# DirecTV's PQ ain't what it used to be



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

It appears to me that DirecTV's picture quality has degraded significantly over the last couple of years. It used to be so sharp I could see individual gray hairs on Rachael Maddow's head, not any more. Everything looks like it's been upscaled from SD to 720p to me and that's being optimistic. I don't watch sports so I don't know what their 4k looks like. I can switch to Amazon Prime and the difference between their's and DirecTV's PQ is stunning. Amazon Prime is tack sharp with rich color and deep blacks while DirecTV's is a washed out blurry mess. What is going on with this bunch these days?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Granted, the NATIVE feature has been removed but DIRECTV's picture quality still looks good. Much better than upscaled SD to 720p blurry mess you described. Check your equipment settings.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Many who have switched to (or are demoing) AT&T TV have commented that it offers perceptibly better PQ than DIRECTV so you're not alone in noticing a comparative "deficiency".

From the testimony, I'd guess the difference isn't nearly as striking as you suggest.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

harsh said:


> Many who have switched to (or are demoing) AT&T TV have commented that it offers perceptibly better PQ than DIRECTV so you're not alone in noticing a comparative "deficiency".
> 
> From the testimony, I'd guess the difference isn't nearly as striking as you suggest.


I haven't seen anyone mention that a ATT TV picture quality is better than that of DIRECTV. I know AT&T is putting more of their marketing muscle behind the streaming service but I don't see the comparison saying streaming has the better picture quality.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike1096 said:


> I haven't seen anyone mention that a ATT TV picture quality is better than that of DIRECTV.


There are quite a few such comments in the AT&T TV review thread.

ATT TV - a little review


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Please do not compare PQ with Rachel Maddow's hair. Seriously. While it may look like she is in a studio, they are working from remotes with green screens, and most of their guests are on webcams, and they are all using Zoom, Cisco or some other method to send the video back to 30 Rock. There are a few shows, I believe Capehart's show, and Johnson's shows on Sunday are actually at 30 Rock, and they are sharp. Concentrate on the graphics, and videos they show and it pops into clarity.

Maybe after Covid, all will go back to pre-pandemic sharpness. And I cannot believe how many rich and powerful guests that come on that show are only using 480p webcams. It is jawdropping.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

So while it is way not fair of a comparison to compare a Amazon streaming show to Live TV.. Directv's PQ is still the best for a traditional Sat/Cable company... Your also comparing different TV Inputs and output devices That being said, ATT TV def has it beat mostly due to the higher streaming bit rates


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> I haven't seen anyone mention that a ATT TV picture quality is better than that of DIRECTV. I know AT&T is putting more of their marketing muscle behind the streaming service but I don't see the comparison saying streaming has the better picture quality.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Pretty much everyone who has had both says this


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

I agree with the OP, there's been a degradation to the overall PQ over the last couple of years. It still looks good, but it's not what it used to be. One of the reasons I left. I did not try ATTV but the PQ on YoutubeTV is notably sharper than Directv right now. Try out some of these streamers for yourself and you can see the difference (some more than others). Also helps to use a quality streaming device like Nvidia Shield Pro.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> I agree with the OP, there's been a degradation to the overall PQ over the last couple of years. One of the reasons I left. I did not try ATTV but the PQ on YoutubeTV is notably sharper than Directv right now. Try out some of these streamers for yourself and you can see the difference (some more than others). Also helps to use a quality streaming device like Nvidia Shield Pro.


YTTV has bad motion artifacting with sports.. Directv definitely still has them beat


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

compnurd said:


> Pretty much everyone who has had both says this


Damn. Honestly I've never seen it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> Damn. Honestly I've never seen it.


It is a pretty big thread, but to summarize, I got into a fight with DirecTv and they agreed to cancel my subscription and waive the ETF if I subbed to ATT TV, which they allowed me to do without a contract. 
I had both for about 2 days, and can honestly say the ATT TV has much better PQ, and more channels in HD (CNNi, Cspan 1 and 2) for example. That was on a Roku TV. Then at the suggestion of members here, I bought a Osprey box from ebay, which has a voice remote (think saying "Go forward three minutes" to skip all those commercials), numeric keypad, and the same channel numbers as DirecTv. The cloud DVR is only 20 hours unless you pay extra, but works ok. It is missing several features of the DirecTv DVR, but it works.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> I agree with the OP, there's been a degradation to the overall PQ over the last couple of years. It still looks good, but it's not what it used to be. One of the reasons I left. I did not try ATTV but the PQ on YoutubeTV is notably sharper than Directv right now. Try out some of these streamers for yourself and you can see the difference (some more than others). Also helps to use a quality streaming device like Nvidia Shield Pro.


I've been streaming for many years and the PQ comparison with D* has never changed. The PQ on streaming platforms is always noticeably better than what you get with D*. For the same content. Has D*'s PQ diminished noticeably? I only use D* for sports or news and the PQ doesn't seem to be any better or worse than it was. I use ATVs and I have Amazon Cubes, both platforms have better PQ than D* does. I did use a Shield for a couple of weeks and the speed of the Shield impressed me. The software didn't impress me and back it went.

Rich


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Rich said:


> I've been streaming for many years and the PQ comparison with D* has never changed. The PQ on streaming platforms is always noticeably better than what you get with D*. For the same content. Has D*'s PQ diminished noticeably? I only use D* for sports or news and the PQ doesn't seem to be any better or worse than it was. I use ATVs and I have Amazon Cubes, both platforms have better PQ than D* does. I did use a Shield for a couple of weeks and the speed of the Shield impressed me. The software didn't impress me and back it went.
> 
> Rich


Noticeably better PQ on streaming? I'm not so sure about that. Ive done my fair share of streaming as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've been streaming for many years and the PQ comparison with D* has never changed. The PQ on streaming platforms is always noticeably better than what you get with D*. For the same content. Has D*'s PQ diminished noticeably? I only use D* for sports or news and the PQ doesn't seem to be any better or worse than it was. I use ATVs and I have Amazon Cubes, both platforms have better PQ than D* does. I did use a Shield for a couple of weeks and the speed of the Shield impressed me. The software didn't impress me and back it went.
> 
> Rich


Maybe it's ESPN themselves but I've found the content on their channels especially to be diminished in quality from what it used to be on D*. Just my unscientific thoughts, but it's especially there where I felt the D* quality had dropped. I felt that even before I started auditioning streaming services and then noticed how much better the PQ was with YTTV on the Shield (esp the Pro version). Fubo also looked good but I didn't feel it was quite up to the same level (I did not try ATTV)


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> Noticeably better PQ on streaming? I'm not so sure about that. Ive done my fair share of streaming as well.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


From my experience the best streaming surpasses D* at this point in time at least in terms of picture quality (audio is a whole other story). However there are factors involved which will color that for each user, namely what service you are using, and what platform you are using it on (not to mention the speed and quality of your own isp). All of those makes a huge difference.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Watch the frames per second of the service too. Lots of them are saving bandwidth by only sending out [email protected] or [email protected]/30. That is why I didnt take up TVision on their intro offer.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Davenlr said:


> Watch the frames per second of the service too. Lots of them are saving bandwidth by only sending out [email protected] or [email protected]/30. That is why I didnt take up TVision on their intro offer.


Yeah Tvision sucks. It's 30fps.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Still looks better than my local cable co 

NbA was unwatchable microblocks everywhere via cable . 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

dtv757 said:


> Still looks better than my local cable co
> 
> NbA was unwatchable microblocks everywhere via cable .
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Lot of microblocks with streaming too.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> Lot of microblocks with streaming too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Not on ATT TV or YouTubeTV from what I've seen


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

lparsons21 said:


> Not on ATT TV or YouTubeTV from what I've seen


I've seen it on dark scenes from both. Darker movies to be exact.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

lparsons21 said:


> Not on ATT TV or YouTubeTV from what I've seen


Using the Osprey still? Or another streamer for ATT TV?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> Using the Osprey still? Or another streamer for ATT TV?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The Osprey as well as Roku Ultra 2020 & FireTV Cube 2nd generation. Haven't actually looked on the AppleTV4K since I hate that blasted remote.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

lparsons21 said:


> The Osprey as well as Roku Ultra 2020 & FireTV Cube 2nd generation. Haven't actually looked on the AppleTV4K since I hate that blasted remote.


