Quad HDMI recording limitation

According to the Quad HDMI info, if I am reading this correctly, it appears that it is a Tri, not a Quad. Are there any Quad users that can confirm. I was set to get one, but then saw this blurb:

And a caveat… For 4-Tuner Tablo DVRs ONLY when using the highest recording quality (h ttps://www.tablotv.com/blog/tablo-dvr-live-tv-recording-quality-settings/)(HD 1080, 720 @ 60fps) Tablo’s fourth tuner will be temporarily disabled if any 720p stations are currently being watched or recorded at 60 fps. This is due to the high processing requirements of this setting.

h ttps://www.tablotv.com/blog/tablo-faqs-should-i-buy-2-tuner-or-4-tuner-ota-dvr/

If this is the case: since the Quad HDMI is brand new, I would hope that Tablo would pop in a faster processor into the Quad HDMI to avoid this problem. When I schedule things to record, I’m not aware of 1080i vs. 720p, I just tell it to record and I expect 4 simultaneously.

False alarm. That 2 vs. 4 page doesn’t apply to the Dual HDMI and Quad HDMI.


I agree that this does need to be spelled out.

Recording on the ultra-high settings consumes more resources.

Tablo’s “statements” reflect usage at the recommended settings.

That information does not apply to the QUAD HDMI. That applies only to the traditional 4-tuner Tablo, which relies on quality settings. The QUAD (and dual) HDMI record pure MPEG2 format, so there are no quality settings.

Sorry, my mistake (thanks!)

Oh? That is good news. Tablo should update their 2 vs. 4 page to clarify since a lot of Dual HDMI users like me are looking at the Quad HDMI.



That page does not cover the HDMI versions, only the traditional DVRs. But it is a little confusing because the traditional DVRs are Dual and Quad, while the HDMI ones are Dual HDMI and Quad HDMI. The user has to be careful which ones are being discussed.

Thanks. I’ve corrected my error in Post 1


1 Like

…and the traditional ones are now, suddenly refereed to as network-connected DVRs. Many of the blog post have been re-written with the original date intact and no notation of a “last edited” so information you may have read and became familiar with - could very well have been since edited.

Life was easier “before”. There were “weird” products before, but only a handful of users.

My fear is that the “HDMI” represents our “future” with Tablo (ATSC 3).

Well… I shouldn’t say “fear”, it will be like a lot of other cool things, nice while it lasted (memories).

Even if the future ATSC 3.0 Tablo units have an HDMI output it likely won’t change the devices you will be able to stream to as ATSC 3.0 is natively h264 video right?

The future holds many variables.

The insertion (prioritization) of the “HDMI” models was sort of a surprise (given the list of “things” desired). So, it might be a hint with regards to “direction”. Not sure.

It was just weird.

It says “streaming is dead”… maybe we should sell our Roku and Netflix stock (?)

There shouldn’t be too much worry. I think that the Tablo *HDMI models are just filling a void left by Channel Master DVR+ (which was discontinued several users ago). Basically, I unplugged my DVR+ cables and plugged them into the Dual HDMI. HDMI, coax, and USB disk. It fills a void that other products are making too complicated (TiVo, Amazon, etc.) with a network-centric layout.

The niche market (non-streaming OTA folks) is for folks like me with a crappy internet connection and can’t stream. So I just needed a DVR box that connects my antenna to my TV without adding a bunch of dongles. The Dual HDMI works fine for that.


There are a ton of really cheap OTA DVR devices out there though. But ok.

I see 2 points, yes weird. Of all the it’s on the road map, it’s something we’re looking into, great idea I’ll pass it on… HDMI never really came up. Weird it didn’t include some of the most popular suggested feature request. Ya kinda gotta wonder what’s up.

Yes, there are vast area in the US not served with a physical wired high-speed internet connection. When mobile providers said, we’ve got it covered. Well some areas may have a quality metered cellular signal, many don’t. That is it’s not reliable nor truly “high speed”. There are still antenna towers in use.

Sure, really cheap OTA DVRs - some models with RCA jacks, really? There are options but are they really worth the cheap-ness. A quality DVR for a TV has a market albeit a niche.

Yep, I’m one of those people who lives in “the country”. In reality I’m just 2 miles outside of city limits, but cable doesn’t come out here, and the Frontier Communications DSL folks quoted 3 Mbps at best to me.

So for internet, I have 3 high gain antennas pointed at the Sprint (Tmobile) cell tower several miles away with a load-balancing router and 3 modems (1 per antenna). $192/month for 300GB. When the system works, it will (barely) support my son’s Zoom sessions for school. And when it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. Definitely not a streaming household.

So OTA brings TV into my home (via a really big antenna on the roof bolted to the chimney). And the Tablo Dual HDMI DVR takes care of the rest :slight_smile:

I’m one of those people eagerly waiting for StarLink… There really isn’t an alternative (it took many many years just to get what I have now and the Sprint/Tmobile merger might eliminate that).


Add me to the list of people who get marginal internet service and really appreciate having the ability to record OTA programs.

From my point of view, even if I had high speed internet, why would I want to be at the mercy of an ISP when OTA is free and cannot be throttled, blocked, or require a membership fee ?

1 Like

AMEN Brother!

Even though I may be able to record with out internet… I have to pay for internet… to watch free OTA programing?!? From my point of view, that’s flubbed up!

Back-in-the-day I used HDMI over ethernet devices to get programing to a second TV from one device. Had it been available, even if I needed a proprietary device I probably would have gotten an HDMI tablo if I’d had the option a couple years ago.

Of course, no Internet also means no longer term program guide (apart form 24 hr data). Regardless, you don’t get that with Tablo anyhow, so you’re back to manual recording.

IMHO, if you don’t have/want Internet, Tablo is the wrong product. And you’d want those cheap direct connected DVRs I’ve mentioned.

Having a slow internet connection is not a reason to get a TV connected DVR such as the DUAL HDMI or QUAD HDMI, you can easily use a network connected DVR such as the Tablo DUAL or Tablo QUAD and it will work just as well. The reason for this is you are only doing local streaming between devices in your house, which does not use your internet connection. So for those with poor internet you do not need an HDMI connected DVR, nor should it be a reason to buy one. There are other considerations which are way more important when deciding when the HDMI units and non-HDMI units.

1 Like

You have valid points. Not refuting anything, just some things to consider.

Although the network discovery process varies by device, even the ones which may “remember” still have conditions. ie) nothing gets rebooted or reset (power goes out). No device is absolutely going to work with a network connected tablo with out an active internet connection. Though some will, as long as conditions are met.

Unreliable equates to poor. If my (non cellular) wireless internet has issues due to interference, I’m SOL… it’s sad I can’t use my tablo. If someone is stuck with satellite for internet, it may need to be a really heavy overcast to cause interference, it happens. In some areas with poor internet, your best option may be cellular via a hot-spot. An option not recommended for a tablo.

If I have to use a specific device because it’s less reliable on an active full time internet connection to find my tablo… I already have a TV with an HDMI - I may have already made a choice.