# Picture quality: Cable vs. Dish vs. DirecTV



## rsuch

It has been years since I have visited this forum, so please forgive me if I am seeking information that might seem repetitive to the rest of you. I have been with DirecTV for nearly ten years and I am at a crossroads. My contract has expired with them so I am no longer obligated to remain a customer, but I have also seen the price jump dramatically now that my contract has expired. I contacted customer retention hoping for some kind of offer to retain me as a customer by making my monthly subscription more palatable, but they were only willing to drop the price ten dollars per month. A couple of years ago, they lowered my monthly by $40 and threw in some movie channels for a six month period. With that said, I am seeking a new service provider. My choices in my area are:

Dish Network
Brighthouse
AT&T U-Verse

Aside from sheer cost, I am mainly concerned with picture quality. Several members of my family have U-Verse and I am not impressed at all, so they're eliminated. That leaves me with Dish Network and Brighthouse. I can only assume that Dish will be similar in quality to DirecTV. I have no experience with Brighthouse, so it's difficult for me to compare. In terms of cost, Brighthouse would probably be the least expensive way to go, as I would save money by bundling TV and internet. 

Would any of you have any advice or insight about these two services? Or perhaps any other suggestions?

Thanks!


----------



## P Smith

for get a PQ (exactly) you should use BR player, not the boxes

when you will be ready to accept occasional blotches, halo, macro-blocking, mosquito noise effect, etc then you could take dish, DTV and cable PQ

Also better PQ you could get from OTA stations, if programming is adequate for you


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Also better PQ you could get from OTA stations, if programming is adequate for you


True always this isn't. 

Sometimes the carrier gets the feed by means other than OTA reception so they may provide better PQ than the broadcast version. With stations having up to seven channels (or in quite a few cases, two HD channels), it can make a difference. My local PBS has five channels riding on one frequency. Regrettably, DISH and DIRECTV use the OTA feed in my market.

I would also caution that PQ is not consistent across the board. There are channels that look better on one service than they do on the others. Whether it is the multiplex grouping or just dedicating more bandwidth, PQ can vary widely; even within the same carrier.


----------



## Diana C

DirecTV vs Dish Network: Overall, a wash. On *average*, DirecTV has _*slightly*_ better HD PQ, and Dish Network has *noticeably* better SD PQ. But as harsh points out, it varies a bit from channel to channel.

Brighthouse generally has a pretty good reputation for technical quality, but as always with cable, you are subject to the vagaries of your particular head end and distribution network.

In most markets, assuming you get a decent signal level, broadcast will provide the best PQ for the major broadcast networks, but again, your market might be one of the outliers.

Bottom line, in this age of digital delievery, PQ is generally good across the board (again, stressing that there are no absolutes). I would leave PQ concerns to be the last issue considered, useful mostly to break a tie between two services.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

U-Verse, as you already crossed off your list, tends to suffer because it is sharing your internet and TV bandwidth... Many markets have only enough bandwidth for 1 or 2 HD channels anyway via U-Verse... so any internet usage and your picture quality suffers.

Outside of that... I would expect most cable and satellite comparisons to be close enough that the primary factor would be cost of service OR channels carried by one and not the other OR features of the cable/satellite equipment.


----------



## P Smith

> On *average*, DirecTV has _*slightly*_ better HD PQ


adding some technicality: 1920x1080 vs 1440x1080; 10-15 Mbps/ch vs 8-12 Mbps/ch

I recall last years I did make plots of one HD channel from the two providers same evening/same material


----------



## RAD

Diana C said:


> DirecTV vs Dish Network: Overall, a wash. On *average*, DirecTV has _*slightly*_ better HD PQ, and Dish Network has *noticeably* better SD PQ.


I though that the SD PQ on Dish western arc was close to DIRECTV's since it's still MPEG2 while eastern arc is MPEG4.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## mwdxer

The PQ on the Western Arc has improved on the SD channels. At least many of them. It looks like some may be using MPEG4. Just a guess, but they do look better than a few years back


----------



## James Long

DISH is using MPEG4 on Eastern Arc, MPEG2 on Western Arc. The older receivers can't handle MPEG4 so they need to maintain the MPEG2 feeds until the old receivers are gone (lest SD subscribers lose channels). PQ is a personal opinion. Some have tried to define PQ using numbers but big numbers do not always lead to good PQ. One can have big numbers and still use bad encoder setups.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yep... that's the problem with the 1920x1080 vs 1440x1080 arguments.

IF all other things were equal, we could say that the higher resolution is better.

But... we see instances where 720p looks better than 1080i because the 720p signal fits better in the available bandwidth and often 1080i channels are overcompressed to the point of not looking as good.

I can't directly (see what I did there?) compare to DirecTV... so I can't say if their HD looks better than Dish HD.

I can say that current Dish HD does not look as good as I remember Dish HD looking back when they first added HD years ago... so it's a fair point to realize that Dish has done something over the years to reduce that quality, probably in the interest of bringing us more channels.

But I can definitely imagine scenarios where a 1920x1080 signal would not look as good as a 1440x1080 signal IF the 1920 signal was overcompressed OR starved for bitrate... in which case it would be unfair to claim better HD just on that one number alone.


----------



## P Smith

again speculating ?
I did the measure (some of our member ask specifically for that channel) ... why not bring facts here about bandwidth - it will clearly shows "over-compression" is not the point for speculation.
We have the facts, what kind of twisting need to be done to ignore ?


----------



## James Long

Bandwidth is not the entire story. Channels per transponder is not the entire story.

While some have hitched their wagons and rode off into the sunset using only numbers to "prove" some HD is better than another the answer lies in the perception of the individual viewer and all of the equipment in the chain from camera to screen. All things being equal ... they are not.

That being said, better numbers give a better chance that the image will pass through in a higher quality ... but there is no guarantee.


----------



## sregener

If HD PQ is your primary concern, you should stick with DirecTV. I would expect satellite to have better PQ than cable, simply because satellite has dedicated space they're not stealing for telephone and Internet services. Meaning 100% of the satellite bandwidth available is being used to deliver television programming. Satellite also typically has more channels, and more channels in HD than cable at a given price. But these are generalities, and some cable systems may be exceptional.

I find the HD PQ of Dish to be more than adequate for national channels, and I am a very fussy viewer. My OTA locals beat Dish's, but I live in a small market.


----------



## damondlt

You guys are seriously going to argue with P Smith over facts he produced with your pro dishnetwork opinions. 

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## david_jr

Unless you are extremely fussy, DISH HD quality is very good overall when viewed from a reasonable distance. If you obsess over PQ (there is nothing wrong with that - you paid your money), you might be happier staying with DTV. If it really comes down to dollars for you and you are willing to accept high quality HD as opposed to ultimate HD quality you should really look into DISH. I would avoid cable as all of the cable I have seen anywhere I have seen it is noticably inferior to what I get on DISH. MY MIL has U-Verse and I could not live with its PQ and I am not all that fussy.


----------



## camo

We had a side by side comparison last football season on 70" sharp and 60" LG. I just happen to add Dish with my own equipment, (no contract) just for Pac12 network.
I can tell you HD quality for NFL football games was substantially better on Directv. I was actually surprised at the difference. We get the Phoenix network feeds for NFL football games, but also have Sunday Ticket. Local game would go on the Dish receiver and ST on Directv receiver. I had some rather large (fantasy league) groups over several times and everyone agreed Directv looked much better. We switched the HDMI cables back and forth checking the different Tv's with same results. For NFL football in HD Directv is the way to go.


