visionman said:

    Hm, as I said above, its a difficult subject/problem to resolve. Though no doubt annoying.

    But to blame YouView for throwing their lot in with the PSB's? Who are responsible to themselves and themselves only? Ohh... thats harsh to throw in YouViews culpability..

    Surely this issue should have been resolved before launch or did Youview and Humax seriously think viewers would put up with it. They must be culpable it was up to them to ensure the product worked !!! if the PSB's couldn't be relied on, as it appears, then another method should have been employed or assurances guaranteed.
  • Chris__M1Chris__M1 Posts: 136Member
    edited 15 October 2012, 1:23AM
    Visionman said:

    Hm, as I said above, its a difficult subject/problem to resolve. Though no doubt annoying.

    But to blame YouView for throwing their lot in with the PSB's? Who are responsible to themselves and themselves only? Ohh... thats harsh to throw in YouViews culpability..

    Youview hasn't "thrown their lot in with the PSBs", as you put it. That implies that YouView is a completely separate entity.

    YouView is a joint venture between BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, BT and TalkTalk. The companies in question *are* YouView.

    So Channel 5 isn't just a broadcaster who allows their output to be used. They are a member of the consortium.
  • VisionmanVisionman Posts: 9,496Member ✭✭✭
    edited 22 December 2016, 12:05AM
    Visionman said:

    Hm, as I said above, its a difficult subject/problem to resolve. Though no doubt annoying.

    But to blame YouView for throwing their lot in with the PSB's? Who are responsible to themselves and themselves only? Ohh... thats harsh to throw in YouViews culpability..

    ****. The EPG is theirs, and theirs alone. And YouView have no control over this.
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 4 March 2017, 10:29AM
    This thread now has some good examples of when the problem occurs and the underlying issues that can lead to the problem. One thing that is still not clear to me though is the scale of the problem, i.e. something along the lines of what percentage of programmes/recordings suffered from this issue. If the percentage is high then that only adds weight to the calls that YouView need to work around this issue by introducing intelligent padding (which admittedly is not easy but equally is possible to define with an algorithm walking through all typical cases). If the percentage of recordings affected is low that does not mean a solution should not be implemented but may lower its priority in relation to other developments YouView are working on.

    Perhaps the YouView people could discuss this in some development/team meeting that they presumably have on a weekly/regular basis. It would then be helpful to the customers if in broad terms they could report back on this to indicate whether they will engage with their partners to improve the 'Accurate Recording' information or whether they will put under consideration implementation of an intelligent padding feature or do both (which is probably the only practical way to address this well).
  • KeithKeith Posts: 2,429Member, Champion mod
    edited 21 December 2016, 11:29PM
    Keith1 said:

    This thread now has some good examples of when the problem occurs and the underlying issues that can lead to the problem. One thing that is still not clear to me though is the scale of the problem, i.e. something along the lines of what percentage of programmes/recordings suffered from this issue. If the percentage is high then that only adds weight to the calls that YouView need to work around this issue by introducing intelligent padding (which admittedly is not easy but equally is possible to define with an algorithm walking through all typical cases). If the percentage of recordings affected is low that does not mean a solution should not be implemented but may lower its priority in relation to other developments YouView are working on.

    Perhaps the YouView people could discuss this in some development/team meeting that they presumably have on a weekly/regular basis. It would then be helpful to the customers if in broad terms they could report back on this to indicate whether they will engage with their partners to improve the 'Accurate Recording' information or whether they will put under consideration implementation of an intelligent padding feature or do both (which is probably the only practical way to address this well).

    I should probably add that on the other related topic there is an official response from 24 days ago saying that they will look into adding a padding feature but that it is complicated so is unlikely to come along any time soon.

    Nevertheless further updated comment on this topic directly from YouView would be most helpful given the way these two threads are continuing to demonstrate customer disatisfaction with this being a fundamental issue to those customers. Some might consider this the second most critical issue after the repeated loss of channels issue in terms of making the box not fit for purpose for some customers.
  • Mike3Mike3 Posts: 99Member
    edited 16 May 2014, 7:28PM
    Visionman said:

    Hm, as I said above, its a difficult subject/problem to resolve. Though no doubt annoying.

    But to blame YouView for throwing their lot in with the PSB's? Who are responsible to themselves and themselves only? Ohh... thats harsh to throw in YouViews culpability..

    Does anybody know if other recorders who use this system of delivery have the same problems with missed portions of programmes ?? That could point to whether the problem does in fact lie with the PSB's or Youview, either way though I have never had the problems I have experienced in the last 6 weeks with any of the other 7 boxes I use/used so I know where my blame lies.
  • gomezgomez Posts: 2,073Member ✭✭
    edited 15 October 2012, 10:43AM
    Keith1 said:

    Thinking more about padding and 'Accurate Recording' there seems to be a fundamental incompatibility which needs additional intelligence to overcome. If 'Accurate Recording' is triggered by a signal then until that signal occurs one cannot know exactly when the recording will start and hence one cannot thus start it early by the amount of padding. As such any intelligent padding system has to actually start buffering a recording based on the EPG start time minus the padding amount set and then once it receives the 'Accurate Recording' signal it can always bin part of that buffered recording if it is more than the padding defined. If of course the programme starts even earlier the recording will just have to start at the 'Accurate Recording' signal point without any padding but this should be rare and still a good catch by the device stopping you from missing more had it just begun recording at the EPG specified time etc.

    So it could be relatively straight forward to write a comprehensive algorithmic approach (provided one considers all reasonable cases) to combine 'Accurate Recording' and padding whilst including extra intelligence to overcome the fact one needs future knowledge to start a recording with padding and also further intelligence to handle clashes that the padding may introduce in an appropriate fashion. If and when YouView might do that is something only they could answer.

    In terms of 'Accurate Recording' being too accurate when programmes start with a sequence before the titles (which seems very common these days) a simpler approach if this is an issue would be for the broadcaster to adjust their 'Accurate Recording' signal to occur a few seconds earlier. This seems to happen with quite a few of the recordings I've checked and just means one captures a few seconds of an advert (except on BBC channels) or the broadcaster's splash screen etc.

    Topfield/MyStuff has a very good system for combining padding with Accurate Recording with automatic extension (up to two hours subject to no clashing). I still record live sport on the Topfield for which the timely availability of the programme on catch-up is in doubt.
  • gomezgomez Posts: 2,073Member ✭✭
    edited 15 October 2012, 10:46AM
    Mike3 said:

    Hi Keith
    my problems are mostly the beginings that are missing, I would guess about 30 seconds worth. I have lost the end of a few programmes most notably the first episode of the new series of Homeland, unfortunately I have no idea how much was missing.
    It appears across all major channels except 5, could this be a help in finding the cause.
    I have spoken with BT as I also have a vision box, works perfectly and they confirm that they are also getting complaints from customers who have the Youview box with the same issue.
    My biggest disapointment is surely Humax must have tested these boxes and either knew of the issue or had no problems and if that is the case what has changed from the trial boxes to the new models.
    My box is set to eco mode

    5? Really? In my experience they are the worst culprits. BTW you lost about 30 seconds off the end of Homeland before the credits.
Sign In or Register to comment.