# HD Newbie asks 921 or 942?



## pjmrt (Jul 17, 2003)

I'm finally getting with the 21st century - getting HD. I know there are issues with Dish, limited programming and the MPEG4 question mark. But I plan to stay with Dish anyway. So the next step is to pick the receiver. I am considering 2 options: 1) get an HDTV monitor and drive it with my existing 721 (SD format) + OTA antenna for local HD or 2) get an HD version of my 721 - that is dual tuner DVR, but HD capable. Dish has some "specials" (price doesn't seem all that special to me, but that's what they call 'em) of $549 for a 921 and $699 for a 942. I don't plan to use the receiver to drive a second TV in another room, so I'm having trouble justifying the 942.

What's your advice? Are there any significant reasons to get a 942 other than the extra live output? Any gotchas or performance/compatibility issues with either receiver? Playing Dish's SD signal through a HDTV - does it look any better than with a conventional TV? Thanks.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

The 942 is worth every penny more in cost than the 921...night and day difference, the 942 is so much better of a receiver. You will kick yourself later if you choose the 921. For reasons, read the 921 and 942 forums.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, I would _"kick myself"_, as you say, if I were to spend $700 on a 942, or any IRD for that matter. :icon_cool Sheer folly, IMO.

Is tv worth spending that much on a receiver? Just shoot me if I ever do. :shrug:


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Nick said:


> Is tv worth spending that much on a receiver? :shrug:


No, it isn't. And the expensive TVs that you need to view the programs aren't worth it either.

For me (and a lot of others) the problem is content. There just isn't enough *GOOD* content to justify spending THAT much money to watch something on TV (no matter how great the picture quality is).


----------



## socceteer (Apr 22, 2005)

Bill R said:


> No, it isn't. And the expensive TVs that you need to view the programs aren't worth it either.
> 
> For me (and a lot of others) the problem is content. There just isn't enought *GOOD* content to justify spending THAT much money to watch something on TV (no matter how great the picture quality is).


oh..! come on...!

How else are you going to impress your friends and family...? 

The quality is so good that I do not care about the content. I have even watched the life of a tiger and traveled around from my couch


----------



## logray (Apr 8, 2005)

If you watch sports, i.e. Football, Basketball, Baseball, or any other sport in HD you will never want to watch another sporting event in standard definition again. And while you are at work your 942 can be recording those sporting events in delicious High Definition. YES THE PICTURE QUALITY IS REALLY THAT GOOD. TRUST ME. Go see a demo somewhere if you can - like a high end TV store. Example. The other night it was raining in Green Bay during the preseason game. In standard definition the picture looked hazy. When I switched over to High Def, I could see water droplets on the players helmets and could tell that the hazyness was actually light rain/mist - NOT HAZYNESS from the broadcast.


----------



## pjmrt (Jul 17, 2003)

The argument about whether its "worth it" can be made about all entertainment. Went and saw a movie - $7 a ticket! - And that was a matinee (discounted). Then another $15 for a couple of sodas and popcorn. So I guess its relative.

Anyway, it sounds like I don't want to go with the 921 even though its less expensive. I haven't seen anyone chime in with a recommendation there. That leaves the other two options. Go with the more expensive 942 with the hope that when MPEG4 comes around, Dish has some kind of inexpensive upgrade/fix path or just drive the HDTV with my 721 in SD mode and pull in local HD stations with an antenna.

I'd like to ask the question again - has anyone driven an HDTV with a 721 or other standard definition receiver? Is picture quality the same as on a normal TV? I would suspect it would be the same as a regular TV, but have not seen it done.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

pjmrt said:


> I'd like to ask the question again - has anyone driven an HDTV with a 721 or other standard definition receiver? Is picture quality the same as on a normal TV? I would suspect it would be the same as a regular TV, but have not seen it done.


Sure, but of course it all depends on what type of equipment you have. I have a line tripler as part of my setup and I must say it does a very nice job in making up for the lower resolution of an SD output.

The point is, unless you are going to continually be watching your OTA HD or 2, or watching HD movie/sports channels (in which case, definitely go for the HD receiver), most of what you'll watch is probably SD anyway. It's not like the picture is going to be horrible. It will probably be better than what you're used to if you have good equipment.

I got a 921 for the following reasons: I had an HDTV set and wanted to take advantage of it; I wanted dual tuner capability; I wanted a larger DVR. I am certainly taking advantage of the latter two. I can't say that I watch all that much HDTV, although part of that is simply due to the fact that the broadcasters here are dragging their heels on moving to DTV and SHVERA at the last minute gave them yet another few years of wiggle room before I am legally entitled to import a high def signal.

I would definitely go with the HDTV set. PQ will be better, no doubt about it, and you'll eventually take advantage of it. As for whether to get an HD receiver as well, if you're simply not dying to watch things in HD and know that you'll watch stuff on Dish Network in HD, then I would probably recommend holding off as long as you are happy with your 721.

...Lance


----------



## RLMesq (Mar 9, 2003)

pjmrt said:


> I'd like to ask the question again - has anyone driven an HDTV with a 721 or other standard definition receiver? Is picture quality the same as on a normal TV? I would suspect it would be the same as a regular TV, but have not seen it done.