----------



## lparsons21

damondlt said:


> You guys are seriously going to argue with P Smith over facts he produced with your pro dishnetwork opinions.
> 
> Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


sure, why not?

If the viewer can't see the difference, then the difference doesn't exist for him/her. Quite simple.

That's why I can switch around and not give the HD quality any part of the decision to do so.


----------



## P Smith

lparsons21 said:


> sure, why not?
> 
> If the viewer can't see the difference, then the difference doesn't exist *for him/her*. Quite simple.
> ...


that's the root of endless discussion about PQ between providers, mfgs, devices,etc HERE (!)

Opposite thing is engineers, who MUST operate measured qualified aspects of PQ.

While anyone here adhere to personal perception, we will NEVER find common ground


----------



## Paul Secic

rsuch said:


> It has been years since I have visited this forum, so please forgive me if I am seeking information that might seem repetitive to the rest of you. I have been with DirecTV for nearly ten years and I am at a crossroads. My contract has expired with them so I am no longer obligated to remain a customer, but I have also seen the price jump dramatically now that my contract has expired. I contacted customer retention hoping for some kind of offer to retain me as a customer by making my monthly subscription more palatable, but they were only willing to drop the price ten dollars per month. A couple of years ago, they lowered my monthly by $40 and threw in some movie channels for a six month period. With that said, I am seeking a new service provider. My choices in my area are:
> 
> Dish Network
> Brighthouse
> AT&T U-Verse
> 
> Aside from sheer cost, I am mainly concerned with picture quality. Several members of my family have U-Verse and I am not impressed at all, so they're eliminated. That leaves me with Dish Network and Brighthouse. I can only assume that Dish will be similar in quality to DirecTV. I have no experience with Brighthouse, so it's difficult for me to compare. In terms of cost, Brighthouse would probably be the least expensive way to go, as I would save money by bundling TV and internet.
> 
> Would any of you have any advice or insight about these two services? Or perhaps any other suggestions?
> 
> Thanks!


With U-Verse you have to be close to VAR box. One day we didm't service from 4AM to 6AM until a tech came. We went back to Dish the next Monday.. So be aware.


----------



## Orion9

Common ground can be hard to find when it comes to picture quality. Back in the 80s and 90s, manufacturers sold resolution as the prime determinant of quality, and many of my friends agreed but I kept finding that signal to noise and accurate color reproduction and things like time base errors tended to bother me much more than resolution. The in the mid 90s I spent a little time working on a video device and I read a document (from the NAB I think) about video quality and I found that they had around 20 measurements - some I had never heard of and they listed signal to noise first and resolution was down around 5 or 6. So I felt vindicated - though many of my friends continued to pursue resolution at all costs.


On the question of cable, I would check the local situation. In my parent's (very small) town, the majority of the cable channels are AWFUL. A few are very good. It's amazing how many resolutions and aspect ratios and incorrectly stretched out formats that that particular cable system has.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I would say that comparing one's LiL on Dish to a Sunday Ticket feed on DirecTV isn't an apples to apples comparison either. Who knows how that LiL's quality compares to any other LiL or to the DirecTV Sunday Ticket channels.

Since DirecTV has the exclusive on Sunday Ticket, there would be no fair comparison there. You can say Sunday Ticket looks better... but since Dish doesn't have it, it's not an option with Dish anyway so IF Sunday Ticket is something you want, then Dish service is a non-starter anyway.

As to the perception vs "facts" argument... One thing the fact-checkers fail to take into account... literally perception is everything. There are theoretical limits to human perception in terms of video and audio... so something can be technically better but not better in a way that humans can perceive... and if it isn't perceivable, is it worth delivering?


----------



## P Smith

and again, we going nowhere with your argumentation, Stuart 

don't waste your/our time and the site server space...

[Perhaps you are not EE by trade or by heart]


----------



## lparsons21

And where do you think we would get to?

It IS all about perception for the non-engineer, non-techie that wants to see what they "PERCEIVE" as a great picture. Mumbling numbers and such at it, just doesn't matter in the end. And as long as it really is about perception, there is no 'winning' the argument.

Just some fodder for cussin' and discussin' -- and of course, the fun of doing it!!


----------



## P Smith

your perception is based on 20+ technical parameters; without the base (or be dismissive about it) you could go any way what you want - meaningless most of all;
like using diesel for your regular carburetor

"good perception" is smoke and mirror without solid technical parameters

continue speculating - each of you on your own


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Sorry... but if numbers were the only thing, then we should all be clamoring for the raw uncompressed feeds of HD as they originate from the camera source. Of course the bandwidth required to deliver the raw/uncompressed HD signal would mean we probably would get a dozen or so channels and no room for any others... but hey, since it is all about the numbers we should want that.

No... we all, either implicitly or explicitly, have agreed that some compression and "downrezzing" and whatever you want to call it is acceptable if it gets us more HD to our TVs. That's the whole point of any of these transmission schemes, the idea behind things like MPEG encoding are about how much can be "thrown away" without negatively affecting human perception too much.

This is like the punchline to the joke that I can't repeat on a family forum... but the punchline is "we already agreed what you are, now we're haggling over price" 

My point being... we agreed to receive less than perfect technical transmission of HD... we're just haggling over the method and how much degrades it to the point where it effects our enjoyment.

Here's another random analogy... since I've been sick lately...

Would you rather:

1. Eat food that is nutritionally satisfying and healthy for you, but is not your favorite... not horrible, but not your favorite flavor?

OR

2. Eat good that always tastes the best, but isn't always the healthiest and sometimes makes you sick?

Which of those is "better"?

Do you use the metric of the numbers of what food is healthiest? That would support option #1 all the time! But... #2 isn't unhealthy all the time... and in the long run you'd live just as long and you would enjoy your food more...

Option #1 is about the numbers... Option #2 is about perception... in case it wasn't obvious


----------



## P Smith

it's not separate options ... oh man!

without foundation you'll not get a house; without GOOD foundation you will not get good house

no need to be dismissive to basic thing - they are driving your perception as real foundation; everything is after that - personal perception what actually is matter for your self, perhaps as an opinion in such endless discussion,
not a matter of discussion of COMPARE signals from different providers; how you went from that too far ?!


start from something real !
enough clouds ....


----------



## James Long

Start with something real ... but draw the line where it matters.

Assuming direct from camera uncompressed video is the best PQ possible an engineer may set that as the top of the PQ scale and judge everything else in bits of color depth, resolution and sample rates less than the best PQ humanly possible. But a level of PQ that must be measured with numbers to be seen is irrelevant to the non-engineer.

And, in case you missed it, this site and most of the 100 million plus households that watch TV are not engineers.

That is why we draw a line of discernible differences in PQ. And of course that line varies with the individual viewer - so we must look at the average viewer and what the average person can see.

NONE of the mass programming options available to consumers are anywhere close to direct from camera uncompressed video. So it makes sense that "discernible differences" becomes the level of comparison. The question that started this thread was not "what is the best PQ available to man" but which is better when comparing two companies and a section of the industry that could be any company from the best cable system anywhere to the worst.

And to answer that question ... "cable" is too variable to compare, one would need to know which system in which city since "cable" is not one coordinated system. From a technical standpoint an argument could be made that DirecTV would have better PQ as they dedicate more bits per channel than DISH. But where is the line of discernible differences? Are both providers providing a PQ that is better than where the average viewer can tell the difference?

The answer to that question is an opinion ... not an equation.


