# YouTube TV 5.1 Audio and 4K tier announced



## RichardL (Dec 20, 2006)

YouTube TV Rolls Out 5.1 Surround Sound, 4K Ultra HD Add-On Tier - Variety

I am happy about the 4K support, just remains to be seen how much is available to justify $19.99/mo


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

RichardL said:


> YouTube TV Rolls Out 5.1 Surround Sound, 4K Ultra HD Add-On Tier - Variety
> 
> I am happy about the 4K support, just remains to be seen how much is available to justify $19.99/mo


Looks like $9.99 for a year unless I misread, then bumping up.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Looks like $9.99 for a year unless I misread, then bumping up.


No it's per month according to the article:

"YouTube TV's 4K Plus will be available at an additional $19.99 per month regularly, on top of the base $64.99/month price. In an introductory promo offer, new YouTube TV customers can get 4K Plus for $9.99/month for 12 months."


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

steve053 said:


> No it's per month according to the article:
> 
> "YouTube TV's 4K Plus will be available at an additional $19.99 per month regularly, on top of the base $64.99/month price. In an introductory promo offer, new YouTube TV customers can get 4K Plus for $9.99/month for 12 months."


Yeah I knew that but the disconnect between brain and fingers is in full bloom these days!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

$19.99 sounds a tad expensive. Even the $9.99 introductory price for new users seems a little high.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> $19.99 sounds a tad expensive.


Considering the total absence of linear UHD content in general, it is a lot to pay just to get some of the 4K Olympics coverage.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

AT&T execs will be foaming at the mouth thinking they could have added $20 to their users monthly bill.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Be interesting to see what ATT counters with here


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Well when YTTV adds 5.1 sound for LG TVs and/or ATV, I am switching back.
Paying Comcast $10-30 more a month because off AT&T will get me to switch back. PQ is slightly better but not $28 more for the package and more for Comcast.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> $19.99 sounds a tad expensive. Even the $9.99 introductory price for new users seems a little high.


Its $9.95 for all users. I just signed up for it. Load YTTV, go to membership up top "The $ icon" and it should be the first option. I did it because it also lets you stream unlimited streams, and I also plan to get the sports package this fall for football, and why not.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Its $9.95 for all users. I just signed up for it. Load YTTV, go to membership up top "The $ icon" and it should be the first option. I did it because it also lets you stream unlimited streams, and I also plan to get the sports package this fall for football, and why not.


It's only 9.99 for a year. Everyone is a new user to the package right now Then it goes to 19.99


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> AT&T execs will be foaming at the mouth thinking they could have added $20 to their users monthly bill.


Yea no kidding, although they would've had one less sub in me had they gone that direction.

And if they did charge, it still wouldn't be worth it even though DirecTV linked MA accounts to Cinema on Genies. That is often overlooked benefit to 4K on DirecTV with internet connection. Just saying.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

compnurd said:


> It's only 9.99 for a year. Everyone is a new user to the package right now Then it goes to 19.99


That's $9.99 per month for a year. After that, it's the $19.99 per month.

I'd pay $9.99 for a year, but not $ $119.88 for the year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

wmb said:


> That's $9.99 per month for a year. After that, it's the $19.99 per month.
> 
> I'd pay $9.99 for a year, but not $ $119.88 for the year.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think he understood what I meant


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

codespy said:


> Yea no kidding, although they would've had one less sub in me had they gone that direction.
> 
> And if they did charge, it still wouldn't be worth it even though DirecTV linked MA accounts to Cinema on Genies. That is often overlooked benefit to 4K on DirecTV with internet connection. Just saying.


Not really a benefit. It's slow as crap and by the time you get it up you could have opened MA on another device and been 10 min into the movie


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Not really a benefit. It's slow as crap and by the time you get it up you could have opened MA on another device and been 10 min into the movie


I've had no issues like you are describing or it would drive my wife nuts when it's family movie night on a TV, not a device. I thought you left DirecTV a while ago?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

codespy said:


> I've had no issues like you are describing or it would drive my wife nuts when it's family movie night on a TV, not a device. I thought you left DirecTV a while ago?


I still have it at one of my houses


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> Be interesting to see what ATT counters with here


AT&T TV should cut the price of their entry-level Entertainment package from $70 to $65 to match YTTV. And then, for new subs, roll the 20 in-home streams, unlimited cloud DVR, plus 4K HDR content (which they've yet to introduce) into a "Deluxe" upgrade package for an extra $10/mo. Also think they should offer that Deluxe upgrade free to those who take an optional 12-month renewable contract.