Actually, a standard-def signal can look WORSE on a HD set; the quality of the picture highlights the shortcomings in the signal. There's really little point in buying a HD set if your only programming will be from a SD sat receiver. (Keep in mind that I live in an area where there are no OTA signals available -- if you have OTA HD, you are way ahead of me already!)

I have a Panasonic hi-def projector throwing a 100" diagonal picture -- wathcing SD channels can be enough to make me :barf:


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

RLMesq said:


> There's really little point in buying a HD set if your only programming will be from a SD sat receiver.


I have a 144" projector system, and I am perfectly happy with most SD channels on Dish Network. Even the overcompressed local channels are watchable--IF you have the right equipment. Like I said, I have a quality line tripler (not even a quadrupler like you can get today) and it makes SD channels looks almost DVD quality. Even when I approach the screen it's hard to make out individual pixels. Please don't generalize for everyone. With the right equipment, you can get a very watchable picture from SD.

...Lance


----------



## jbach (Jul 18, 2005)

As a hedge against a DISH move to mpeg4, why not lease the DVR for $250? Much smaller up front investment, and flexibility to move after a year or two to D, cable, or the next DISH widget without having to eat $450 more to own it. But make no mistake, get the 942 whichever way you do it.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

Bill R said:


> No, it isn't. And the expensive TVs that you need to view the programs aren't worth it either.
> 
> For me (and a lot of others) the problem is content. There just isn't enough *GOOD* content to justify spending THAT much money to watch something on TV (no matter how great the picture quality is).


Oh, great. Now two crotchety old farts too deal with. You and Nick probably converse with paper cups connected by strings.

It all has to do with where you get your enjoyment and how much money you want to invest. Some people tinkle away a lot of money every year or so buying new cars, each time watching 20-30 vanish as they drive the new rig off the lot. I love coming home at the end of a hard day (both my wife and I have retired once and have second full time jobs, so there's got to be some payback for all of this) and watch a great program in HD. I'm watching a really nice "America" concert I recorded last night from our local PBS affiliate and it's awesome. I've got probably $35K or so sitting against the wall and I enjoy every bit of it.


----------



## srrobinson2 (Sep 16, 2003)

pjmrt said:


> I'm finally getting with the 21st century - getting HD. I know there are issues with Dish, limited programming and the MPEG4 question mark. But I plan to stay with Dish anyway. So the next step is to pick the receiver. I am considering 2 options: 1) get an HDTV monitor and drive it with my existing 721 (SD format) + OTA antenna for local HD or 2) get an HD version of my 721 - that is dual tuner DVR, but HD capable. Dish has some "specials" (price doesn't seem all that special to me, but that's what they call 'em) of $549 for a 921 and $699 for a 942. I don't plan to use the receiver to drive a second TV in another room, so I'm having trouble justifying the 942.
> 
> What's your advice? Are there any significant reasons to get a 942 other than the extra live output? Any gotchas or performance/compatibility issues with either receiver? Playing Dish's SD signal through a HDTV - does it look any better than with a conventional TV? Thanks.


I bought a 921 when they were first released and stuck with it for 20 months. I finally couldn't stand the problems any longer and upgraded to a 942. I did not need multi-room capabilities either. The difference was noticeable immediately. Even the initial software download went 3x as smooth on the 942 as it did on the 921. The 942 is smaller (close to normal sat receiver size instead of the A/V receiver sized 921). It is quieter. It is faster (switching channels, switch tests, deleting DVR content, etc.). It is MUCH MUCH MUCH more reliable! It has name based recording (NBR) which is justification enough in my opinion. It comes with two remote controls (1 IR and 1 UHF) to support dual tuner outputs. It has USB 2.0 which will be used for external storage (unlike Dishwire which died before it got started on the 921).

I've had my 942 now for about three weeks, and I am happy with my decision every time I sit down in front of my 65 inch HD TV! I think the picture quality with the 942 looks better, but without seeing it side by side with my old 921, it's hard to tell. The stretch mode (partial zoom) on the 942 blows away the garbage that the 921 was capable of doing.

As for feeding SD content to an HD set--no, the SD content will look better on an SD set. The HD set will typically stretch the content (and upconvert in some cases) in order to fill your screen. While this gives you a bigger picture, it is not as crisp as it would be on a normal 4x3 tv. The ability to record OTA HD content with both units is very impressive. Honestly, the Dish HD lineup is very weak in my opinion--ESPN-HD is my most frequently watched sat HD channel (still waiting impatiently on ESPN2HD). So, back to the topic: does SD content look good from the 921 or 942. As I mentioned earlier, the 942 stretch modes are far better than the 921, so I leave my 942 in HD mode all the time and watch all content via my digital video connection and allow the 942 to stretch non-HD content, and I am very satisfied with the result. When I had my 921, I used the S-Video output for all non-HD content and let my TV do the stretching. The picture was sharper, but pixelated due to the S-Video connection versus the RGB connection.

Bottom line: Mark is dead on right (as usual  ) Don't even think about the 921--go for the 942 and don't look back.


----------

