dm900, twin tuner (Si2166B (DVB-S2)) and recording

  • Hi!

    My friend got recently received a dm900 and he has a question. I'll handle his problem, maybe you can help, or it should be like that you can't use it like he wants.

    So his story is here:


    I connected both tuners to the dish. 1st tuner with diseqc ABCD the second with a rotating dish.

    When I start a recording on NPO1 HD tuner A is occupied but never the less it should be possible to continue zapping with tuner B. This seems to work. However, when I choose a channel on the same transponder where NPO1 HD is being recorded, the message is shown ‘no signal’. This can only be solved by rebooting the box.

    I suspect that there either is something wrong with the firmware or with one of the tuner(s). Did you ever experienced an issue like this?

    I will test with a completely different image, probably like you proposed, Newenigma.


    So, if he takes a random other twin tuner like a Zgemma box, he can make a recording and whatch all other channels via the second tuner.

    ("Via the tuner that is occupied by the recording I should be able (and actually can) whatch all channels of the transponder of that recorded channel. When I use a card and not a CI.")

    We want to know if this behavior is normal and the box uses a common resource (that's what I think), or is it a some kind of software bug.

    I'm gratefule if someone says something smart. I think the configuration, what my friend uses is not very common, that's why I decided to ask for help here.


  • Same problem reported by a user. Exactly the same phrasing to a tee (same person?)..

    Can’t test with my DM920 as I don’t own a motorized dish.. My box has a DVB-C FBC and Triple tuner and never have any tuner problem.. Box has DreamOS 2.5 on it..

  • Yes, I guess that's the same person and his question I don't know about the answer because we have different tuners (I have experience with Triple). We discussed this with him and now it seems to be OK only with original images, but the based in original is that mistake (for example, I recommended NewnNigma2 and it seems that there's a flaw). I didn't know that he already looked into it, but it's also understandable that if you have a problem, you're looking for a solution. So I guess I rushed because if the original is OK, then the error must be reported on this based image. If anyone reads from NewnNigma2, maybe you can find out what went wrong with this thing. If you need to be more specific, we can do it!