IMO, that would position them pretty well against YTTV without cutting their profitability too much. But it remains to be seen whether the new DirecTV company that will soon run AT&T TV is hungry enough for new subscribers to go toe-to-toe with YTTV.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV should cut the price of their entry-level Entertainment package from $70 to $65 to match YTTV. And then, for new subs, roll the 20 in-home streams, unlimited cloud DVR, plus 4K HDR content (which they've yet to introduce) into a "Deluxe" upgrade package for an extra $10/mo. Also think they should offer that Deluxe upgrade free to those who take an optional 12-month renewable contract.
> 
> IMO, that would position them pretty well against YTTV without cutting their profitability too much. But it remains to be seen whether the new DirecTV company that will soon run AT&T TV is hungry enough for new subscribers to go toe-to-toe with YTTV.


Package price cut isn't going to happen


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T TV should cut the price of their entry-level Entertainment package from $70 to $65 to match YTTV.


By the time AT&T makes that decision YTTV will rise up to meet AT&T's price.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> By the time AT&T makes that decision YTTV will rise up to meet AT&T's price.


It's already almost there. With the 4K option which gives people the Unlimited streams to match ATT it's 75 now to be 85 next year. If ATT adds 4K for free on all packages it's really close between the two


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> By the time AT&T makes that decision YTTV will rise up to meet AT&T's price.


Yeah, it's possible (maybe even likely) that YTTV will increase their base price from $65 to $70 within the next 12 months. Although typically when YTTV hikes their price, they also add some channels. Next time around, they might add channels from A+E and/or Hallmark, which would bring YTTV's channel line-up pretty darn close to AT&T TV's $85/mo Choice package, minus the RSNs but with NFL Network instead. If that happens, AT&T's Entertainment package will continue to look overpriced compared to YTTV.

I think AT&T TV can get away with being priced a bit higher, given its superior picture quality, option to use a dedicated box, etc. But not much higher. And with YTTV adding DD 5.1 audio alongside unlimited cloud DVR in the base package, as well as a 4K HDR upgrade option, they're working to close the quality gap with AT&T TV. They're going to have to respond if they don't want to get left in the dust within the next year or so.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Uh, IMO YTTV’s channel lineup is much closer to ATT’s Ultimate than Choice.

As to dollars for product, well even at $75/month to YTTV for getting 4K and unlimited streams, ATT’s cost comparison is with adding the $10/month to increase the DVR space to something useable. And that makes ATT’s Choice cost $95/month and Ultimate cost to be $105. And IMO that really leaves on PQ to be the biggest difference with the ATT box being a minor difference.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> It's already almost there. With the 4K option which gives people the Unlimited streams to match ATT it's 75 now to be 85 next year. If ATT adds 4K for free on all packages it's really close between the two


Yeah. Difference is that YTTV has structured things so that the most desirable feature -- unlimited cloud DVR (with a 9-month limit) -- comes at no additional cost to the base service. While on AT&T TV, you only get 20 hours storage and must pay an extra $10/mo to get unlimited (with a mere 3-month limit). Meanwhile, AT&T TV includes a less popular feature -- effectively unlimited in-home streams (20, actually) -- in the base service while YTTV reserves that for their upgrade. I'd bet that a significantly higher percentage of AT&T TV customers pay the $10 feature upgrade fee than will be the case on YTTV.

I'm surprised that YTTV is supposedly going to charge $20/mo for their feature upgrade package after offering it for just $10 the first 12 months. IMO, it doesn't add enough to the experience to justify an extra $20. $10, OK, but not $20. I doubt many individual households need more than 3 simultaneous streams, or downloads for offline playback, and there's not that much 4K cable TV content available. My guess is that they'll never end up increasing the price for it to $20. Instead, next year they'll raise the base package price by $5-10 (and add a few more channels) while holding the feature upgrade package to just $10/mo.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, IMO YTTV's channel lineup is much closer to ATT's Ultimate than Choice.