How is the Osprey doing? Latest updates help? I have a 2nd gen cube. I love it. Never tried the Roku 2020. Good?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> How is the Osprey doing? Latest updates help? I have a 2nd gen cube. I love it. Never tried the Roku 2020. Good?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The latest Osprey updates have been mostly all about speed. Still not the quickest but good enough to not want to throw the remote through the TV! 

The Roku Ultra is a very good box. One thing I like about it over the FireTV & Osprey is that I can see what the audio is going to my soundbar. FireTV and Osprey always report DD+. The Roku's make no attempt at an 'up next' strip at all. But the search function is the best IMO.

I tend to use the FireTV Cube since I have a Recast OTA DVR.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

dtv757 said:


> Still looks better than my local cable co
> 
> NbA was unwatchable microblocks everywhere via cable .
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I believe that. Cable is really, really bad.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DMRI2006 said:


> From my experience the best streaming surpasses D* at this point in time at least in terms of picture quality (audio is a whole other story).


In general, on-demand streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Prime Video, etc.) have much been HD picture quality than broadcast TV (cable, satellite and OTA) sources. OTA TV is usually better (less compressed) than cable TV, although in some instances, the cable/sat feed is just as good. I remember the first time I saw an episode of Saturday Night Live streaming from Hulu (on-demand, not live) and was just blown away by how much better it looked than via an OTA antenna from my local NBC station.

I think HBO Max may have the best-looking 1080p HD I've seen from any source other than a Bluray disc. As good as, or even better, than the 1080p via the Apple TV app, which had been the PQ champ. (And Apple TV+'s 4K Dolby Vision still is the overall champ, but we're talking about HD here.) HBO has really upgraded their encoding since the old HBO Now/Go apps. Check it out, it'll absolutely crush the HBO linear channels on DTV (or any other cable TV service).


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

lparsons21 said:


> The latest Osprey updates have been mostly all about speed. Still not the quickest but good enough to not want to throw the remote through the TV!
> 
> The Roku Ultra is a very good box. One thing I like about it over the FireTV & Osprey is that I can see what the audio is going to my soundbar. FireTV and Osprey always report DD+. The Roku's make no attempt at an 'up next' strip at all. But the search function is the best IMO.
> 
> I tend to use the FireTV Cube since I have a Recast OTA DVR.


Roku search better than Fire Cube's?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> The Roku Ultra is a very good box. One thing I like about it over the FireTV & Osprey is that I can see what the audio is going to my soundbar.


How do you get the Roku to tell you the audio format going to the soundbar? Like on the screen?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> Roku search better than Fire Cube's?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I think so. It is dead simple and gives a list of where you can watch/rent/buy a show and seems to include a lot of source services.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> How do you get the Roku to tell you the audio format going to the soundbar? Like on the screen?


My Nakamichi Shockwafe soundbar shows audio coming to it on a little LED screen on the bar. The Roku doesn't massage the audio like FireTV and Osprey do. The soundbar also shows that same info from AppleTV.

My previous soundbar wouldn't. The only thing it actually showed about audio was if the source was Atmos.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Ah hell, truth be told I probably need a new tv. My Panny Plasma is over eight years old and is now ancient technology. Been reading up on 65 inchers but the variety is kinda mind boggling. Anyone have any suggestions for a $1500 budget?


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

slovell said:


> Ah hell, truth be told I probably need a new tv. My Panny Plasma is over eight years old and is now ancient technology. Been reading up on 65 inchers but the variety is kinda mind boggling. Anyone have any suggestions for a $1500 budget?


Sony X950H. Phenomenal TV. Best in class for $1500 budget.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

slovell said:


> Ah hell, truth be told I probably need a new tv. My Panny Plasma is over eight years old and is now ancient technology. Been reading up on 65 inchers but the variety is kinda mind boggling. Anyone have any suggestions for a $1500 budget?


LG CX OLED. On sale right now on Amazon. If you dont need HDMI 2.1, Vizio OLED-65H1 on sale too. It has 2.1 but its buggy at 120hz with gaming consoles still. The picture is AMAZING tho. At BB.
If you want mini-LED, your BB might have a 65 or 75" TCL Series 8 still in stock. Series 6 Mini-LED also a good buy.
Anything else, will not make you happy if you are used to Plasma...without spending 2 to 3 times your budget.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Davenlr said:


> LG CX OLED. On sale right now on Amazon. If you dont need HDMI 2.1, Vizio OLED-65H1 on sale too.
> If you want mini-LED, your BB might have a 65 or 75" TCL Series 8 still in stock. Anything else, will not make you happy if you are used to Plasma...without spending 2 to 3 times your budget.


He said $1500 budget.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

The new LG's just came out. THe CX's are on sale. Look around. The Vizio is $1,799.99 but it is the closest to plasma he is going to find.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Davenlr said:


> The new LG's just came out. THe CX's are on sale. Look around. The Vizio is $1,799.99 but it is the closest to plasma he is going to find.


65 CX's still pushing almost $2K.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Mike1096 said:


> Sony X950H. Phenomenal TV. Best in class for $1500 budget.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yeah, I've been looking hard at that one.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

slovell said:


> Yeah, I've been looking hard at that one.


I just got it about a month ago. Couldn't be happier. Picture is absolutely beautiful. No worry on static burn-in either. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Someone in another thread said his local video shop in CA was selling it for $1399, so the prices are going to drop as the new ones hit the stores. If he has a plasma that old, I dont think burn in is going to be a problem. If he wants to go LCD tho, the Sony is a good one.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Davenlr said:


> Someone in another thread said his local video shop in CA was selling it for $1399, so the prices are going to drop as the new ones hit the stores.


$1,399 would be an insane price for a 65 CX.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> LG CX OLED. On sale right now on Amazon. If you dont need HDMI 2.1, Vizio OLED-65H1 on sale too. It has 2.1 but its buggy at 120hz with gaming consoles still. The picture is AMAZING tho. At BB.
> If you want mini-LED, your BB might have a 65 or 75" TCL Series 8 still in stock. Series 6 Mini-LED also a good buy.
> Anything else, will not make you happy if you are used to Plasma...without spending 2 to 3 times your budget.


No gaming so that doesn't matter. I've read that the TCL's have quality control issues with their screens. Beautiful picture from them but over time they can develop the Dirty Screen Effect. Don't OLED sets have screen burn-in problems or is that overblown?


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> Someone in another thread said his local video shop in CA was selling it for $1399, so the prices are going to drop as the new ones hit the stores. If he has a plasma that old, I dont think burn in is going to be a problem. If he wants to go LCD tho, the Sony is a good one.


No burn in artifacts on my plasma at all.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

slovell said:


> No gaming so that doesn't matter. I've read that the TCL's have quality control issues with their screens. Beautiful picture from them but over time they can develop the Dirty Screen Effect. Don't OLED sets have screen burn-in problems or is that overblown?


