Help Required Blind Scan Speed; TM-5402 (M1) vs TM-5402 (M3)

[moonbase]

Hi,

Can anyone please advise me how quick a TM-5402 (M3) model does a blind scan compared to a TM-5402 (M1) model? My M1 model seems slow compared to a Dr HD D15 which is a newer decoder, I just wondered if the TM-5402 (M3) model had speeded up the blind scan a bit?


Rgds

 

[Costactc]

The M3 blind scan is lightning fast but will miss the occasional tp, the M1 is super slow. As much as I like the M1, the M3 is my favourite Technomate receiver.

 

[moonbase]

The M3 blind scan is lightning fast but will miss the occasional tp, the M1 is super slow. As much as I like the M1, the M3 is my favourite Technomate receiver.

Costactc,

Thank you for the reply.
I think I will see if I can sort out some type of trade for my M1 for an M3.

 

[Costactc]

No problem. Most enthusiasts on this site prefer the M1 but I prefer the M3 because of its much more advanced gui, blind scan speed and channel info with db level as well as sq.

 

[Archived-1]

The M3 blind scan is lightning fast but will miss the occasional tp, the M1 is super slow. As much as I like the M1, the M3 is my favourite Technomate receiver.

Hi Costactc, how would you rate the above to the X2 please.

 

[Costactc]

The x2 mini blind scan is ridiculously fast but sometimes requires 2 scans as it misses many tp at that spped(usually under 1 minute). The x2 premium III is about as fast as the tm 5402 M3. If there wasn't about a 15 second hesitation on the M3 before it starts its blind scan it too would be ridiculously fast.

 

[Serafeim]

If you want a receiver mostly for blind scan, prefer model m3. For any other reason go for 5402 m1. But, if you already have dr hd d15, there is no need to go for m3 (these two are similar receivers).

 

[Costactc]

If you want a receiver mostly for blind scan, prefer model m3. For any other reason go for 5402 m1. But, if you already have dr hd d15, there is no need to go for m3 (these two are similar receivers).

The dr hd d15 tuner is quite insensitive to the M1 and M3.

 

[digi247]

The DrHD D15, TM F3/5 & TM5402HD M3 are all identical same board same tuner and near identical software.

I believe that the D5 and Technomates F3/5 are possibly the closest in comparison connectivity wise apart from the F3/5 having an inbuilt RF Modulator.

The 5402M3 version goes one step ahead of this by adding a Scart output and extra rear USB as well as the facility of a IR extender so the M3 can be hid away in a cupboard.

The M3 and F3/5 use identical software and patches are released at the same time last one was 22/12/14

the D15 on the other hand last Patched firmware was 27/06/14 and nothing since it appears DrHD now dont want to bother supporting there receivers and instead have decided on the so called Hotcake receiver and spending time with Sat Meters.

If you dont need the extra connectivity of the M3 then the F3/5 around £20 cheaper will perform identical to the M3

 

[Serafeim]

The dr hd d15 tuner is quite insensitive to the M1 and M3.

As digi247 stated, m3 and d15 have the same tuner.

 

[william-1]

Hi,

Can anyone please advise me how quick a TM-5402 (M3) model does a blind scan compared to a TM-5402 (M1) model? My M1 model seems slow compared to a Dr HD D15 which is a newer decoder, I just wondered if the TM-5402 (M3) model had speeded up the blind scan a bit?


Rgds

The M3 is faster but it misses 20% of the active feeds the M1 & M2 are better for finding more active feeds the only downside of the M1 & M2 is the 45,000 symbol rate error

 

[gibertini]

the only downside of the M1 & M2 is the 45,000 symbol rate error

didnt they fix it in a software patch when they upgraded the blind scanning on the 6800/6900 also? (wishfull thinking maybe) also dont understand why when the 5402hd m1/m2, 6800hd/6900hd get updates the dr-hd f15/f16 and bm7000 dont get them shortly after. guess its the usual ££££££ reason. regards

 

[Costactc]

As digi247 stated, m3 and d15 have the same tuner.

I tested both and I beg to differ. The dr hd d15 was one of the poorest receivers I have tested in a while.

 

[william-1]

didnt they fix it in a software patch when they upgraded the blind scanning on the 6800/6900 also? (wishfull thinking maybe) also dont understand why when the 5402hd m1/m2, 6800hd/6900hd get updates the dr-hd f15/f16 and bm7000 dont get them shortly after. guess its the usual ££££££ reason. regards

Yes it is all down to finance shame is that no new satellite receivers have emerged over the last 5 years just revamps of old software we are making very little progress when it comes to what is actually being broadcast 16 & 32 APSK 4:2:2 with Codecs in MPEG-4 the list goes on,

All the satellite receiver manufacturers (China) seem to be interested in are cheap satellite receivers that can show You-tube ect as there is no incentive to do otherwise,
What we need is a UK company to develop a decent receiver that will do more than the current batch of cheap receivers being imported,

The technology is already there all we need is someone to invest in what will prove to be an even more lucrative market that the current limited receivers being produced.

 

[digi247]

I tested both and I beg to differ. The dr hd d15 was one of the poorest receivers I have tested in a while.

They share the same internal Motherboard and Tuner i have owned all incarnations of the DrHD series and the 5402 series and have even had lids of machines just to inspect the internals.

The Software/Firmware side is a different matter it appears only Technomate now can be bothered to support new/old receivers DrHD on the other hand dont bother

 

[AndyX]

Yes it is all down to finance shame is that no new satellite receivers have emerged over the last 5 years just revamps of old software we are making very little progress when it comes to what is actually being broadcast 16 & 32 APSK 4:2:2 with Codecs in MPEG-4 the list goes on,

All the satellite receiver manufacturers (China) seem to be interested in are cheap satellite receivers that can show You-tube ect as there is no incentive to do otherwise,
What we need is a UK company to develop a decent receiver that will do more than the current batch of cheap receivers being imported,

The technology is already there all we need is someone to invest in what will prove to be an even more lucrative market that the current limited receivers being produced.

Sounds like a case for crowd funding.