In terms of sports channels (with the big exception of RSNs), yes. But otherwise, YTTV is closer to AT&T TV's Choice than Ultimate because the latter has the Starz Encore channels, plus some minor Discovery and Viacom nets, all of which YTTV lacks. And, of course, YTTV completely lacks nets from Hallmark and A+E Networks, although my assumption is that some of those eventually get added to YTTV as it slowly builds into a full-fledged nationwide replacement for traditional cable TV, i.e. the streaming era equivalent of what DBS was back in the 90s.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> In terms of sports channels (with the big exception of RSNs), yes. But otherwise, YTTV is closer to AT&T TV's Choice than Ultimate because the latter has the Starz Encore channels, plus some minor Discovery and Viacom nets, all of which YTTV lacks. And, of course, YTTV completely lacks nets from Hallmark and A+E Networks, although my assumption is that some of those eventually get added to YTTV as it slowly builds into a full-fledged nationwide replacement for traditional cable TV, i.e. the streaming era equivalent of what DBS was back in the 90s.


I had actually forgotten that Starz was included in Ultimate. As to the other channel differences, well that's the biggest issue with selecting which live streamer to go with as none of them have all of the channels.

As to YTTV and Viacom, aren't most if not all of them on YTTV now? Seems to me they are.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> I had actually forgotten that Starz was included in Ultimate. As to the other channel differences, well that's the biggest issue with selecting which live streamer to go with as none of them have all of the channels.
> 
> As to YTTV and Viacom, aren't most if not all of them on YTTV now? Seems to me they are.


Yes, most Viacom and Discovery nets are on YTTV now. As I said, it's just a few of their minor ones, like Logo (Viacom) or Discovery Family, DIY and GAC (Discovery) that you can get on AT&T TV's Ultimate package but aren't on YTTV at all.

But YTTV does include those few sports channels that AT&T reserves for their Ultimate package, like Golf, CBS Sports Network, Olympic Channel and FS2. Ultimate also includes NHL Network, which YTTV doesn't offer at all. Although, of course, YTTV has NFL Network, which AT&T TV lacks.

YTTV is in a weird spot where they're the best for sports except for their notable lack of RSNs.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, IMO YTTV's channel lineup is much closer to ATT's Ultimate than Choice.
> 
> As to dollars for product, well even at $75/month to YTTV for getting 4K and unlimited streams, ATT's cost comparison is with adding the $10/month to increase the DVR space to something useable. And that makes ATT's Choice cost $95/month and Ultimate cost to be $105. And IMO that really leaves on PQ to be the biggest difference with the ATT box being a minor difference.


I agree. The current osprey box is not that great. I prefer using my ATV overall.
PQ is close enough with YTTV. I only miss channel numbers.

Problem for me, if YTTV increase PQ and uses more bandwidth, then I hit my Comcast limit again.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gio12 said:


> Problem for me, if YTTV increase PQ and uses more bandwidth, then I hit my Comcast limit again.


I doubt that you're alone and as AQ is improved, it will only get worse.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> I doubt that you're alone and as AQ is improved, it will only get worse.


Well it YTTV does raise it, I will have to pay the $30 fee to Comcast for Unlimited.
IF, IF the new company that runs DTV and AT&T are not longer the Anti Christ, I could go back to AT&T TV.
I kinda like YTTV DVR system though

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

gio12 said:


> Well it YTTV does raise it, I will have to pay the $30 fee to Comcast for Unlimited.
> IF, IF the new company that runs DTV and AT&T are not longer the Anti Christ, I could go back to AT&T TV.
> I kinda like YTTV DVR system though
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I bumped my Mediacom service up just for the 2TB of bandwidth. Since I'm all streaming, just a few 4K videos can push me over the next level down.

I'm off of live streaming, not because of anything the various services are doing, but because the content providers are doing nearly nothing that interests me these days.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, most Viacom and Discovery nets are on YTTV now. As I said, it's just a few of their minor ones, like Logo (Viacom) or Discovery Family, DIY and GAC (Discovery) that you can get on AT&T TV's Ultimate package but aren't on YTTV at all.
> 
> But YTTV does include those few sports channels that AT&T reserves for their Ultimate package, like Golf, CBS Sports Network, Olympic Channel and FS2. Ultimate also includes NHL Network, which YTTV doesn't offer at all. Although, of course, YTTV has NFL Network, which AT&T TV lacks.
> 
> YTTV is in a weird spot where they're the best for sports except for their notable lack of RSNs.