Depends on who you ask. I had the LG C7 65 inch OLED before going with the Sony. I personally never had burn-in. I've seen it though on friends TV's. It's not pretty.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> I just got it about a month ago. Couldn't be happier. Picture is absolutely beautiful. No worry on static burn-in either.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That isn't an issue with today's LG OLEDs


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

OLEDs do have burn in, but they take a LOT more than Plasma. I have watched 200 hours of CNN on mine, and not a trace of burn in yet. If you havent burnt your plasma in, you dont have to worry about OLED. The TCLs had some panels with issues, all LCDs do. Mine was perfect for both the TCL and the Vizio. Check Best Buys open box prices if there are any in your area. There is a 65" OLED for $1529 here, and they would let you look at them before taking them home that way. Maybe they have that Sony open box too, where you could compare them.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The only plasmas I have seen any real burn in on are Panasonic 42" 720p models from 2008. I have four of those, and two (one in particular) show some pretty obvious "ESPN logo" burn in. But I've been running them 100 hours a week the whole time (until the past year) and obviously they spend a lot of time on ESPN.

Now some of the others maybe if I look really carefully I might see a faint outline of the ESPN logo or score bar, but that's only the sort of thing that would bother someone at home who is picky - and I doubt very many people are running Panny plasmas at home with 50 or 60 thousand hours on them like I am. I am using the same consumer level models as everyone else - probably lower end than some here since I had no reason to buy the 'Z' models etc.

For those curious about failure rates, I've had exactly one Panasonic plasma fail (bought in 2005) out of nearly two dozen and two LG plasmas (bought in 2007...snagged four $2500 models for $999 each on closeout) I remember reading somewhere that Panasonic engineers stated based on the failure rates they had observed that the panels had a MTBF of 42 years. Presumably at more normal household usage, not my usage. I believe it.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I have a 55" Panasonic plasma sitting behind my OLED with a cover over it. I have less than 6 months use on it.
If I watch CNN it has noticable image retention after an HOUR. Then spend 4 hours running a screen wiper. Drove me NUTS trying to keep that TV from getting permanent damage, so I used a LCD which I replaced with an OLED. The OLED has 200 hours on it, and not a sign of image retention. The PQ on the Panasonic was nice tho. Can't say it was better than OLED tho.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> Noticeably better PQ on streaming? I'm not so sure about that. Ive done my fair share of streaming as well.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This is subjective, of course. Might depend on the TV sets we use or the streaming devices we use.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slovell said:


> Ah hell, truth be told I probably need a new tv. My Panny Plasma is over eight years old and is now ancient technology. Been reading up on 65 inchers but the variety is kinda mind boggling. Anyone have any suggestions for a $1500 budget?


You are gonna have an epiphany when you get a 4K set. I had Panny plasmas all over the place and I was convinced they had the best PQ available. I got the first 4K set in 2015 and saw the light. I replaced every plasma with 4K sets. Sony, Samsung, or LG. Just make sure you stay away from the cheaper models. Especially on the Sony sets.

I was in a local electronics store recently and saw a huge Sony on the wall. Over 80 inches and the PQ reminded me of the 850 Sony I had bought in 2015. Like that set, the picture looked washed out on the 80+ inches set in the store. Sure enough, it was a model that began with an 8. I asked the salesman I was with about the set on the wall, asked him why it looked so bad. He said it's always been like that. Right next to that set was a 55" set that had a stunning picture on it. Same content exactly as the larger set. That was a Sony 950. The salesman told me they take sets out of the boxes and hang them on the walls, no adjustments made. I would buy a Sony 950 in a heartbeat after seeing what that set in the store looked like. Here's a link to a 2020 model on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-X950H-I...173555&sprefix=Sony+TV+950+65",aps,170&sr=8-1 Reasonable price.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> Sony X950H. Phenomenal TV. Best in class for $1500 budget.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I just posted about those sets. Shocking PQ.

Rich


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Rich said:


> I just posted about those sets. Shocking PQ.
> 
> Rich


It's what I bought after extensive research. Absolutely love it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Rich said:


> I just posted about those sets. Shocking PQ.
> 
> Rich


I've been looking at the Sony 950 since Christmas. Amazon has it for $1598.00 + tax delivered. I need to check BB and see what they've got.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

slovell said:


> I've been looking at the Sony 950 since Christmas. Amazon has it for $1598.00 + tax delivered. I need to check BB and see what they've got.


It's the same price at BB but not in stock here. No open box deals are available either.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> I just posted about those sets. Shocking PQ.


I don't think anyone beats Sony in terms of image processing -- upscaling, removing compression artifacts and noise, enhancing color and contrast, producing natural-looking motion. And the X950H looks like it has Sony's best X1 Ultimate processor in it. Once I return to in-store shopping, I'll have to wander into a BestBuy and take a gander at that TV.

Now, that said, an LCD screen, even with full-array LED backlight, is never going to reach OLED levels of pixel-perfect precision in contrast and brightness. My LG OLED (a 2016 model, the B6) has a beautiful picture. But I think that LG still trails Sony in terms of image processing. Although I know that LG's processors have improved some in the past five years too.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> It's what I bought after extensive research. Absolutely love it
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I couldn't take my eyes off it in the store. And the price for a 65" set is more than reasonable. I have Samsung TVs. I want to sit that 950 next to my QLED and see which I like better. I have a feeling I could have saved a few bucks and bought a 950 rather than the QLED, but after what I went thru with that Sony 850 4K set I bought in 2015, I was rather worried about Sonys in general. Before the Panny plasmas, all I had were Sony sets. I never had a problem with them, and I was severely disappointed by that 850. In retrospect, I should have purchased a model that began with a "9".

Rich


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

I've got a 55" now and I'm on the fence about moving up to a 65". My room's not all that big and I've been satisfied with a 55" for years now. I sit 10 feet away from the screen as it is now and won't be changing that.
Also, thanks for all the help folks.
Regards,
Sam


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

55" would get you an LG OLED for well under your budget. 65" would be pushing it above it except for the Vizio OLED which is right at your budget now on sale today. I havent seen the Sony you like compared to OLED. One thing I will say, with live TV, the 55" will look sharper than the 65 or larger. 4K BluRay and other 4K streaming sources would probably look as good on a 65.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

I would avoid the Vizio OLED for now. Still a first year TV


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

It has a few bugs for TV watching. LOTS of bugs for gaming. Just the only OLED under his budget at the moment if he wants to go 65" I personally havent had any issues at all with mine, but I never play games or hook it to a computer. Just the Smartcast, a Roku, and a BD player.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> I have a 55" Panasonic plasma sitting behind my OLED with a cover over it. I have less than 6 months use on it.
> If I watch CNN it has noticable image retention after an HOUR. Then spend 4 hours running a screen wiper. Drove me NUTS trying to keep that TV from getting permanent damage, so I used a LCD which I replaced with an OLED. The OLED has 200 hours on it, and not a sign of image retention. The PQ on the Panasonic was nice tho. Can't say it was better than OLED tho.


Well, there's temporary image retention and then there's permanent burn-in. My parents have a mid-range Panasonic plasma that's been their main TV for a decade or so now and they've not had any burn-in. But just about any time I turn the TV off in a dark room, I can see a faint ghost image retained on the screen for a bit but that quickly fades away. Just to be safe, I run the anti-IR tool on their TV a couple times a year when I visit.

Another thing to keep in mind is that burn-in works differently for plasma vs. OLED. I have an LG B6 (2016) and had to have the panel replaced due to burn-in earlier this year. Fortunately, I read on a forum that LG was offering one free panel replacement on their OLEDs even if the TV was out of warranty (which mine was, by a few years). I had wrongly assumed that as long as I didn't keep a static image/graphic on the screen for an extended period of time that I wouldn't get burn-in, because that's the way it works on a plasma. I figured that wouldn't be a problem for me since I'm not a gamer and don't keep the TV on all day on a news channel.

But on an OLED, it's the cumulative amount of time that an image/graphic is displayed on the screen that matters. I had watched the same news channel for an average of *maybe* one hour per day for a couple of years. I never left it on the same channel for several hours running. But part of the channel logo ended up getting burned into the screen because that logo was displayed on the same spot on the screen for a certain total number of hours.

