Best blind scan receiver....

[Manikm909]

I think the GTMedia GTCombo 4:2:2 receiver has to be up there, in terms of speed, accuracy and tuner sensitivity.

agree?

i have used many receivers and this STB tends to top it (as a secondary receiver) - i woudlnt use it for daily use.

 

[John]

I think the GTMedia GTCombo 4:2:2 receiver has to be up there, in terms of speed, accuracy and tuner sensitivity.

agree?

i have used many receivers and this STB tends to top it (as a secondary receiver) - i woudlnt use it for daily use.

+1
Agree

 

[Satspot]

In a side by side comparison between the GT Combo and it’s non Android brother V8 UHD the V8 UHD gets the nod here. Of course it’s a cheaper option too.

 

[Manikm909]

In a side by side comparison between the GT Combo and it’s non Android brother V8 UHD the V8 UHD gets the nod here. Of course it’s a cheaper option too.

i bought one

what a load of toot! slow, cumbersome, and bad UI.

going back tomorrow.

the GTMEDIA COMBO pisses all over this V8 UHD chunk of crap

falling asleep blind scanning 7w.....66% for ages....the combo cuts through like butter

 

[Satspot]

i bought one

what a load of toot! slow, cumbersome, and bad UI.

going back tomorrow.

the GTMEDIA COMBO pisses all over this V8 UHD chunk of crap

falling asleep blind scanning 7w.....66% for ages....the combo cuts through like butter

If you did your research properly here you’ll find similar results reported that concur with my findings. I strongly suggest you investigate these things further before pressing the “Buy” button.

Do remember these are personal opinions based on individual setups and are not in any way a commercial endorsement of any product. If you do choose to purchase a product do bear that in mind.

I’ve experienced none of the criticisms you highlight here. Before returning the product I do suggest you ensure it’s configured properly.

Just to let you know I got an email copy of your original post before you edited it. I’m forwarding it on to the moderators for consideration.

 

[Manikm909]

If you did your research properly here you’ll find similar results reported that concur with my findings. I strongly suggest you investigate these things further before pressing the “Buy” button.

Do remember these are personal opinions based on individual setups and are not in any way a commercial endorsement of any product. If you do choose to purchase a product do bear that in mind.

I’ve experienced none of the criticisms you highlight here. Before returning the product I do suggest you ensure it’s configured properly.

Just to let you know I got an email copy of your original post before you edited it. I’m forwarding it on to the moderators for consideration.

You are lucky I edited it, and yes, I quickly reconsidered as i thought it was slightly unfair, only slightly mind, but the way you come across is far from cool.

I don't think i've ever seen a post from you that isn't ridiculously opinionated, irrelevant, off topic, or condescending.

 

[moonbase]

I don't think i've ever seen a post from you that isn't ridiculously opinionated, irrelevant, off topic, or condescending.

Here, here, needed to be said.

 

[scopus]

Here, here, needed to be said.

+1

 

[Llew]

You are lucky I edited it, and yes, I quickly reconsidered as i thought it was slightly unfair, only slightly mind, but the way you come across is far from cool.

I don't think i've ever seen a post from you that isn't ridiculously opinionated, irrelevant, off topic, or condescending.

Your opinion of another member falls short of the rules of the forum. Please temper your language. You have been warned.

 

[manic01]

You are lucky I edited it, and yes, I quickly reconsidered as i thought it was slightly unfair, only slightly mind, but the way you come across is far from cool.

I don't think i've ever seen a post from you that isn't ridiculously opinionated, irrelevant, off topic, or condescending.

The ignore option in settings is a lovely option.
More should try it.

 

[7mdish]

Can we address this thread back to the original title "Best blind scan receiver...."?
This is a very interesting topic I believe, and a topic that must be updated regularly following new receivers coming out very often.
Unfortunately I suspect that there are not so much receivers performing really well in blind scanning.
Linux boxes are very slow and sometimes not able to detect all signals (particularly when very low SRs are used), and many images for those boxes are not DX oriented.
And we have no more non-linux boxes for this purpose I'm afraid.... But maybe I had lost something.
So I believe that an updated selection would be appreciated from many users.
Maybe William-1 is reading this? I hope so. Thanks.