I wouldn't keep referencing NFL network as it is some prized possession. The ratings suck and they dont carry anything exclusive

the fact that ATT TV doesn't carry it over YTTV isn't some major advantage


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I wouldn't keep referencing NFL network as it is some prized possession. The ratings suck and they dont carry anything exclusive
> 
> the fact that ATT TV doesn't carry it over YTTV isn't some major advantage


Any one channel isn't make-or-break. Most people won't care about any one particular channel. But NFL is the most viewed sport in the US and there are plenty of folks clamoring for NFL Network to come to AT&T TV. The fact that YTTV has it and AT&T TV doesn't is one point of comparison in YTTV's favor. But it's only one of many points of comparison. IMO, it merits mentioning alongside those other differences in the two services.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Any one channel isn't make-or-break. Most people won't care about any one particular channel. But NFL is the most viewed sport in the US and there are plenty of folks clamoring for NFL Network to come to AT&T TV. The fact that YTTV has it and AT&T TV doesn't is one point of comparison in YTTV's favor. But it's only one of many points of comparison. IMO, it merits mentioning alongside those other differences in the two services.


NFL may be the most viewed sport but NFL network is not. I also really don't see people clamoring for it here or on Reddit either


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> NFL may be the most viewed sport but NFL network is not. I also really don't see people clamoring for it here or on Reddit either


I've seen several posts about it. Also seen posts by upset Uverse TV customers from a few years back when they lost NFL Network. Doesn't mean that AT&T TV can't compete with it. Just that it would be better positioned if it had it (along with NFL Red Zone, which YTTV offers in an optional Sports Extra Pack). Although I'm sure the lack of PBS and, in many markets, The CW, are bigger detractors for AT&T TV.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, it's possible (maybe even likely) that YTTV will increase their base price from $65 to $70 within the next 12 months. Although typically when YTTV hikes their price, they also add some channels. Next time around, they might add channels from A+E and/or Hallmark, which would bring YTTV's channel line-up pretty darn close to AT&T TV's $85/mo Choice package, minus the RSNs but with NFL Network instead. If that happens, AT&T's Entertainment package will continue to look overpriced compared to YTTV.
> 
> I think AT&T TV can get away with being priced a bit higher, given its superior picture quality, option to use a dedicated box, etc. But not much higher. And with YTTV adding DD 5.1 audio alongside unlimited cloud DVR in the base package, as well as a 4K HDR upgrade option, they're working to close the quality gap with AT&T TV. They're going to have to respond if they don't want to get left in the dust within the next year or so.


For some folks having to use a dedicated box to get the full feature set is a negative rather than a positive.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> For some folks having to use a dedicated box to get the full feature set is a negative rather than a positive.


Kinda goes both ways, I guess. I do think it's lame that AT&T TV requires you to use their box to be able to pause live TV for more than a couple minutes. AFAIK, there's no technical reason why that's the case. (How long can you pause live TV, with trick play in the buffer, on YTTV?) So that seems to be an instance where they've intentionally crippled their app in order to make the box better in comparison.

But I can see why some features are reserved for their box, because they require a custom full-featured remote. Among services that do offer their own box versus an app, I expect the experience will always be better on the box. That's definitely true with Comcast. I'm sure it's easier to optimize performance when you're developing only for your own hardware versus making apps for many different platforms which each support multiple levels of hardware.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I do think it's lame that AT&T TV requires you to use their box to be able to pause live TV for more than a couple minutes. AFAIK, there's no technical reason why that's the case.


That depends on how they've implemented the pause. If the pause is implemented in hardware, few devices have enough RAM to cache several minutes.

I suspect that this may be what is going on as they would like to unicast if they can find a way to get there. The instant that you implement pause at the server end, unicast is no longer possible.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> That depends on how they've implemented the pause. If the pause is implemented in hardware, few devices have enough RAM to cache several minutes.


That thought crossed my mind. But I know that, at least in the case of the Apple TV (a device that AT&T gave away to a lot of early DirecTV Now subscribers), it has sufficient memory to locally cache quite a lot of video. I use the Channels app on my ATV4K to watch live OTA TV and it uses the box's memory to cache up to 90 minutes. AFAIK, the Channels app for Fire TV and Android TV devices does the same thing, although I don't know how many minutes it can cache in those instances -- that's dependent on the specific device's available memory. Channels doesn't make a Roku app at all.

My guess is that the AT&T TV app could offer some amount of live TV pausing/caching on all streaming platforms if the developers enabled it. Even if only, say, 10 minutes with trick-play within the buffer, that would be valuable. And the amount could possibly be expanded if a USB storage device or memory card was plugged into the device. (That's an option that most Android TV and Fire TV devices allow; not sure about Rokus.)