Now, before you freak out, I learned that LG built better tech into their OLED TVs starting with the 2017 models to prevent burn-in. I think they maybe track how much time each pixel is lit up a certain color and then take steps to offset imbalances between pixels. So just make sure that you have any anti-burn-in features enabled in the TV settings and hopefully you'll be OK.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slovell said:


> I've got a 55" now and I'm on the fence about moving up to a 65". My room's not all that big and I've been satisfied with a 55" for years now. I sit 10 feet away from the screen as it is now and won't be changing that.
> Also, thanks for all the help folks.
> Regards,
> Sam


I think this website is particularly good in terms of TV reviews and buying guides:
Reviews and Ratings


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Well, there's temporary image retention and then there's permanent burn-in. My parents have a mid-range Panasonic plasma that's been their main TV for a decade or so now and they've not had any burn-in. But just about any time I turn the TV off in a dark room, I can see a faint ghost image retained on the screen for a bit but that quickly fades away. Just to be safe, I run the anti-IR tool on their TV a couple times a year when I visit.
> 
> Another thing to keep in mind is that burn-in works differently for plasma vs. OLED. I have an LG B6 (2016) and had to have the panel replaced due to burn-in earlier this year. Fortunately, I read on a forum that LG was offering one free panel replacement on their OLEDs even if the TV was out of warranty (which mine was, by a few years). I had wrongly assumed that as long as I didn't keep a static image/graphic on the screen for an extended period of time that I wouldn't get burn-in, because that's the way it works on a plasma. I figured that wouldn't be a problem for me since I'm not a gamer and don't keep the TV on all day on a news channel.
> 
> ...


I had this issue also with my 2017 OLED with a local news channel. Had it replaced earlier this year. Good news was the panel was a 2020 production panel so should never have the issue again


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Bought the Sony X950H 55" from Amazon, should be here Thursday.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I agree the quality is soft compared to other content. Streaming gives the best image quality on my 65" Sony X900H. With the LCC I've also noticed local channels are "crisper" when tuning the OTA. I just have to pause it for a second and unpause it and then the framerate matches the smoothness of the Sattelite broadcast. I try to watch the OTA version if its a good clear day with solid signals.

We watch a lot of 4K stuff on Amazon, Apple TV+, Netflix, Youtube, and even 1080p stuff on Discovery+, HBO Max and Peacock blow DirecTV out of the water. I'd like to see them do less bit starving and better broadcast quality, but I guess they have to follow the money.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I went to a friend's house yesterday to watch , they had cox and wow thay picture was awful . So glad I have DirecTV!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

I was at my neighbors who has Xfinity X1 system and I have to say his local news feed looked better than DirecTV or ATT TV. I couldn’t believe it 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Mike1096 said:


> I was at my neighbors who has Xfinity X1 system and I have to say his local news feed looked better than DirecTV or ATT TV. I couldn't believe it


Probably getting the local stations differently than Directv. With the explosion of subchannels, any provider that either picks up the local stations OTA (which Directv does for at least some of them in most markets) or picks up the same thing they feed to their antenna (i.e. the bit rate of the 'main' channel is already hopelessly compromised) you get crap quality. Nothing you can do about it at that point.

In some cases providers get the feed before it hits the mux and has bit rates reduced to fit in a 19.2 Mbps ATSC channel. Then so long as they don't shape the bit rate themselves too much it will be much better quality than what they broadcast via ATSC or feed to providers who get the same thing.

This is getting worse now with stations cramming two HD channels (plus a host of subchannels) in to free up one RF channel for ATSC 3.0 testing.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Mike1096 said:


> I was at my neighbors who has Xfinity X1 system and I have to say his local news feed looked better than DirecTV or ATT TV. I couldn't believe it


Given that Comcast does everything in 720p H.264 with fairly low bitrates (i.e. lots of compression), that surprises me. In some areas, they were still transmitting locals in their original MPEG-2 (and at 1080i for those broadcasting in it) but I think they've switched everything nationwide over to strictly 720p H.264 now.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

With DTV our locals look terrible. CBS looks washed out, grainy, blurry, and NBC looks just as bad. OTOH they still look pretty bad OTA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nobody can make them look better than OTA ... and there are plenty of stations that don't provide an excellent OTA signal, choosing to use subchannel space for content instead of improved PQ on the main channels.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

> ="James Long, post: 3583147, member: 419162] "choosing to use subchannel space for content instead of improved PQ on the main channels.


Yep. Our local PBS station used to turn off the subchannels during prime time, and broadcast at 1080i will full bitrate. I was a paid donator. Then they changed and dropped the resolution to 720p, and left all 3 subchannels on. I canceled my annual donation to PBS, and started watching it on KU band satellite until a tree got in the way, now I just dont watch it anymore. Looks like crap.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

When I dropped DirecTV for Comcast in 2017 I did a side by side on my 65" Sony for a couple weeks. DirecTV did look better on most channels but not by much.
In 2020 I switched from the Tivo Bolt VOX to the XG1v4 4K Comcast box. The picture quality now, especially on local channels, is better then I ever remember on DirecTV.
Sometimes it gives me a wow factor that I don't remember early on.

I don't know if it is the difference between the Tivo Vox 4K and the XG1v4 Comcast box or if Comcast or the stations have improved picture quality in the last couple of years.

Overall I am very pleased with Comcast/Xfinity picture quality.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

If I am not mistaken, the X1 system gets the local channels directly via fiber to the local Comcast distro center from the local stations, and then just sends it out after encoding it. Not sure why it would be better than the Tivo though. When I had the X1, they all looked the same as the Tivo, except the X1 box burned up after 3 months...it was always hot enough to fry an egg on. Only got it because they said I could only get the Red Zone channel if I got one. Then found out it came in on the cablecard with the Tivo just fine. That kind of pissed me off. After the season was over, I canceled them completely.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Davenlr said:


> If I am not mistaken, the X1 system gets the local channels directly via fiber to the local Comcast distro center from the local stations, and then just sends it out after encoding it. Not sure why it would be better than the Tivo though. When I had the X1, they all looked the same as the Tivo, except the X1 box burned up after 3 months...it was always hot enough to fry an egg on. Only got it because they said I could only get the Red Zone channel if I got one. Then found out it came in on the cablecard with the Tivo just fine. That kind of pissed me off. After the season was over, I canceled them completely.


Are you running DirecTV? Or the ATT TV? X1 overall sucks. So many channels still in only SD. The guide is a disaster.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I was on X1 / Tivo Bolt until Sept 2020, then went to DirecTv, and when I ran into issues with them, switched to ATT TV in Feb 2021.
I could be convinced to go back to DirecTv if they allowed me to activate my owned HR24s, and a H24, didnt charge extra for the extra rooms, didnt charge for HD, and didnt charge for multiroom viewing. In other words, for the same price as ATT TV, for the same channels, using my equipment. Would not cost them a dime extra to do that. I would even probably subscribe to Sunday Ticket this year. But they wont.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Nobody can make them look better than OTA ... and there are plenty of stations that don't provide an excellent OTA signal, choosing to use subchannel space for content instead of improved PQ on the main channels.


That's not universally true. Some carriers receive their some of their broadcast netwpork signals via fiber streams rather than OTA reception. My local Comcast gets their ABC feed (and possibly others) that way. Pre-mux is better than OTA. Of course what Comcast does with it is pretty brutal but the source was as good as it gets.