----------



## P Smith

without measurable parameters, build such arguments going to fall apart as have no solid foundation, ground ..

I'm against dismissive tactics of some ppl here, who knows facts are there, but make big noise to makes easy for them to bring own biased subjective matter


----------



## James Long

Well then ... how about answering the question of the thread in as human relateable terms possible? Id rather see your answer to the question put forth than what I've been reading in your responses.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Related to the house and foundation example...

Yes, you need a good foundation to have a good house... but do you need a great foundation to have a great house?

No.

There is a minimum level of strength and construction quality that would be required for a foundation for any given house to be solid... below that, you don't have a stable house... but there is diminishing return on investment after a certain point in over-investing in the foundation... So they don't try to always build the world's best foundation for every foundation for every house.

IF you're going to ignore everything else about the house and focus solely on the construction of its foundation as the metric for a quality house... then you're going to get houses that are lacking in other areas just to satisfy your "must have a great foundation" rule.

Any good engineer should know that focusing solely on any one aspect is poor engineering. The design as a whole needs to be engineered so as to work together to produce the strongest end-product. This means you might not put a great foundation on every home... just going with what constitutes a good foundation in order to keep the quality of the rest of the home high.

And full-circle... focusing on one or two numeric measures and declaring that video/audio "superior" based on "larger" or "better" numbers is not a smart engineering conclusion.

So I'm unable and unwilling to declare Dish or DirecTV better than the other unless and until I could make a side-by-side comparison of the two services. To ignore subjectivity in the evaluation of picture quality is to ignore the very notion of what we are talking about here. We are using computer hardware and software to make a digital recreation of actual things and then compress and transmit that data all over the world and then reconstruct an image on a customer's TV that is close to what we started with in reality. The very thing that we would need to evaluate in determining the success or failure in that effort, would be if the end-user (in his opinion) finds the image to be of high quality. IT is all about the subjectivity of the viewer.


----------



## P Smith

first, you been dismissive about measures done not by you ... why ? because you better juggling by words coming from totally subjective angles, make the thread muddy from beginning, stir conversation in unverified, uncontrollable, personalized direction ... I know such type of discussions - it's common at sites/forums, but if I would work with you on building something or make devices/signal's parameters what would lead to better PQ, I wouldn't work with you ! You are a "killer" of makers, it's good for politicians, not for engineering, nor for PQ 

now you putting your words in my mouth - nowhere I mentioned "superior", etc - wanna dispute my words - make QUOTAS !

PQ is a matter of delivering good, bad or excellent signal with certain technical parameters !
Your personal viewing perception is nothing , just miniscule to the signal ! Nobody in that control rooms care about YOUR perception.
No one engineer in Tandberg, Harmonia, etc making MPEG encoder and orienting to your subjective perception !
Only that set of TECHNICAL 20 minimal parameters is DELIVERING PQ to your TV, to all TVs...

Hehe ...


----------



## Orion9

MPEG is designed around typical human perception.

And if the guy in the control room doesn't care about the viewer's perception, he'd better start because his bosses sure do.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Orion9 said:


> MPEG is designed around typical human perception. And if the guy in the control room doesn't care about the viewer's perception, he'd better start because his bosses sure do.


I was trying to say that... but you said it better and with fewer words. Kudos!


----------



## James Long

Orion9 said:


> MPEG is designed around typical human perception. And if the guy in the control room doesn't care about the viewer's perception, he'd better start because his bosses sure do.


The encoder settings would be driven more by the bosses than the guy in the control room or even the chief engineer.

If the engineer were lucky they might be granted an audience with the bosses and plead their case for settings that would lead to better PQ. But more often than not, the encoder settings would be based on reaching certain business goals of the broadcaster. For example, transmitting two HD streams on a single OTA channel ... or trying to keep 1080i looking good while supporting two or three SD feeds on the same OTA channel (including one SD feed that is a 100% simulcast of the HD channel - its only purpose in life seemingly to rob bits from the main HD signal).

The best engineers in the country work for bosses who set the rules. HD comes precompressed from the providers ready for recompression by satellite and cable companies. And when the bean counters say "what can we do to get six HD channels on each transponder instead of five so we can increase the amount of content we carry" the engineer finds a way.

All while trying to figure out what they can get away with. And when their customers notice a gradual loss of PQ (perhaps noticing in a numbers game - hey, six channels per transponders, that sucks doesn't it? - instead of perceived picture quality) they just maintain PQ marginally better than their competition.

I feel for the broadcast engineers in our country who would love to drop channels and raise bitrates but end up with bosses with alternate goals.


----------



## sregener

P Smith said:


> Opposite thing is engineers, who MUST operate measured qualified aspects of PQ.
> 
> While anyone here adhere to personal perception, we will NEVER find common ground


There is reality and there is perception. If you don't see a particular type of picture flaw, you don't see it. It may be there. It may drive other people up the wall. It may be objectively verifiable and measurable and all of that. But if you don't see it, it doesn't matter. And the reality is that most viewers are watching their televisions rather than paying attention to the quality of the video signal they're watching - until things become glaringly obvious.

Macroblocking is just one such example. For some people, it is a very annoying thing. Other people don't even notice it, as long as it isn't sustained. Watching the finale of American Idol as confetti dropped from the ceiling was torture for me on Dish. It looked pretty good on OTA. Other people didn't have a problem with the same picture and didn't even notice the extreme blurring. I notice a lack of color depth pretty quickly, but other people don't see it until the picture is almost completely washed out. I've seen good 1080i encoders and bad 1080i encoders. Both used the same bandwidth and had good signals coming in. But one looked bad and the other good, even though they used the same number of bits. And things get even murkier when we compare an MPEG2 to an MPEG4 stream.

In other words, perception is reality, but it is also personal. Numbers don't tell us what we really want to know, which is, "Will I be able to enjoy watching HD on this provider, or will the flaws in the data stream detract from my enjoyment to the point where I regret it?"

Dish has a 30-day guarantee. If the OP is interested in testing out Dish, he has little to lose. It took me about 12 hours to see that Dish's HD was slightly inferior to DirecTV's when I switched. But it only took me about 2 days to say, "Yeah, but it's good enough." And it has been for almost 23 months now. And I'm the fussiest viewer I've ever met.


----------



## scooper

In all honesty - "Content is king" - things like PQ will come into play only when all else is equal.

Saying that - I can't comment on DirectTv PQ quality because I've never subscribed to Direct. I also haven't subscribed to Dish HD yet - but anyone who says they can't see the difference between OTA HD and satellite SD must be delaying a visit to the eye doctor


----------



## Laxguy

scooper said:


> In all honesty - "Content is king" - things like PQ will come into play only when all else is equal.


Well, yes! But comparisons are done when things are equal. Same show, same game, same movie.... where does it appear best?


----------



## sregener

P Smith said:


> without measurable parameters, build such arguments going to fall apart as have no solid foundation, ground ..


There are things that are measurable that don't require technical details.

For instance, you could take 20 people and do a double-blind test. "Which picture looks better?" Some would argue (including myself), the results of such a test would be far more relevant than any technical numbers when trying to pick a provider. It would quantify the subjective.


----------



## JustAGuy

Um, OK can someone NOW tell me which one has better "PICTURE" Quality? Cable vs DirecTV I live In Central Florida and weather to me is not an issue compare to HD quality .........<~~~~~or~~~>➰


----------



## scooper

The whole point of this thread has been to say that "nobody else can tell you the "best" picture quality" - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. If you're looking at different video providers - I would pick based on these criteria in order

1. Can I get the channels / programming I want ?
2. perceived quality/features of the gear to use that provider.
3. picture quality.