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Kinda goes both ways, I guess. I do think it's lame that AT&T TV requires you to use their box to be able to pause live TV for more than a couple minutes. AFAIK, there's no technical reason why that's the case. (How long can you pause live TV, with trick play in the buffer, on YTTV?) So that seems to be an instance where they've intentionally crippled their app in order to make the box better in comparison.
> 
> But I can see why some features are reserved for their box, because they require a custom full-featured remote. Among services that do offer their own box versus an app, I expect the experience will always be better on the box. That's definitely true with Comcast. I'm sure it's easier to optimize performance when you're developing only for your own hardware versus making apps for many different platforms which each support multiple levels of hardware.


Not sure what the limit is for YTTV pausing live tv. I have never hit the limit but confess I have not done any in depth experiments to find out what the limit is. I know I have gone a half hour or so with no issues. I can confirm that it does not use local storage.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mjwagner said:


> Not sure what the limit is for YTTV pausing live tv. I have never hit the limit but confess I have not done any in depth experiments to find out what the limit is. I know I have gone a half hour or so with no issues. I can confirm that it does not use local storage.


I would think a half hour is plenty for the vast majority of folks. And if YTTV can implement server-based live TV pause, there's no reason why AT&T TV couldn't do the same (if they spent the money to do it). As things currently stand, it seems they want to use live TV pause as a differentiating feature to sell their own device.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But I know that, at least in the case of the Apple TV (a device that AT&T gave away to a lot of early DirecTV Now subscribers), it has sufficient memory to locally cache quite a lot of video.


It is likely that with only 32GB of RAM in the entry level AT&T TV models, DIRECTV Now was almost certainly multicasting cached content. AT&T TV may still be but I'm betting that they would kill to figure out how to unicast and spooling locally is the only way that can happen.

Further, as the title of this thread suggests, the bitrate of AT&T TV is likely much higher than that of DIRECTV Now.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Well Comcast just gave me 800mpbs and unlimited date for $63.99 on a 2 year contract after autopay. Been with them for 5 years so...

I will stick with YTTV until AT&T has new owners. I love having Red Zone, but no Miami Heat come fall. But at least with paying $35 less for internet, paying a little more for AT&T TV will be ok.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Well Comcast just gave me 800mpbs and unlimited date for $63.99 on a 2 year contract after autopay. Been with them for 5 years so...
> 
> I will stick with YTTV until AT&T has new owners. I love having Red Zone, but no Miami Heat come fall. But at least with paying $35 less for internet, paying a little more for AT&T TV will be ok.


ATT still owns 70% of the new company


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

compnurd said:


> ATT still owns 70% of the new company


Great&#8230;

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> It is likely that with only 32GB of RAM in the entry level AT&T TV models, DIRECTV Now was almost certainly multicasting cached content. AT&T TV may still be but I'm betting that they would kill to figure out how to unicast and spooling locally is the only way that can happen.
> 
> Further, as the title of this thread suggests, the bitrate of AT&T TV is likely much higher than that of DIRECTV Now.


No, AT&T TV uses the same streaming infrastructure that was developed under DTV Now. I'd bet that the bitrates are the same.

And DTV Now never used multicasting. It was always and only unicast, just like YTTV, Hulu, Netflix, Prime Video, etc. I don't believe AT&T TV has implemented multicast streams either, although an internal presentation that leaked out before its soft launch in Aug. 2019 suggested that it might use multicasting for customers on AT&T Fiber.

Just checking -- you realize that all OTT streaming (i.e. video streams crossing any and all IP networks) is inherently unicast (i.e. a separate stream for each individual end user), right? Multicasting (i.e. one stream reaching multiple end users) can only be implemented if the video provider controls the network too, i.e. managed IPTV such as Uverse TV.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Not impressed with YTTV 4K broadcast of the MLB All Star Game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Not impressed with YTTV 4K broadcast of the MLB All Star Game.


FOX has acknowledged that it did not use native 4K cameras to shoot the All-Star Game. Instead, it was all 1080p cameras upscaling and distributing to carriers. This may be part of the issue you experienced.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

The 4K HDR feed of The Open looked/looks really good…4k HDR 60fps on FireTV Stick 4k.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> No, AT&T TV uses the same streaming infrastructure that was developed under DTV Now. I'd bet that the bitrates are the same.


If that were the case, AT&T TV subscribers who jumped from DIRECTV wouldn't be claiming that AT&T TV generally offers superior PQ. That wasn't the case early on. A case could be made that DIRECTV PQ has deteriorated, but that seems difficult to support.

Infrastructure for streaming has a few easily adjustable parameters and one of them is bitrate.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> If that were the case, AT&T TV subscribers who jumped from DIRECTV wouldn't be claiming that AT&T TV generally offers superior PQ. That wasn't the case early on.