----------



## longhorn23 (Jan 19, 2019)

NashGuy said:


> Well, there's temporary image retention and then there's permanent burn-in. My parents have a mid-range Panasonic plasma that's been their main TV for a decade or so now and they've not had any burn-in. But just about any time I turn the TV off in a dark room, I can see a faint ghost image retained on the screen for a bit but that quickly fades away. Just to be safe, I run the anti-IR tool on their TV a couple times a year when I visit.
> 
> Another thing to keep in mind is that burn-in works differently for plasma vs. OLED. I have an LG B6 (2016) and had to have the panel replaced due to burn-in earlier this year. Fortunately, I read on a forum that LG was offering one free panel replacement on their OLEDs even if the TV was out of warranty (which mine was, by a few years). I had wrongly assumed that as long as I didn't keep a static image/graphic on the screen for an extended period of time that I wouldn't get burn-in, because that's the way it works on a plasma. I figured that wouldn't be a problem for me since I'm not a gamer and don't keep the TV on all day on a news channel.
> 
> ...


I also had a 65 inch 2016 OLED E6. After one year, there was ridiculous amounts of burn-in (ESPN logo, CNN breaking news, Directv/ATT logo from the tv guide, etc). They did offer to replace the panel or give me cash for the tv. I declined because the replacement panels did not have 3D technology since they stopped making 3D tv's. I didn't want to lose 3D since those were the last 3D tv's ever made. It was in 2018 when I contacted them and they said they stopped making 3d panels earlier that year. Some were able to get their panels replaced with 3D panels right before they stopped making them.

Since then I bought a 77 inch C8 and have not had any issues with burn-in so far. It's been about 2.5 years. I do have a few dead pixels but they are not noticeable unless if you are standing right in front of the tv.


----------



## Robert Wyatt (Nov 24, 2020)

slovell said:


> It appears to me that DirecTV's picture quality has degraded significantly over the last couple of years. It used to be so sharp I could see individual gray hairs on Rachael Maddow's head, not any more. Everything looks like it's been upscaled from SD to 720p to me and that's being optimistic. I don't watch sports so I don't know what their 4k looks like. I can switch to Amazon Prime and the difference between their's and DirecTV's PQ is stunning. Amazon Prime is tack sharp with rich color and deep blacks while DirecTV's is a washed out blurry mess. What is going on with this bunch these days?


It is excellent to me really good quality I get 100s on 101 satellite and 103 satellite I get 100s 99 satellite 95s 99rb 95s picture quality is awesome for me


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Robert Wyatt said:


> It is excellent to me really good quality I get 100s on 101 satellite and 103 satellite I get 100s 99 satellite 95s 99rb 95s picture quality is awesome for me


Signal Level does not equate to Picture Quality


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

DirecTV still has excellent PQ. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

Sounds like the OP bought the Sony. However, for people out there looking at the LG's, don't overlook the BX line. Based on the reviews at rtings, the BX and CX are really close picture-wise and the BX usually runs a couple-hundred dollars cheaper than the CX. It just doesn't get all the press that the CX gets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Signal Level does not equate to Picture Quality


Ok ... try to get a good picture with a lousy signal.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> Ok ... try to get a good picture with a lousy signal.


I know your not serious. Others though are now going to start tweaking there dishes


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Ok ... try to get a good picture with a lousy signal.


Well that 775 screen is crystal clear when I lose my sat signal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Dishes should only be re-aimed if there are signal problems (low numbers, lost transponders or satellites).

Does DIRECTV have any documentation as to what signal levels should be expected in each area of the country? Or should people check with neighbors?


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Getteau said:


> Sounds like the OP bought the Sony. However, for people out there looking at the LG's, don't overlook the BX line. Based on the reviews at rtings, the BX and CX are really close picture-wise and the BX usually runs a couple-hundred dollars cheaper than the CX. It just doesn't get all the press that the CX gets.


It came this afternoon via Amazon/UPS. Ordered it Saturday and got it today. Will try to get it set up tomorrow. I'm probably going to have to upgrade my processor as my Marantz AV7005 won't pass through a 4K signal. This 4K stuff is all new to me so I've got some research to do. My Amazon Fire TV apparently is compatible with 4K so it's not a total loss.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Plug the Fire TV into one of the TVs non-ARC HDMI ports, and run an HDMI cable from the TV's ARC port to the AVR HDMI out. It should pass audio from the TV and Fire TV to your AVR, and anything that is HD plugged into your AVR to the TV. That way you dont have to change anything.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I’ll tell you what has terrible quality. Try watching Greys anatomy on ABC or The Resident on Fox. Very narrow color space, no pop and extremely soft picture. In fact almost anything on ABC and Fox look terrible.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

cypherx said:


> I'll tell you what has terrible quality. Try watching Greys anatomy on ABC or The Resident on Fox. Very narrow color space, no pop and extremely soft picture. In fact almost anything on ABC and Fox look terrible.


Both are 720P if I remember correctly. Always look like crap. No matter what service you have.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Robert Wyatt (Nov 24, 2020)

slovell said:


> It appears to me that DirecTV's picture quality has degraded significantly over the last couple of years. It used to be so sharp I could see individual gray hairs on Rachael Maddow's head, not any more. Everything looks like it's been upscaled from SD to 720p to me and that's being optimistic. I don't watch sports so I don't know what their 4k looks like. I can switch to Amazon Prime and the difference between their's and DirecTV's PQ is stunning. Amazon Prime is tack sharp with rich color and deep blacks while DirecTV's is a washed out blurry mess. What is going on with this bunch these days?


I know signal level does not equate to PC nut mu PICTURE quality is excellent


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Robert Wyatt said:


> I know signal level does not equate to PC nut mu PICTURE quality is excellent


It may be excellent to your eyes, but many have noticed (and felt compelled to post about it) a discernible decline. Of particular interest is those auditioning/moving to AT&T TV have noted that the PQ there is often more excellent.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

harsh said:


> It may be excellent to your eyes, but many have noticed (and felt compelled to post about it) a discernible decline. Of particular interest is those auditioning/moving to AT&T TV have noted that the PQ there is often more excellent.


I have seen that. What I've yet to see is some side-by-side video showing both off. To really see if there is a discernible difference, or if it's just a "placebo" effect.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I did a comparison of cox and directv and cox was terrible. NbA was unwatchable. Microblock city . I even showed one of there technicians and he was shocked and had nothing to say about how bad the picture was compared to D* 

And this was HD comparison not even 4K . 

Was using a contour 2 client and a genie 2 client . Same tv same program . 

Hands down D* won . 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slovell said:


> It came this afternoon via Amazon/UPS. Ordered it Saturday and got it today. Will try to get it set up tomorrow. I'm probably going to have to upgrade my processor as my Marantz AV7005 won't pass through a 4K signal. This 4K stuff is all new to me so I've got some research to do. My Amazon Fire TV apparently is compatible with 4K so it's not a total loss.


Think about an Apple TV box to replace the Fire TV device. The PQ is a bit better. I have Cubes on all my sets and we never use them to watch TV, the PQ on the ATVs is that much better. And the remote is superb...Lloyd?


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Rich said:


> Think about an Apple TV box to replace the Fire TV device. The PQ is a bit better. I have Cubes on all my sets and we never use them to watch TV, the PQ on the ATVs is that much better. And the remote is superb...Lloyd?


ATV4K has the best PQ out of all the streaming devices. Better than the Shield Pro even. I've had ALL of them. However, Apple's TV remote sucks. That's the only negative.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> Both are 720P if I remember correctly. Always look like crap. No matter what service you have.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I don't see much of a difference in PQ when comparing 720P to 1080i. Anything on Fox looks awful on my normal 4K sets, especially baseball or football games. On the QLED, the games look like they are on CBS or NBC. I didn't expect that.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike1096 said:


> I have seen that. What I've yet to see is some side-by-side video showing both off.


There are testimonials in this thread and others (especially the AT&T mini review thread) from those who have done A-B tests. I don't recall any mention of side-by-side comparisons. The conclusion drawn in these tests was consistently that AT&T TV's streaming PQ was noticeably better.