By them yardsticks - I don't see why anyone would pick anything but Dish  - but equally obviously - some people would say the same thing about DirectTv and cable. And that's why we have competition...


----------



## CCarncross

JustAGuy said:


> Um, OK can someone NOW tell me which one has better "PICTURE" Quality? Cable vs DirecTV I live In Central Florida and weather to me is not an issue compare to HD quality .........<~~~~~or~~~>➰


Noone can tell you for sure because the one thing that is variable is that not all cable providers provide the same PQ, some are good, some are not. But since DISH and Directv use sat technology, every Directv customer gets the same PQ, just as all DISH customers get the same PQ. I prefer the Directv PQ over DISH. You will have to check with people in your area that use your local cable provider to see if your local cable company is good or bad....


----------



## acostapimps

I use to think that the PQ degraded watching in a small bedroom, since I'm watching on a 43 inch from a quite close with limited space, but moving it to the living room now it makes a huge difference, so to that point is the distance that is a huge factor when watching on a bigger screen regardless of provider, and also where the TV is positioned in the house. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## acostapimps

In other words the bigger the area/room where the TV is located and distance, the better it looks, and the smaller and reduced space and position of light/window's, the less desired it looks. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## sregener

JustAGuy said:


> Um, OK can someone NOW tell me which one has better "PICTURE" Quality? Cable vs DirecTV I live In Central Florida and weather to me is not an issue compare to HD quality .........<~~~~~or~~~>➰


Someone here? Unlikely. You need to find some people who have your cable provider in your area and do a comparison. While in general, satellite has better picture quality than cable on national channels, there are exceptions. It would be very rare that satellite would have better picture quality on locals than cable.


----------



## sregener

acostapimps said:


> In other words the bigger the area/room where the TV is located and distance, the better it looks, and the smaller and reduced space and position of light/window's, the less desired it looks.


While factors like glare or room brightness do impact your perceived image quality, that is independent of the programming provider.

If you move far enough back, almost any picture can look good. You need to sit close enough to be able to discern the picture quality problems, but not so close that each individual pixel is plainly visible. THX has a guide for how far from a given screen size you should sit. The average American family sits too far away.


----------



## Grandude

sregener said:


> While factors like glare or room brightness do impact your perceived image quality, that is independent of the programming provider.
> 
> If you move far enough back, almost any picture can look good. You need to sit close enough to be able to discern the picture quality problems, but not so close that each individual pixel is plainly visible. THX has a guide for how far from a given screen size you should sit. The average American family sits too far away.


Or maybe the average family can't afford a TV big enough to fit the seating arrangements in the average living or family room.

PS. I'm not average, but have delusions of adequacy. :>)


----------



## 356B

The chicken and the egg scenario......obviously the chicken. :coffee


----------



## Stewart Vernon

356B said:


> The chicken and the egg scenario......obviously the chicken. :coffee


I like both  Especially in chicken fried rice with fried egg... Mmmm


----------



## sregener

Grandude said:


> Or maybe the average family can't afford a TV big enough to fit the seating arrangements in the average living or family room.


According to decorators, one of the biggest mistakes people make is jamming all the furniture against walls. Arranging your viewing room for its primary purpose not only makes good sense, it makes for good interior decorating.

And while big televisions used to be expensive, a quality 50" model now is only $500 or so, and that is well within the reach of the average family. And you should sit 5-7.5' away from a screen that size, according to THX.


----------



## Grandude

sregener said:


> According to decorators, one of the biggest mistakes people make is jamming all the furniture against walls. Arranging your viewing room for its primary purpose not only makes good sense, it makes for good interior decorating.
> 
> And while big televisions used to be expensive, a quality 50" model now is only $500 or so, and that is well within the reach of the average family. And you should sit 5-7.5' away from a screen that size, according to THX.


Ah, a viewing room? The average family probably doesn't have a room dedicated to 'viewing'.

In our case, the 'viewing' room is also the family room housing her PC, my PCs, her special chair, my swivel chair where I can pivot to watch the big '52 inch' screen or either of my PCs. Also a fireplace and multiple alcoves surrounding the fireplace where the big TV is and the sound system, and the canary cage, DANG that bird is loud, and storage for a few things. This space is open to the kitchen so I can watch TV on one of my PCs (28inch) from the kitchen table to monitor the news, not for watching a HD movie.

All this is to accommodate 'she who must be obeyed' who will not allow the living room to have any entertainment device in it. That room is used about once every six months for her book club meeting and beyond that, no living is done there.

The end result is that her and my viewing of the 52inch screen is well over 12 feet away, not ideal, and my viewing of my PC in TV mode is ideal at two feet or so.

We are victims of the design of the room and also the whims of the wife as I expect a lot of average families are. Oh, the good old days when I lived in the midwest and had a basement where I could have set up an ideal viewing room. :blackeye:


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> ...PQ is a matter of delivering good, bad or excellent signal with certain technical parameters !
> Your personal viewing perception is nothing , just miniscule to the signal ! Nobody in that control rooms care about YOUR perception.
> No one engineer in Tandberg, Harmonia, etc making MPEG encoder and orienting to your subjective perception !
> Only that set of TECHNICAL 20 minimal parameters is DELIVERING PQ to your TV, to all TVs...
> 
> Hehe ...


I respectfully disagree with the premise that the viewer's perception means nothing.

Take a 1080x1920 interlaced video stream and compress it to 8 Mbits/sec. Regardless of how it was compressed, it will have the same nominal resolution and bit rate. However, if compressed with MPEG-4 the *perceived *PQ will be better than if compressed to the same bit rate with MPEG-2. If the way people perceive images were unimportant, and it was just about the numbers, the providers would still be using their MPEG-2 encoders. But they spent a LOT of money on new MPEG-4 encoders precisely because the way the images are perceived is *MORE *important than just the pure numbers.


----------



## Orion9

I believe the THX recommendation above is meant to take full advantage of 1080i. However, many homes still have a bunch of DVDs laying around. And (somewhat surprising to me) many stores are still SELLING DVDs right now. I can even think of a few people with tapes! So in mixed media/resolution world, even someone setting up a dedicated room may want to compromise on viewing distance. Either that or put the furniture and/or the screen on casters.


----------



## P Smith

Diana C said:


> I respectfully disagree with the premise that the viewer's perception means nothing.
> 
> Take a 1080x1920 interlaced video stream and compress it to 8 Mbits/sec. Regardless of how it was compressed, it will have the same nominal resolution and bit rate. However, if compressed with MPEG-4 the *perceived *PQ will be better than if compressed to the same bit rate with MPEG-2. If the way people perceive images were unimportant, and it was just about the numbers, the providers would still be using their MPEG-2 encoders. But they spent a LOT of money on new MPEG-4 encoders precisely because the way the images are perceived is *MORE *important than just the pure numbers.


it was long discussion about MPEG-4 implementation by sat provider(s) ... if you missed it a few years ago, then I would remind you: a purpose of its deployment was the 'pipes' load, not PQ. And if you remember threads about HD-Lite and posted pictures you will get the proper vision why H.264 (in your terms, MPEG-4) take over for pipe's holders.
H.263 (MPEG-2) has better PQ.