No, it was. I had DirecTV Now back in early 2018 and my opinion was that its PQ was slightly better than DTV Sat back then.

I've read the same mix of comments all along with regard to PQ of the streaming vs. DBS product from folks who had both; all along, some have said the two were equal while others said the streaming was slightly better. I don't think there's been any change in terms of the streaming product's HD bitrates/encoding.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> No, it was. I had DirecTV Now back in early 2018 and my opinion was that its PQ was slightly better than DTV Sat back then.
> 
> I've read the same mix of comments all along with regard to PQ of the streaming vs. DBS product from folks who had both; all along, some have said the two were equal while others said the streaming was slightly better. I don't think there's been any change in terms of the streaming product's HD bitrates/encoding.


I had DIRECTV Now in the first weeks of launching. PQ was NOT on par with DIRECTV or even YTTV today. I sucked.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

gio12 said:


> I had DIRECTV Now in the first weeks of launching. PQ was NOT on par with DIRECTV or even YTTV today. I sucked.


So you're talking about Dec. 2016/Jan. 2017, a year earlier than I had it. I don't doubt that the service was rough in a lot of ways then. But hey, only $35 for a full channel package, no contract and $5 HBO!


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> So you're talking about Dec. 2016/Jan. 2017, a year earlier than I had it. I don't doubt that the service was rough in a lot of ways then. But hey, only $35 for a full channel package, no contract and $5 HBO!


Something like that. Did a trial.
Now its as good as DIRECTV or just about best out there. 
Price and other small issues keep me away again for now

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

gio12 said:


> I had DIRECTV Now in the first weeks of launching. PQ was NOT on par with DIRECTV or even YTTV today. I sucked.


First impressions .... One hopes the PQ would have improved over the past five years.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

James Long said:


> First impressions .... One hopes the PQ would have improved over the past five years.


True, LOL.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Of course PQ with any internet based package can be affected by your connection. I've had both, and moved to AT&T TV only in the last few months. For the most part, I find the AT&T PQ to be better, if simply because a lot of it comes in at 1080p. But, to be honest. Unless the PQ is REALLY bad, it's hard to notice much of a difference unless you have a discerning eye. There are still plenty of people out there who can't even see the benefit of HD as opposed to SD, or are watching on a small computer screen. So I am not convinced that PQ matters ALL that much for most people as long as it's not complete crap (i.e. 4x3 SD). And of course not everyone has an OLED TV either where you can really see a lot of subtleties in PQ. If your have a budget TV, you probably aren't going to see much of a difference either. Price is and content are the major drivers.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Of course PQ with any internet based package can be affected by your connection. I've had both, and moved to AT&T TV only in the last few months. For the most part, I find the AT&T PQ to be better, if simply because a lot of it comes in at 1080p. But, to be honest. Unless the PQ is REALLY bad, it's hard to notice much of a difference unless you have a discerning eye. There are still plenty of people out there who can't even see the benefit of HD as opposed to SD, or are watching on a small computer screen. So I am not convinced that PQ matters ALL that much for most people as long as it's not complete crap (i.e. 4x3 SD). And of course not everyone has an OLED TV either where you can really see a lot of subtleties in PQ. If your have a budget TV, you probably aren't going to see much of a difference either. Price is and content are the major drivers.


I agree and my sense is that much of the PQ issues that are reported are due to variations due to the specific CDN your feed is coming from. I have found the PQ of YTTV to be excellent and mostly 1080p with some exceptions on certain channels. I am very picky when it comes to PQ and have a LG OLED65B7A in my FR and a Optoma UHZ65 4k HDR laser projector (120" screen) in my HT so PQ issues are glaringly obvious when they are there.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

mjwagner said:


> I agree and my sense is that much of the PQ issues that are reported are due to variations due to the specific CDN your feed is coming from. I have found the PQ of YTTV to be excellent and mostly 1080p with some exceptions on certain channels. I am very picky when it comes to PQ and have a LG OLED65B7A in my FR and a Optoma UHZ65 4k HDR laser projector (120" screen) in my HT so PQ issues are glaringly obvious when they are there.


Very true, and how many people have your setup. Very few. In fact a lot of the younger viewers, watch on their laptops or tablets. I was watching Kim's Convenience over the weekend and two of the characters sat down to watch a streaming show, at home, not in front of their TV, but in front of their laptop. I personally don't enjoy TV like that, but a lot of people do. I think PQ probably doesn't matter all that much to them.


----------