To me, excellent means superior to all others and that's not what the witnesses are saying.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> It may be excellent to your eyes, but many have noticed (and felt compelled to post about it) a discernible decline. Of particular interest is those auditioning/moving to AT&T TV have noted that the PQ there is often more excellent.





Mike1096 said:


> I have seen that. What I've yet to see is some side-by-side video showing both off. To really see if there is a discernible difference, or if it's just a "placebo" effect.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You're comparing D*'s 1080i to ATT/TV's 2160p. Of course, the PQ is gonna be better on the ATT box. The same thing can be said of the ATV boxes. I haven't watched a series or a movie on D* for several years because there is such a difference.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Think about an Apple TV box to replace the Fire TV device. The PQ is a bit better. I have Cubes on all my sets and we never use them to watch TV, the PQ on the ATVs is that much better. And the remote is superb...Lloyd?


The AppleTV box is a great box hampered by the worst remote, especially for DVR content when you try to skip ads. But I don't find the video provided by it to be any better or worse than the Cube 2nd Gen or Roku Ultra with the same app or service.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

Rich said:


> You're comparing D*'s 1080i to ATT/TV's 2160p. Of course, the PQ is gonna be better on the ATT box. The same thing can be said of the ATV boxes. I haven't watched a series or a movie on D* for several years because there is such a difference.
> 
> Rich


Nothing ATT TV broadcasts is 2160p. It's upscaling. Just like every other streaming box upscales

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> You're comparing D*'s 1080i to ATT/TV's 2160p.


I hadn't heard that AT&T TV was offering 4K. Are you sure?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> ATV4K has the best PQ out of all the streaming devices. Better than the Shield Pro even. I've had ALL of them. However, Apple's TV remote sucks. That's the only negative.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I've had ALL of them too. This is a subjective argument, YMMV. For me, the ATVs are the best streamer out there. I like the remote. It took some time to get used to it, and I do have a Function remote that does away with the touchpad of the Apple remote, but I don't use it. I bought it to compare the two remotes; the Function remote doesn't add anything to the experience. The touchpad turned me off at first, but I'm used to it now, and using the Function remote without the touchpad leaves something to be desired...in my opinion.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The AppleTV box is a great box hampered by the worst remote, especially for DVR content when you try to skip ads. But I don't find the video provided by it to be any better or worse than the Cube 2nd Gen or Roku Ultra with the same app or service.


Oh, there you are. Still can't figure that remote out, huh? I was gonna PM you; I didn't want to see you miss an opportunity to dis the ATVs. I still don't see any difference in the first and second-generation Cubes' PQ as the reviews said when the second gens came out. Those Ultras are disappointing.

How's the puppy? All grown up by now?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> Nothing ATT TV broadcasts is 2160p. It's upscaling. Just like every other streaming box upscales
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Correct. Not sure why you felt you had to say that, but it's correct. I want to try the ATT/TV system, but the Cloud DVR reports make me want to keep my DVRs. Once they get that fixed, I'm gonna take it for a ride.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Oh, there you are. Still can't figure that remote out, huh? I was gonna PM you; I didn't want to see you miss an opportunity to dis the ATVs. I still don't see any difference in the first and second-generation Cubes' PQ as the reviews said when the second gens came out. Those Ultras are disappointing.
> 
> How's the puppy? All grown up by now?
> 
> Rich


Thanks for thinking of me. I have figured out the ATV remote, I just don't like it for live streaming services since doing trickplay is such a PITA with that remote.

2nd Gen Cubes are a bit better than the first gen for PQ but not by much, what is a huge difference is speed of operation. 2nd Gen is very quick compared to 1st gen and is every bit as quick as AppleTV4K. I tend to use it as I also have a Recast for the local subchannels and it only works with FireTV devices.

Yeah, those Ultras are a bit disappointing in some ways. But it is quick and I really like the way search works on it.

As to the puppy? Well, yeah she's all grown up, spoiled as hell too! . She mostly spends her day sitting with me on the recliner until she decides it is time to play.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> I hadn't heard that AT&T TV was offering 4K. Are you sure?


No. That was an assumption. Those boxes don't put out 2160p?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Correct. Not sure why you felt you had to say that, but it's correct. I want to try the ATT/TV system, but the Cloud DVR reports make me want to keep my DVRs. Once they get that fixed, I'm gonna take it for a ride.
> 
> Rich


I don't think the Cloud DVR issues will ever go away, they just work differently than a local DVR and you have to adjust.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> No. That was an assumption. Those boxes don't put out 2160p?
> 
> Rich


ATT's Osprey box puts out an upscaled 2160p all the time from whatever app you are using, does a good job of it too. It does support 4K directly if the source material is 4K but I don't think it does DolbyVision, just HDR.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Thanks for thinking of me. I have figured out the ATV remote, I just don't like it for live streaming services since doing trickplay is such a PITA with that remote.
> 
> 2nd Gen Cubes are a bit better than the first gen for PQ but not by much, what is a huge difference is speed of operation. 2nd Gen is very quick compared to 1st gen and is every bit as quick as AppleTV4K. I tend to use it as I also have a Recast for the local subchannels and it only works with FireTV devices.
> 
> ...


I haven't written anything about dogs for quite a while here. Did you know we bought a companion dog for Jax? Jax wants constant attention and the best thing I could think of was getting him a dog to play with. 
Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I don't think the Cloud DVR issues will ever go away, they just work differently than a local DVR and you have to adjust.


20 hours of recorded content? That needs to be fixed.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> ATT's Osprey box puts out an upscaled 2160p all the time from whatever app you are using, does a good job of it too. It does support 4K directly if the source material is 4K but I don't think it does DolbyVision, just HDR.


Thanks, that supports my assumption.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> 20 hours of recorded content? That needs to be fixed.
> 
> Rich


For the non-contract version of their subscription that is what comes with it, but you can upgrade to 'unlimited' for $10/month. The contract version includes unlimited DVR. In both scenarios the DVR'd shows expire in 90 days which makes 'unlimited' of limited value IMO.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I haven't written anything about dogs for quite a while here. Did you know we bought a companion dog for Jax? Jax wants constant attention and the best thing I could think of was getting him a dog to play with.
> Rich


And I thought my dog was spoiled!!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> For the non-contract version of their subscription that is what comes with it, but you can upgrade to 'unlimited' for $10/month. The contract version includes unlimited DVR. In both scenarios the DVR'd shows expire in 90 days which makes 'unlimited' of limited value IMO.


Didn't know they had tiers. The 90 days wouldn't bother me, I don't save anything. What else is wrong with the DVR function?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> And I thought my dog was spoiled!!


I didn't see any other way to go. Jax was driving me nuts with the squeaky balls. It's a lot calmer with two dogs. The thing is, we've always had two dogs, you'd think I would have learned.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Didn't know they had tiers. The 90 days wouldn't bother me, I don't save anything. What else is wrong with the DVR function?
> 
> Rich


Managing recordings isn't very straightforward, many find that irritating. They could make it easier if they had a list of events you want to record but they don't. That's actually the only thing I didn't like about it.

I've switched to YouTubeTV since most of what I actually do watch isn't on live streaming anyway, but I like Boxing and Golf. Hell of a price to pay to not watch most of what is being provided.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

lparsons21 said:


> ATT's Osprey box puts out an upscaled 2160p all the time from whatever app you are using, does a good job of it too. It does support 4K directly if the source material is 4K but I don't think it does DolbyVision, just HDR.


And the HDR is constant. No matter what you're watching. Which sucks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> Plug the Fire TV into one of the TVs non-ARC HDMI ports, and run an HDMI cable from the TV's ARC port to the AVR HDMI out. It should pass audio from the TV and Fire TV to your AVR, and anything that is HD plugged into your AVR to the TV. That way you dont have to change anything.