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> it was long discussion about MPEG-4 implementation by sat provider(s) ... if you missed it a few years ago, then I would remind you: a purpose of its deployment was the 'pipes' load, not PQ. And if you remember threads about HD-Lite and posted pictures you will get the proper vision why H.264 (in your terms, MPEG-4) take over for pipe's holders.
> H.263 (MPEG-2) *has better PQ*.


By what criteria?

Again, take a typical 1080i stream, compress it to 8Mbits/sec with MPEG2 and again with MPEG4 encoders. Show it to 100 people at random, asking which has better PQ. I'll bet you $50 that at least 75 out of 100 will say the MPEG4 encoded stream looks better. And this is not purely subjective. The MPEG4 version will have less macro-blocking and less aliasing, despite both versions have the same nominal resolution and bit rate. A lot goes into PQ, not just engineering.

IMHO, differences in picture quality between providers are, at this point, so small as to inconsequential when choosing a provider. People (mostly a few DirecTV subscribers) have been knocking Dish Network's PQ for as long as I can remember. This goes back to the SD days, when Dish Network only had their 119 transponders to work with, and they encoded SD as 480x480 pixels. There is nothing wrong with the Dish Network HD PQ. People may call it "HD-Lite" but for most of their roughly 14 million subscribers it is just fine.

If a particular video source meets, in your definition, the "TECHNICAL 20 minimal parameters" that govern PQ, and another source does not, but no one can see the difference, then I ask "Why should we care?"

BTW, I am a DirecTV subscriber myself, but NOT for reasons of picture quality.


----------



## P Smith

I'll bet $100 for 75 of 100 viewers would say for same channel: OTA MPEG-2 [H.263] is better then DTV/dish MPEG-4[H.264]
and I'm old enough to remember SD as 704x480 and 540x480 then down to 480x480 and now 352x480 and have seen all PQ changes
aslo I remember dihs HD in MPEG-2 and what was become after that switch to MPEG-4, all the best in H.264 method of compression video was thrown in favor of the "8 Mbps" number !
and recall answers to our concerns, from VP - "would you have more HD channels or better PQ for fewer channels" ? They didn't ask us, they just did disclosed why they pick it with no recourse to PQ ... tell me... you are siding with tycoons 

Oh, yeah, just for a record: PQ is all in engineering, in the math behind H.264 and SW/FW implementation of it to give you, hmm viewers, some PQ.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> I'll bet $100 for 75 of 100 viewers would say for same channel: OTA MPEG-2 [H.263] is better then DTV/dish MPEG-4[H.264]


It is irrelevant. The question of the thread is Cable vs Dish vs DirecTV. Do you see OTA in that threesome? The great majority of the channels a DISH or DirecTV customer receives are *NOT* OTA ... and MEPG2 left the building a long time ago.

There are viewers who would prefer the uncompressed feed from the cameras at their local television station. They are not going to get it - not even OTA. So please, lets get back to reality and talk about the signals people can get in their homes/businesses via satellite and cable.


----------



## P Smith

James, you got it wrong ... the thread full of other posts with pure concerns about TV size, room size, glares, etc not DTV dish or cable
And criteria for PQ as we discuss with Diana C :shrug:


----------



## James Long

No, Mr Smith - you have it wrong. As noted this is a thread comparing Cable vs Dish vs DirecTV and you refuse to participate in that comparison. Please - get with the topic of the thread. This isn't about an old thread from years ago.

Can you answer the question simply and honestly? If not, please do not clutter the thread. Thanks!


----------



## sregener

P Smith said:


> I'll bet $100 for 75 of 100 viewers would say for same channel: OTA MPEG-2 [H.263] is better then DTV/dish MPEG-4[H.264]


Hmmm. Apples-to-oranges, maybe?

I can't think of a single video source that looks better after being decompressed and recompressed by a lossy compression format. The best you could hope for is equal. And since Dish isn't using the same bandwidth as the OTA channel, equal is impossible.

When I compare ESPN HD on Dish with ABC HD from my antenna, I cannot see a significant difference between them. That is a more valid comparison. I greatly prefer ESPN to my local NBC station OTA for football. The local station's encoder is horrid, and they send out 2 HD channels with it.


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> No, Mr Smith - you have it wrong. As noted this is a thread comparing Cable vs Dish vs DirecTV and you refuse to participate in that comparison. Please - get with the topic of the thread. This isn't about an old thread from years ago.
> 
> Can you answer the question simply and honestly? If not, please do not clutter the thread. Thanks!


Not sure if you'll find it entertaining, but here is:
0.*OTA*
1.DTV
2.dish
3 Comcast

Had all three one time and did compare not just a picture, but whole enchilada: movies [same], sport and PPV (what should give you best PQ).

Happy moderating, oops !


----------



## damondlt

I dont get why the thread has to turn into a moderator power trip. 
p smith brought facts and everything needed to back up his statments, and was well on topic.

Anyone going to sit there and say Directv and dish mpeg2 HD was not as good as the Mpeg4 crap we have now is either flat out blind or in major Dish / Directv Mpeg4 denial.

Face it Directv HD is better then Dish on paper and by eye. 
My list 

Ota
Fios
Directv
BRC
Dish
Comcast.


Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> [Perhaps you are not EE by trade or by heart]


What instrument do Electrical Engineers use to measure visual perception?


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Not sure if you'll find it entertaining, but here is:
> 0.*OTA*
> 1.DTV
> 2.dish
> 3 Comcast
> 
> Had all three one time and did compare not just a picture, but whole enchilada: movies [same], sport and PPV (what should give you best PQ).


It is interesting to note that you're perceptions seem to be based on a snapshot in time and don't allow much for subsequent changes in hardware or bandwidth allocation yet you're more than willing to extrapolate that everything has progressed in lock-step.


----------



## harsh

damondlt said:


> p smith brought facts and everything needed to back up his statments, and was well on topic.


The question is whether or not the facts presented represent the gamut of the parameters that impact the perceived program quality. I say no.


> Face it Directv HD is better then Dish on paper and by eye.


And there are still those that think a six year old 720p plasma outperforms anything on the market because they like the way it presents the picture. Not everyone appreciates having their retinas torched out by artificially high contrast and saturation while others simply can't get enough.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> ...And there are still those that think a six year old 720p plasma outperforms anything on the market because they like the way it presents the picture. Not everyone appreciates having their retinas torched out by artificially high contrast and saturation while others simply can't get enough.


Precisely. In my home we have 1080p LED TVs from Samsung and Vizio, a 1080 DLP TV from Samsung, a 720p LCD and a 720p Plasma from Panasonic. Everyone who comes into our home and watches television remarks on the high quality of the plasma set, despite being 6 years old and only 720p. The reason it looks so good in normal viewing is the deeper black level provided by the plasma technology. This is a factor that has NOTHING to do with PQ of the incoming media. All the TVs are obviously receiving the same PQ from the same source data stream. Yet human beings perceive the deeper blacks of the plasma display as "improved PQ."

The term "picture quality" is a subjective one. It does not have an established scale and so can not be objectively measured. You can measure lots of the technical parameters of a digital video stream, but how that correlates to "picture quality" is totally arbitrary and itself highly subjective.

Bottom line: since there is no device that measures overall "picture quality" objectively, the ONLY criteria that matters is whether or not an individual can discern the difference between two different sources. If you can, pick the one you like better. If you can't, look to other criteria to make your choice.

After listening to these PQ debates for the past 15 years I have come to the inescapable conclusion that it just _*doesn't matter.*_


----------



## Laxguy

Except when it does!! 

Agree, DC.