 

[Manikm909]

I agree. However the box I mentioned is an android box

 

[7mdish]

Well, I do not consider android boxes. Similar situation like linux receivers. Also, I don't like android.... very often unstable and not so intuitive to use operating system in my opinion.
Hoping some new "closed" receiver could be designed, but maybe I'm thinking in the past years when we played with good old TM6900/6902/7100/7102, maybe TM5402 M4 but now it seems gone.
I believe that TBS cards are the best choice now. Waiting for comments about possible new blind scan boxes. Thanks.

 

[moonbase]

...Linux boxes are very slow and sometimes not able to detect all signals (particularly when very low SRs are used), and many images for those boxes are not DX oriented...

I have not found the Octagon SF8008 (Linux) to be a very slow box.
If you use the Open ATV image on an Ocatgon SF8008 you have fast blind scan, it can capture low symbol rates and it allows the user to select the frequency range, the polarity and the SR range.
Personally, I have found the OpenViX images coupled with the Simple Ten Eighty skin to be user friendly on linux boxes.

With respect to very low symbol rates, what values do you consider very low and what currently produced satellite receivers are capable of detecting signals with these very low values?
As far as I am aware, the best two receivers for this are possibly the GTMedia Combo (android) and the Octagon SF8008 (linux)?
However, there are possibly other satellite receivers I am not aware of that are capable of very low symbol rates?

I do not know of any currently produced android box or closed source box that can match the SF8008 options for selection of frequency range, polarity and SR range.
The older closed source receivers used to allow selection of frequency range, polarity and some functionality for selection of the SR range.
As for Technomate, I am not sure how many of their fan boys are left standing after the launch of the TM-5402 (M4)?

Personally, for blind scanning my hardware of choice is a Dr HD F15 receiver, a TBS6983 card and an Octagon SF8008.
The Dr HD F15 receiver and the TBS6983 card (with EBSPro v18, CrazyScan and DVB Dream) can indicate signal levels below a lock level, a useful option if the DX Man is without an analyser.

 

[stephan94]

Do not forget the SX6 openbox of the year 2014 whose blindscan finds frequencies with only 1MhZ difference, the blindscan also finds small SRs (sr285)

 

[Satspot]

You are lucky I edited it, and yes, I quickly reconsidered as i thought it was slightly unfair, only slightly mind, but the way you come across is far from cool.

I don't think i've ever seen a post from you that isn't ridiculously opinionated, irrelevant, off topic, or condescending.

Well you must feel in good company so.

As I said I got the copy of your original post prior to editing and it really summed you up.

My grand kids wouldn’t throw the tantrums you do. You act in haste and repent in leisure and there’s plenty of examples throughout the forum.

You solicited an opinion as laid out in your OP. I supplied one via my own experiences.

As I said before..... do your homework thoroughly before pressing the “Buy” button. One swallow never made a summer. Do bear that in mind.

 

[Manikm909]

Do not forget the SX6 openbox of the year 2014 whose blindscan finds frequencies with only 1MhZ difference, the blindscan also finds small SRs (sr285)
View attachment 143538View attachment 143539

same chipset and spec as an Icecrypt S6600 i beleive....theres issues with certain sats , like 30w where it locks up...but yes, its a goodun none the less and in my collection

 

[scopus]

same chipset and spec as an Icecrypt S6600 i beleive....theres issues with certain sats , like 30w where it locks up...but yes, its a goodun none the less and in my collection

Agreed, cracking blind scanner!..Pity the guys at Turbosat retired, so unfortunately no more sw updates..

 

[stephan94]

same chipset and spec as an Icecrypt S6600

Not quite .
the icecrypt S6600 has the same configuration as the SX9
which had problems that the SX6 did not (blocking blindscan for example)
here is a table of correspondence between the receivers

 

[Manikm909]

Not quite .
the icecrypt S6600 has the same configuration as the SX9
which had problems that the SX6 did not (blocking blindscan for example)
here is a table of correspondence between the receivers
View attachment 143544

Yes. I did know this at one point ...

Advice Needed - Receivers with the lowest Symbol Rate?

I did run a full blindscan on 30W and 45W with no lock ups on the Icecrypt 6600HD. It did however download a couple of data channels off 45W which it stored, but trying to access them AFTER blindscan did lock up the box, power recycle sorted it interesting...i thought they were same hardware...

www.satellites.co.uk