Will this setup allow me to watch 4k on Amazon Prime and Netflix with the Sony?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Yes. Either the Fire TV or the built in apps should give you 4K and send the audio to the AVR.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> Yes. Either the Fire TV or the built in apps should give you 4K and send the audio to the AVR.


Thank you, much appreciated. I've always wondered what the ARC designation was for on my Monitor 1 HDMI output on the Marantz. lol
Looks like I've got some switching around to do. The Sony is very impressive straight out of the box without having done any calibration yet. Black level and color saturation are way better than the Panny plasma. This unit should be really impressive once I get it calibrated. Very happy with it so far in HD, should be a Holy S#$t moment when I get it set up for 4k.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> ATV4K has the best PQ out of all the streaming devices. Better than the Shield Pro even. I've had ALL of them. However, Apple's TV remote sucks. That's the only negative.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I don't like the stock remote either. Have you tried the AppleTV remote on your iPhone? For us, it's way easier to use along with the search options, and it will control multiple AppleTV devices on your home network.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

slovell said:


> . I've always wondered what the ARC designation was for on my Monitor 1 HDMI output on the Marantz. lol
> .


The Fire TV should recognize the 4K TV when you plug it in. You might need to go into settings and select 4K on the Fire TV. The apps on the TV will already be 4K. I had a Marantz, and the ARC (Audio Return Channel) did not work with my TCL, so *IF* you get it all hooked up, and put the Marantz on TV, and dont get any audio from the TV apps or FireTv , you can also run an optical cable from the TV to the Marantz. All this eARC and CEC stuff is relatively new, and some combinations dont work. I am sure yours will work fine being a new TV.

I know you said you were thinking of getting a new AVR, but I would hold off if you can work it out with your current one, because the current chips in the new AVRs do not pass the full 48Gb/s of the HDMI 2.1 spec, so waiting until they have a new passthrough chip that works would be the best option for now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> No. That was an assumption. Those boxes don't put out 2160p?


As you well know, upconverted HD is not 4K. Your assertion was that AT&T TV was logically better than DIRECTV because AT&T TV was 2160p but that's not the case. Whether your streamer or your TV does the upconversion probably plays a role, but both are HD sources and can reasonably compared apples to apples.

Those comparisons almost universally give the nod to AT&T TV in terms of PQ.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike1096 said:


> And the HDR is constant. No matter what you're watching. Which sucks.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That would disturb me.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> That would disturb me.
> 
> Rich


It's not a big deal. I was able to adjust my TV's in 2 min


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike1096 said:


> And the HDR is constant. No matter what you're watching. Which sucks.


It should be noted that this is a stupidity of the Osprey (AT&T Device) rather than the AT&T TV service itself.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

harsh said:


> It should be noted that this is a stupidity of the Osprey (AT&T Device) rather than the AT&T TV service itself.


Correct. Service itself in terms of PQ and sound is top notch. Yes, there are some bugs here and there but that's the case with all live tv streaming services right now. Osprey, right now, is ATT TV's Achilles heel.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Would I even need an AT&T set top box if I went with their internet delivered service? I have Android TV, isn’t it just an app? My Sony TV has voice remote and all those features. Rather have the signal come straight into the tv and have it processed there.

I appreciate the satellite for not using internet bandwidth. I think I get 2.5TB a month on my 200/20mb plan. I’d have to pay another $30 a month to go to the 500/50 plan to get 4TB a month of data allowance with my cable company. Although our internet is reliable, I’m not sure about having all our eggs in one basket yet.

In our cable system the OTA HD channels match then sharpness of what you get with an antenna. The traditional cable channels though while slightly sharper than DirecTV, are noisier. You can see the little blocks around sharp text and logos, and sometimes the clay face effect in skin tones. DirecTV’s smoothness hides all that. DirecTV also handles motion much better. On cable they tend to compress the heck out of high motion scenes leaving to loss of detail and visible blocking effects. 

In my option DirecTV is better than Cable, even though it’s a little softer... that helps hide the artificial digital look. Heck the pros always say turn the sharpness way down on that TV and disable any kind of edge enhancement or image processing. They prefer that smooth film look.

But the crispness and clarity of a 4K demo roll from a YouTube or some wildlife special on Apple TV+, or even the rich colors of an animated Pixar film on Disney+ all are no match for broadcast tv.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

cypherx said:


> Would I even need an AT&T set top box if I went with their internet delivered service? I have Android TV, isn't it just an app? My Sony TV has voice remote and all those features. Rather have the signal come straight into the tv and have it processed there..


There is no app for Android TV, even though it runs on an Android TV box. You can side load it on a Shield, there is a stripped down app for the Fire TV. It MAY have an app for your TV. The point is, they WANT you to buy their $120 box if you want the whole user experience (channel numbers, Guide button, List button, voice control...all missing from the Roku and Fire TV apps.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> There is no app for Android TV, even though it runs on an Android TV box. You can side load it on a Shield, there is a stripped down app for the Fire TV. It MAY have an app for your TV. The point is, they WANT you to buy their $120 box if you want the whole user experience (channel numbers, Guide button, List button, voice control...all missing from the Roku and Fire TV apps.


And you can buy the box for 50 bucks pretty much everywhere


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Eh I’m not buying any box. I have a working HR44, C41 and HR24.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> The Fire TV should recognize the 4K TV when you plug it in. You might need to go into settings and select 4K on the Fire TV. The apps on the TV will already be 4K. I had a Marantz, and the ARC (Audio Return Channel) did not work with my TCL, so *IF* you get it all hooked up, and put the Marantz on TV, and dont get any audio from the TV apps or FireTv , you can also run an optical cable from the TV to the Marantz. All this eARC and CEC stuff is relatively new, and some combinations dont work. I am sure yours will work fine being a new TV.
> 
> I know you said you were thinking of getting a new AVR, but I would hold off if you can work it out with your current one, because the current chips in the new AVRs do not pass the full 48Gb/s of the HDMI 2.1 spec, so waiting until they have a new passthrough chip that works would be the best option for now.


Got everything hooked up and working last night. The only thing I lost is the volume level window from the Marantz when I switch to the Amazon Fire TV. I still have it on satellite just not on the ARC connected Fire TV, no biggie.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

cypherx said:


> Eh I'm not buying any box. I have a working HR44, C41 and HR24.


But you are paying a monthly fee for the privilege of using two of those, no?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Mike1096 said:


> Correct. Service itself in terms of PQ and sound is top notch. Yes, there are some bugs here and there but that's the case with all live tv streaming services right now. Osprey, right now, is ATT TV's Achilles heel.


But the box is also part of what distinguishes (in a positive way) AT&T TV from other streaming cable TV services because it has a full-fledged cable TV remote control that's designed specifically for use with that service, channel number buttons and all.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> The point is, they WANT you to buy their $120 box if you want the whole user experience (channel numbers, Guide button, List button, voice control...all missing from the Roku and Fire TV apps.


I'm not saying that they couldn't improve their apps in some ways but, due to the simple remotes that come with Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV devices, the user experiences they offer won't ever be able to fully replicate what you get on AT&T TV's custom box and remote. Obviously there aren't 0-9 buttons or a guide button or list button on a Roku remote.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> There is no app for Android TV, even though it runs on an Android TV box. You can side load it on a Shield, there is a stripped down app for the Fire TV. It MAY have an app for your TV. The point is, they WANT you to buy their $120 box if you want the whole user experience (channel numbers, Guide button, List button, voice control...all missing from the Roku and Fire TV apps.


How the F is part of that there problem?? Roku Apple and Fire don't have dedicated buttons for all of that


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I'm not saying that they couldn't improve their apps in some ways but, due to the simple remotes that come with Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV devices, the user experiences they offer won't ever be able to fully replicate what you get on AT&T TV's custom box and remote. Obviously there aren't 0-9 buttons or a guide button or list button on a Roku remote.