I did extensive OTA-DirecTV-Cable comparisons the eyeball way. OTA was in only one case a bit better than DIRECTV, and cable was just slightly in third place. YMMV, as locals may have different compression rates, and even these can vary from time to time.


----------



## Orion9

I remember back in the 80s and 90s when people would get a new large display, and then complain about the horrible video quality of: OTA, cable, recording devices etc. The typical answer was that they were watching the new display closer than NTSC had been designed for so there was no way their sources could look good.


Now, it looks like HDTV has gotten ahead of the typical consumer and display, and we are now telling people that if they can't detect a difference, they should try getting closer to the screen. 


Perhaps in a few years when ~90 inch screens are common, we'll be back to people complaining about the source quality - if we haven't all moved to 4K by then.


----------



## sregener

Orion9 said:


> I remember back in the 80s and 90s when people would get a new large display, and then complain about the horrible video quality of: OTA, cable, recording devices etc. The typical answer was that they were watching the new display closer than NTSC had been designed for so there was no way their sources could look good.
> 
> Now, it looks like HDTV has gotten ahead of the typical consumer and display, and we are now telling people that if they can't detect a difference, they should try getting closer to the screen.


In a sense, you're right on. People who say, "Dish's HD is perfect" aren't sitting close enough to their sets, or are not informed enough of what makes a perfect picture. People who say, "I can't see a difference between 720p and 1080i" may be using 720p set, or have a poor resolution coverter, or aren't sitting close enough to their set to see the improved resolution of 720p. The reality isn't that we're telling people to sit close enough to see these things, but rather that if they want to make an accurate comparison, they need to sit close enough to see them. Because 320i looks pretty good on my monitor when I'm standing 10' away.

I'm able to appreciate better picture quality. Especially when it comes to macro blocking and color depth. But I'm also able to watch DVDs and not have the picture quality completely distract me from the experience. I prefer Blu-Rays, because I appreciate the sharper, more colorful picture. But I can live with DVDs. But the day someone tells me, "DVDs look just as good as Blu-Rays" is the day I start to question their ability to assess picture quality. Same story here, except that the differences between Dish/DirecTV/Cable are probably much more subtle.


----------



## James Long

When I saw The Phantom Menace in the local movie theater the most unsettling part of the presentation was not Jar Jar Binks, it was the pixels. I could see the pixels on the movie screen and it distracted me. Big screen with a lot of pixels but still a problem with picture quality.

I don't see how getting closer to the screen until flaws are seen helps. One is exceeding the design of the display. One needs to work within the design of their display equipment. Too close is as big of a problem as too far away. Most video is designed to be viewed in motion ... not a freeze frame.

I've seen bad PQ ... besides Jar Jar. I've seen local stations take the potential of a high quality MPEG2 ATSC signal and destroy it with poor engineering - even without adding subchannels. Nice looking numbers but not pleasing to the eye.


----------



## tsmacro

Just wanted to point out that earlier in this thread someone said that Dish has a 30 day trial period, they don't. They did try that briefly a few years ago but haven't done it for quite a while. Once your Dish equipment is activated in your house if you singed up in the typical way (promo w/ leased equipment) you are locked in for 2 years, no 30 day trial.


----------



## Laxguy

If one is seeing pixels, one is too close, be it a movie screen, huge HDTV or laptop.


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> When I saw The Phantom Menace in the local movie theater the most unsettling part of the presentation was not Jar Jar Binks, it was the pixels. I could see the pixels on the movie screen and it distracted me. Big screen with a lot of pixels but still a problem with picture quality.
> 
> I don't see how getting closer to the screen until flaws are seen helps. One is exceeding the design of the display. One needs to work within the design of their display equipment. Too close is as big of a problem as too far away. Most video is designed to be viewed in motion ... not a freeze frame.
> 
> I've seen bad PQ ... besides Jar Jar. I've seen local stations take the potential of a high quality MPEG2 ATSC signal and destroy it with poor engineering - even without adding subchannels. Nice looking numbers but not pleasing to the eye.





Laxguy said:


> If one is seeing pixels, one is too close, be it a movie screen, huge HDTV or laptop.


I had that problem also, but I think it might have just been the quality of the projection system being used back then.


----------



## Diana C

sregener said:


> In a sense, you're right on. *People who say, "Dish's HD is perfect" aren't sitting close enough to their sets, or **are not informed enough of what makes a perfect picture*. People who say, "I can't see a difference between 720p and 1080i" may be using 720p set, or have a poor resolution coverter, or aren't sitting close enough to their set to see the improved resolution of 720p. The reality isn't that we're telling people to sit close enough to see these things, but rather that if they want to make an accurate comparison, they need to sit close enough to see them. Because 320i looks pretty good on my monitor when I'm standing 10' away.
> 
> I'm able to appreciate better picture quality. Especially when it comes to macro blocking and color depth. But I'm also able to watch DVDs and not have the picture quality completely distract me from the experience. I prefer Blu-Rays, because I appreciate the sharper, more colorful picture. But I can live with DVDs. But the day someone tells me, "DVDs look just as good as Blu-Rays" is the day I start to question their ability to assess picture quality. Same story here, except that the differences between Dish/DirecTV/Cable are probably much more subtle.


First, I don't think ANY video source is "perfect"...since no one gets the direct output of the HD video camera delivered to their living room, ALL video we get has been compressed - a LOT!. So, ALL digital video will have flaws - digital artifacts like macro-blocking or aliasing - it is just a matter of many there are, and are they noticeable. If you examine it closely enough, you will see flaws in even a 4K or 8K data stream. So, all we are talking about is how many defects there are and whether or not they are distracting.

If you are looking for the ultimate videophile experience, use BluRay exclusively since everything else will be inferior to that. But if you are interested in just sitting down in the evening and being entertained by the latest episode of Community, or NCIS or Walking Dead, then the question you should be asking is which service gives me the *best entertaininment experience*. Sure, PQ may play a role in the entertainment experience, but so does sound quality, content quality, diversity of channels, cost, and much more. Saying someone that accepts the Dish Network HD quality is "not informed enough" is, I'm afraid to say, rather condenscending and dismissive. I don't think one needs to be "informed" in order to be able to know what they find pleasing and entertaining. As has been reported, a large portion of the viewing public still watches SD sources on their HD TVs. Who are we to say they are uninformed or foolish? If they are happy, that is all that matters.

Look at it this way...some people will only drive BMWs, maybe because they prefer the styling, or because BMWs handle so well, or whatever the reason. Other people swear that the only car they will drive is an Audi, or another person may prefer a Lexus. Meanwhile, there are millions of people who could afford a BMW or a Lexus or an Audi, but prefer to drive Fords or Volkswagens or Hondas. Without question, the *technical specifications *for an average BMW will be superior to those of an average Ford (better acceleration, better weight distribution, better cornering, etc.). Does that mean that the Ford/Honda/VW drivers are "uninformed" or somehow wrong or misguided? Not at all...they just prefer to drive whatever car they prefer and, in most cases, simply don't need or don't really see how the "better" specifications relate to a "better" car.

If someone finds the PQ of Dish or cable or any other source distracting, then they should look for a different provider. But these are subjective opinions. Regardless of the technical specifications, if a given provider delivers a PQ that the viewer finds acceptable, then, by definition and for that customer, the PQ is equal to any other provider he or she also deems acceptable. It is the individual's judgement that matters. All we can do is offer our opinions. The TS and anyone else in that circumstance, will need to form their own opinion.


