Nwavguy

Are they both configured the same? I would (if you haven't already) carefully compare the network configuration screens between both units. If they both seem the same, you might try resetting the unit that's not working to the factory default settings and then starting over with the Network setup? If they're configured for manual IP setup, you have to put all the right information in (address, submask, gateway, etc.) before they will work on the LAN. It might also be one is set for DHCP and the other manual config? If you need support from the manufacture, this is exactly what I was talking about in my Everfocus post. Most DVRs are too expensive to be considered "disposable". But when you buy a no-name DVR, it can be difficult to get support for it--especially when you don't even know who the real manufacture is. In the future, I'd suggest buying from manufactures that have offices in the country you live in.

I know Rory here isn't very fond of "neverfocus", but I wonder if anyone has experience with the new EDR series? Everfocus seems to have fixed many of the issues surrounding their older models? The EDR models offer much higher frame rates (at least double the older models), you can archive over the network, and they use purely browser based remote monitoring (i.e. no remote software required). The 16 channel EDR1620 can be found for around $1300 and offers up to 240 fps recording and simultaneous 240 fps monitoring. It can also archive to USB drives, has an 8 x 10 matrix for motion zones, is very expandable in several ways (has room for 2 drives, you can daisy chain units, use external SCSI drives, etc.), and appears to be way more configurable than most of the low-end models. You can set most parameters by camera, very flexible alarm input/output assignment, flexible monitor assignment to up to 4 monitor outputs, etc. Unlike a lot of the 16 channel DVRs in that price class, you can actually download the manual (along with firmware updates) and it's relatively well written and useful. The AVTech units, for example, have terrible manuals and I've never seen any firmware updates. The new "Gen IV" h.264 unit also has a terrible manual and is nearly twice the price. Some of these "no name" units might work OK, but what if they don't? US factory support for them appears to be nearly non-existant? Most only have dealers, not a factory presence in the USA. Anyway, I don't have any personal experience with Everfocus DVRs so has anyone else used the new ones? Our main distributors here push Dedicated Micro and GE and I think both are very over priced given all the new competition? ICR and March Networks are also in that price category and Nuvico isn't much less. This isn't rocket science, so has Everfocus finally hit a good sweet spot with price vs performance? At least they sure seem like a cut above the no-name models from AvTech/CPcam, HiSharp, Neocom, etc. that don't have any real US support?

I just received a EDR1620 and have been evaluating it. I too have to say I'm pleasantly surprised. The build quality is well above some of the other low-end DVRs I've had my hands on. It seems to work exactly as advertised and has a lot of useful config options. It has 4 matrix video outputs in addition to the main outputs. You can assign what is shown on them in some creative ways including alarm/motion conditions. It even lets you plug in a mouse to make navigating the config screens easier (although it would be nice if more DVR companies would take a page from the router company's playbook and offer full config over the LAN that you can later disable at the DVR once it's all set up). Viewing live video over a local lan works fairly well. The frame rate is decently fast over TCP/IP even viewing 9 cameras at once. And yes, the recordings look really good at full D1 using the higher quality compression settings. You can search for and view recordings by various criteria remotely over the lan. You can also archive remotely over the lan or to any USB drive or flash device. Some here have said the Everfocus DVRs are noisy. It does have 3 fans, and the one on the side cooling the drives is a bit noisy, but I've heard much louder equipment. I don't think it will be a problem in most installs. I checked the power draw, and the 1620 only uses 37 watts (with one drive in it). So it doesn't put out much heat. I suspect you could swap out or slow down the drive fan if you really needed it to be near silent. That's especially true if you intend to use only a single drive and have it in a location that doesn't get very warm. Also, FYI, the only difference from what I can tell between the 1620 and the 1640 is the max recording rate. The 1640 apparently has twice the MPEG encoding horsepower and has double the max frame rate. At full D1 it can manage 120fps while the 1620 can only mange 60 fps. At 360 x 240 the 1640 runs at 480 fps and the 1620 at 240 fps. But even the 1620 support higher frame rates than anything else I'm aware of in this price range. If it will run reliably for years on end, I'd say it's a keeper! So far this one hasn't glitched in any way and I've had it running 7x24 streaming over the LAN to a PC.

First of all, it depends on what you mean by "mpeg"? A lot of people don't realize this, but H.264 is just a later version of MP4 (known as "part 10" to be exact). H.264 was mainly developed for HDTV, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray video formats. It's an attempt to provide a more complete standard for high-end video compression supporting higher resolutions than the NTSC standard as well as the 16:9 format. There have been a lot of problems getting various file formats, software and hardware to interoperate with each other. H.264 is supposed to fix a lot of that. I'm not sure about CCTV applications, but for a movie, H.264 is, at best, only about twice as efficient as the original MP4 Part 2 standard. I wouldn't expect it to be much different for CCTV. So, at best, it might double your recording time for comparable video quality. Generally more advanced codecs, like H.264, require more processing power to encode and decode in real time. Sometimes its done with specialized chips designed just for video encoding/decoding. Sometimes it's done in firmware with a general purpose processor. So the odds of upgrading an older DVR are slim to none unless it's based on a PC platform. You have to take the recording time numbers given by manufactures with a big grain of salt. The figure quoted is often at the lowest resolution, highest compression, and is for their model with the largest hard drive (or multiple drives). So that "500 hours" may be only 50 or 100 hours with the standard drive at realistic resolution and compression settings. In my opinion, H.264 isn't a big deal for CCTV. If you consider you can double the capacity of most DVRs by spending around $100 on a new drive, that's a lot cheaper way to double the recording time than buying an entire new DVR that supports H.264?