----------



## RAD

Didn't we go through all this back when DIRECTV was doing HD Lite and Dish wasn't? :hair:


----------



## Diana C

RAD said:


> Didn't we go through all this back when DIRECTV was doing HD Lite and Dish wasn't? :hair:


Glad I missed that go around.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

For me it has been pretty simple... IF I sit a foot away from my HDTV, it looks like crap... even Blu-rays look like crap sometimes with my 60" HDTV if I sit a foot away from it. But I'm not supposed to be sitting that close!

I always forget the metrics... but if I sit within a foot or so of the optimal viewing distance for my size HDTV, then I find most of the Dish HD looks pretty sharp. Some channels are better than others, and some of that isn't Dish's fault either... sometimes the channel is not as good and sometimes the content itself is not as good.

DirecTV might be better. I honestly don't know because outside of a showroom setting, I've never seen DirecTV HD. I had DirecTV a couple of times many many years ago... but that was long before HD. By the time HD was around, I had already been with Dish a year or so... so I've never been in a position to compare the two.

I have compared Time Warner... a little. I hedge slightly because my father had a different HDTV than I did when he had Time Warner Cable. Sometimes at his house I thought his picture looked better on some channels... but then when I was at home I would realize mine looked good too... I never was in a position to do a side-by-side comparison.

We could debate numbers all we want, but that really isn't the issue with picture "quality" as most people "see" it.

It all comes down to you and your setup and how you think it looks with your eyes.


----------



## sregener

Diana C said:


> Saying someone that accepts the Dish Network HD quality is "not informed enough" is, I'm afraid to say, rather condenscending and dismissive. I don't think one needs to be "informed" in order to be able to know what they find pleasing and entertaining.


I think you read into my statement something that was not there. I said, "perfect", not "acceptable." I'm a videophile and I find Dish's HD acceptable, and have for almost the last two years. But I find it acceptable in part because I saved over $600 by switching to Dish from DirecTV. No savings, and it would have been a much harder sell. I recognize that people choose their programming provider for a variety of reasons, not just one, unlike how we choose who to vote for as president.

If you can't see the flaws, whether it be Dish, DirecTV or cable, then you are not in a position to compare them for quality. Because of the extreme compression all those providers use, there are a ton of flaws in their picture, and it is visible to those who sit at proper distances and know what they're looking for.

It is rare that I pay attention to video quality while watching a program. Typically, it takes something to distract me from what I've viewing. But once distracted by a shadowy background that is all blocks, or a singer who becomes unrecognizable as they're illuminated by a strobe light, those flaws grab me more and more and become an issue. For me, Dish's HD LiLs are unacceptable. But that may just be in my market. But Dish's national HD is acceptable. Still not what I know it can be, but acceptable.


----------



## normang

These debates will rage on forever.. its all up to the individual's perception, and its always more than just the numbers as the postings about plasma vs LCD etc prove. The specs are a contributing factor of course, but ultimately it comes down to what the person see's on their screen. And even the screen varies, walk into a store showing the same feed across a number of different models, some will look better than others.. it might be adjustment, it may not.

I can view a 4K feed on a nice 4K display in a store and it can look really really good, but I also know that the chances I'll ever get that level of quality outside of a store without having access to the demo video they are showing, highly unlikely. 

The best you can do is try and view what you want to watch from the various providers on a Tv that is close to yours, and even then, it may not match your own viewing experience once you deploy your choice.


----------



## harsh

sregener said:


> In a sense, you're right on. People who say, "Dish's HD is perfect" aren't sitting close enough to their sets, or are not informed enough of what makes a perfect picture.


If you have to be "informed" about what should please you, you have much deeper issues than we can address here.


----------



## sregener

harsh said:


> If you have to be "informed" about what should please you, you have much deeper issues than we can address here.


I'll grant you that point. However, the issues here is whether or not you're qualified to give other people input about a service. If you know nothing more about cars than, "I buy the green one because it looks good, and this one works fine for getting me to and from the office," you wouldn't be qualified to tell people who are very knowledgeable about cars that your car is the perfect car. It may be perfect "for you", but that's a different statement. When someone asks, "Which service offers the best picture quality?" you had better have an idea what makes the difference.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sregener said:


> I'll grant you that point. However, the issues here is whether or not you're qualified to give other people input about a service. If you know nothing more about cars than, "I buy the green one because it looks good, and this one works fine for getting me to and from the office," you wouldn't be qualified to tell people who are very knowledgeable about cars that your car is the perfect car. It may be perfect "for you", but that's a different statement. When someone asks, "Which service offers the best picture quality?" you had better have an idea what makes the difference.


I don't buy that at all. IF you're asking me if a car is easy to fix/service or what do I know about internal combustion... then yeah, I need to know... but if you're asking me if it is a reliable car, if it is affordable, if it gets good gas mileage, if it is cheap to maintain/service... I can answer all of those without knowing squat about how the car works.


----------



## Jim5506

NEVER has cable, Dish or DirecTV been for the videofile.

All these products deliver a certain value at a certain price point.

If you want videfile quality TV please go elsewhere and spare the rest of us your angst over picture quality.

All 99% of TV viewers want is a usable picture, that is why the SD part of all three services is still larger than the HD and all these three services want is to satisfy that 99%, probably they would settle for 95%.

TV carriers don't give a hoot about your ability to see macro blocking or any other imperfections in the picture from 1 foot away from the screen of your 70" TV.

All they want is for you to keep paying the bill each month.

With cable the quality not only varies from corporation to corporation, but it varies from town to town, so there is no way to gauge the overall quality of cable TV picture and as long as the locals get an acceptable picture, that's all both they and the company care about.

When complaints come in, they act on them (maybe).

I found in my analog cable days that every 3 months or so I had to call them and have them check the amplifiers down the street when the VHF low band channels started to get fuzzy, otherwise they would have just let them deteriorate to nothing.

Now with digital when certain channels start to drop we know that the system is going out of whack and a call to the cableco is necessary.

DirecTV and Dish have a pretty stable standard of picture off each satellite and problems are usually on the subscribers end, either receiver or lnb/dish problems, but again both carriers cram as much video into the tube as the standard customer will put up with, and they neither care nor want input from videofiles, because the videofile is not their target customer, he is an incidental, a serendipity (extra cash).


----------



## Laxguy

Videophiles like good video files! 

I cannot agree that a mere 1% wants/demands more than "usable" picture. Is this hyperbole, or are these figures quoted somewhere, from a somewhat authoritative source?


----------



## James Long

Jim5506 said:


> ... that is why the SD part of all three services is still larger than the HD ...


Not arguing your logic buy you might want to check your numbers.
If one eliminates the SD channels that are available in HD there are more channels available in HD than in SD.
Both DirecTV and DISH have passed the 50% converted to HD mark. (I will not discuss cable as there is not one consistent cable system to compare. Cable is not a provider - it is a type of provider. There are several large companies and a lot of smaller companies that make up the class of service provider called "cable".)

We're at the point where more than half of homes have at least one HD set ... so the market is growing. People are starting to catch up with technology.


----------



## damondlt

Since the topic is Directv and Cable PQ

Well I just took a upgrade from my Local Blue ridge cable for Broadcast Basic service to go along with my internet.
It adds about 10 more locals channels that Directv doesn't currently offer me.

But they Also have about 10 Extra Digital HD channels in the 100-125 Range that are not mentioned in their line up.(Auto program found these)

Let me say this I'm not sure where or how these feeds are delivered, But if this is the HD PQ that is across the Digital Cable line up, Then Directv should be ashamed of themselves!

Because the PQ is very much improved over Anything on my Directv service.
I was shocked!
It reminded me of the VOOM HD. NO joke!

This is right out of the coax to the TV!

I would like to know how to measure the content and compare it to Directv. Because that's how much better it is.
P Smith whats your advise?


----------



## P Smith

damondlt said:


> ...
> I would like to know how to measure the content and compare it to Directv. Because that's how much better it is.
> P Smith whats your advise?


I have 8VSB/QAM card in one of my PC, using it with TSReader would give full technical info, then if you will record that mux to TS file and use any TS analyzer to research all params of the video compression


----------



## sregener

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't buy that at all. IF you're asking me if a car is easy to fix/service or what do I know about internal combustion... then yeah, I need to know... but if you're asking me if it is a reliable car, if it is affordable, if it gets good gas mileage, if it is cheap to maintain/service... I can answer all of those without knowing squat about how the car works.


Okay, but if you only really know the basics, how would you answer somebody's question: "Which car has the best performance in the hatchback category?" You can say, "Well, I drive a nice hatchback. It gets great fuel economy and I haven't had a lick of trouble with it." But you can't really compare it with the other models on the market, can you? If you don't know the 0-60 times or the horsepower or the long-term reliability of the brand? In other words, your experience is too limited to speak authoritatively, and if you can't tell the difference between a Fiesta and a GTI, why would you be qualified to give advice?

There are differences between the services. And to the trained eye, they're really not that hard to pick out. Which is why only people who can see and understand those differences are qualified to speak authoritatively as to which ones are better. All anyone else has is an anecdote.


----------



## sregener

Jim5506 said:


> NEVER has cable, Dish or DirecTV been for the videofile.
> 
> All these products deliver a certain value at a certain price point.
> 
> If you want videfile quality TV please go elsewhere and spare the rest of us your angst over picture quality.


If I want to watch ESPN, I basically have to choose between those services. And then the question of which one has the best picture quality for a videophile is relevant. Not because it is the best possible picture, but because the videophile will appreciate any improvement in the picture.


----------



## damondlt

P Smith said:


> I have 8VSB/QAM card in one of my PC, using it with TSReader would give full technical info, then if you will record that mux to TS file and use any TS analyzer to research all params of the video compression


PM me so I can find out where to buy and what exactly to buy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sregener said:


> Okay, but if you only really know the basics, how would you answer somebody's question: "Which car has the best performance in the hatchback category?" You can say, "Well, I drive a nice hatchback. It gets great fuel economy and I haven't had a lick of trouble with it." But you can't really compare it with the other models on the market, can you? If you don't know the 0-60 times or the horsepower or the long-term reliability of the brand? In other words, your experience is too limited to speak authoritatively, and if you can't tell the difference between a Fiesta and a GTI, why would you be qualified to give advice?
> 
> There are differences between the services. And to the trained eye, they're really not that hard to pick out. Which is why only people who can see and understand those differences are qualified to speak authoritatively as to which ones are better. All anyone else has is an anecdote.


But you're not asking someone to evaluate the technical specifications of the car... You're asking them "what has the best performance".... There is nearly zero need to know how anything under the hood works in order to evaluate that.

But... you can't compare vehicles that you've never driven.

Think food.

I can evaluate the nutritional data and technical info about sodium, vitamins, etc etc. but I can't tell you what food tastes best or what food upsets my stomach the least without actually eating them.

I can tell you about my experiences with my car first... then experience with others I've owned or driven... then I can share second hand knowledge from friends or family about their car to some degree... but after that, I can't compare.

Compare the technical data at the dealership or from a mechanic all you want... but that will never fully tell you what the right car is for you.

IF it was all about the technical data... then all cars would be the same over time... a few variations like 2-door, 4-door, trucks, and cars... but not nearly the differences in models and options as we have... if it was about the technical data then why wouldn't everyone be trying to develop to the same set of technical specs and make the same car?

Aesthetics plays as much a part as anything... and when asking opinions, you need more than just facts and numbers to form an opinion... otherwise it isn't an opinion at all.


----------



## P Smith

damondlt said:


> PM me so I can find out where to buy and what exactly to buy.


just take a look at HW section of 8VSB/QAM cards at www.coolstf.com on TSReader page


----------



## harsh

sregener said:


> When someone asks, "Which service offers the best picture quality?" you had better have an idea what makes the difference.


You don't have to answer and it is probably better not to.

Some like a picture that is cartoon-like in contrast and saturation while others cling to the idea that the picture should be lifelike (recognizing that the dynamic range is some small fraction of what the human eye can detect).

Whatever floats your floaters.

Behind the scenes, there's stuff going on (moving channels from one transponder to another, upgrading encoders or even adding channels to an already loaded transponder) that changes the PQ all the time. Adding the element of time makes blanket statements even more dangerous.


----------



## camo

I've got both services and in NFL HD football not even close in comparison. I think small guys on a field is a good way of comparing. Directv by far is the better quality not just by me, but a whole room of others where we had both receivers going. Sunday Ticket on the directv receiver and local broadcast watching Cards on the other. For those that want to believe they are the same quality go for it. They are not. Period....


----------



## sregener

camo said:


> I've got both services and in NFL HD football not even close in comparison. I think small guys on a field is a good way of comparing. Directv by far is the better quality not just by me, but a whole room of others where we had both receivers going. Sunday Ticket on the directv receiver and local broadcast watching Cards on the other. For those that want to believe they are the same quality go for it. They are not. Period....


In order for your test to be valid, you'd have to be watching the same game on identical sets configured identically.

If your local station multicasts (broadcasts more than one virtual channel on a single physical channel) this can impact picture quality.


----------



## acostapimps

Me personally I like bright clear with color popness PQ, there's some pixelation during sport events, but it's usually on locals but not so much on big 4 network (CBS NBC ABC FOX) here anyway, ESPN looks pretty good, I only see pixelation when fans are cheering with close up camera work, or it's a big celebration with confettis, But my reason for a mediocre picture was the DVR I had that needed replacement, because once I received the replacement receiver, PQ looked much better since it was much newer than the one I had.


----------



## CCarncross

A brand new HR should have virtually identical PQ to any other HR.....unless there is something literally broken on the older HR.....


----------



## harsh

CCarncross said:


> A brand new HR should have virtually identical PQ to any other HR.....unless there is something literally broken on the older HR.....


Nonetheless, it is quite common to have people comment that their new box offers a better picture than their old box.


----------



## acostapimps

CCarncross said:


> A brand new HR should have virtually identical PQ to any other HR.....unless there is something literally broken on the older HR.....


I figured it would be the same before I got the replacement, But I find it much better for some reason, I have it setup on the same TV with the same picture settings and TV input, and same hdmi connection straight to TV. Its a HR24-500 btw


----------



## RAD

acostapimps said:


> I figured it would be the same before I got the replacement, But I find it much better for some reason, I have it setup on the same TV with the same picture settings and TV input, and same hdmi connection straight to TV. Its a HR24-500 btw


Could be because it's a -500, those models have a NXP chipset in them while the others have Broadcom, IIRC.


----------



## damondlt

This is not uncommon. 
I too find the HR24 has better PQ then my HR23 and HR34. 

There was also several post about HR22 also having lighter PQ then the other HRs. I TOO agree with that.

I Find also the HR34 menu and guide is not very good at having the natural deep blacks as the other hr's. 
More like a medium dark gray, and yes I've tried this against my other tvs.

I would like to hear other people's results with HR34 and HR24 .



Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------