That is like Wow lol


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

compnurd said:


> How the F is part of that there problem?? Roku Apple and Fire don't have dedicated buttons for all of that


I was planning on buying a Shield, which you can use a keyboard with number keys, and I am guessing if I searched, I could find the combination to send the guide and list commands from it. It doesnt matter now, since I found out the new Shield is coming out in Q4 with 3x faster processor and Android 11, so I just ordered a second Osprey for now. I hope the new shield has a better remote.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Obviously there aren't 0-9 buttons or a guide button or list button on a Roku remote.


It should be noted that Rokus will work with remotes that have number keys if the app supports them.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> It should be noted that Rokus will work with remotes that have number keys if the app supports them.


Interesting. Didn't know that. I guess you're referring to universal remotes that can be programmed to work with Rokus? Because Roku doesn't ship a remote (oddly, not even for their smart TVs) with number buttons.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I guess you're referring to universal remotes that can be programmed to work with Rokus?


Actually, there are third party non-universal Roku remotes now. One of the better third party remotes controls only a TV and a Roku.

The Roku remote apps for devices also do digits.


----------



## DanoP (Sep 29, 2006)

Couple of years ago I opted for a Sony 930e lcd over an lg oled just because of burn in. Read too many stories on AVS forum and saw a very badly burned in big box demo. Then there was the RTINGS test which showed too much smoke which indicated fire IMO. I have a Panasonic plasma that’s 15 yrs old that I broke in properly and shows no signs of burn in. Anyway I like my Sony LCDs and will revisit oled when the time comes. Regarding DTV PQ I recently switched to Fubo with 720p. In my judgement it’s better than DTV and 1080i.


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

DanoP said:


> Couple of years ago I opted for a Sony 930e lcd over an lg oled just because of burn in. Read too many stories on AVS forum and saw a very badly burned in big box demo. Then there was the RTINGS test which showed too much smoke which indicated fire IMO. I have a Panasonic plasma that's 15 yrs old that I broke in properly and shows no signs of burn in. Anyway I like my Sony LCDs and will revisit oled when the time comes. Regarding DTV PQ I recently switched to Fubo with 720p. In my judgement it's better than DTV and 1080i.


Not sure what you guys are seeing but Live TV streaming PQ, to me, is not as good as DirecTV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Mike1096 said:


> Not sure what you guys are seeing but Live TV streaming PQ, to me, is not as good as DirecTV.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It may vary based on type of broadband you have

When I had DSL it was very reliable but streaming PQ was not as sharp... I think FCC "recommends " 25mbps or greater.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## DanoP (Sep 29, 2006)

The streaming players upconvert to 4K and there is something about a progressive picture that’s more pleasing to me than interlaced even though the interlaced resolution is higher. I had both Fubo and DTV together for a month and liked the Fubo upconverted pic better. There are a few Fubo streams at 30fps and those are nearly unwatchable to me.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DanoP said:


> The streaming players upconvert to 4K and there is something about a progressive picture that's more pleasing to me than interlaced even though the interlaced resolution is higher.


Streaming players typically pass whatever they get and the TV handles the rest. Some players can upconvert but most do not.


----------



## DanoP (Sep 29, 2006)

Both Roku Ultra and AppleTV upconvert. I know it’s not true 4K but the PQ is very good.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DanoP said:


> Both Roku Ultra and AppleTV upconvert.


The nVIDIA Shield can upconvert as well, but those are three in a market of many.

For many with better than average TVs, there's little to no interest in having the streamer handle what the TV can do better. It is a paradox as the people who can afford the upscaling streamers already have TVs that do as well or better (depending on where you land on the Shield's "AI Upscaling").


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> The nVIDIA Shield can upconvert as well, but those are three in a market of many.
> 
> For many with better than average TVs, there's little to no interest in having the streamer handle what the TV can do better. It is a paradox as the people who can afford the upscaling streamers already have TVs that do as well or better (depending on where you land on the Shield's "AI Upscaling").


The SoC in an Apple TV is more powerful than what is in any TV sold, even the very highest end, so all things being equal it should do a better job of upscaling than the TV.

What's more, you WANT the device doing the decompression to do the scaling, as it has access to information that is lost once you've converted MPEG/HEVC to HDMI, so even set tops that are less powerful than the TV they are connected to ought to be able to do a better job.

I'm sure there are probably examples where a set top does a worse job, due to poor/buggy software or whatever, but they'd have to really try to screw it up that badly even when hooked to a $10,000 TV.

If your set top can do scaling, have it do so not the TV. A high end AVR might do a better job, though I'll bet a lot of that is the tuning ability to get it "how you like it" rather than it actually doing a better job to an unbiased (i.e. someone who didn't spend $1000 on the AVR) viewer. Once you've converted to HDMI, a lot of information is lost meaning the AVR/TV has to do the job with one hand tied behind its back.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The SoC in an Apple TV is more powerful than what is in any TV sold, even the very highest end, so all things being equal it should do a better job of upscaling than the TV.


I question whether there is such a thing as an universal ideal upscale. No STB can know the ins and outs of the connected display and work seamlessly in conjunction with its undisclosed processing capabilities that may well be at odds. Doubling down on something like edge detection or smoothing may well create a monster.

While the raw _data_ processing power in the ATV is considerable, you would be hard pressed to prove that its _video_ processing capability was clearly superior to that of a quality TV.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I question whether there is such a thing as an universal ideal upscale. No STB can know the ins and outs of the connected display and work seamlessly in conjunction with its undisclosed processing capabilities that may well be at odds. Doubling down on something like edge detection or smoothing may well create a monster.
> 
> While the raw _data_ processing power in the ATV is considerable, you would be hard pressed to prove that its _video_ processing capability was clearly superior to that of a quality TV.


I agree there's no "best" upscale. Tastes vary. But having access to the compressed stream gives set top boxes better information to allow them to do a better job.

The display shouldn't have any "in and outs", if you use the upscaling in your set top you should disable all that stuff in the display. Pretty much all of them support a "game mode" or "PC mode" that presents the HDMI data without any additional modification.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Pretty much all of them support a "game mode" or "PC mode" that presents the HDMI data without any additional modification.


Do you really imagine that anyone is going to want to jump through those hoops (especially in cheap TVs that don't have per-input settings)???


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> While the raw _data_ processing power in the ATV is considerable, you would be hard pressed to prove that its _video_ processing capability was clearly superior to that of a quality TV.


And you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. Perceived picture quality is in the eye of the beholder.

No external box passes through exactly what is received from the Internet or satellite feeds. At best the box will negotiate with the TV to find its capabilities. At worst the box will convert the received signal to a standard output format most TVs can handle. The only way to get what is received from the Internet direct to a TV monitor is if the app receiving from the Internet is built in to the TV. No TV can create quality that is not passed to it from every step from source to screen.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> And you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. Perceived picture quality is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> No external box passes through exactly what is received from the Internet or satellite feeds. At best the box will negotiate with the TV to find its capabilities. At worst the box will convert the received signal to a standard output format most TVs can handle. The only way to get what is received from the Internet direct to a TV monitor is if the app receiving from the Internet is built in to the TV. No TV can create quality that is not passed to it from every step from source to screen.


The folks with the $10,000 outboard scalers beg to differ . A little confirmation bias there . When a scaler can do what the FBI do in movies where they take a pixelated mess and turn it into focus in seconds and can read the license plate, I'll be impressed.

I don't have a $10k scaler, but I do have a higher end Denon AVR, and I'll say I did a side by side comparison between that and my LG OLED on "Who Scaled It Better?" and the TV won hands down. The Denon made the picture much worse.

So what he's really saying is the the ATV screws the pic up the least in his opinion .


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> When a scaler can do what the FBI do in movies where they take a pixelated mess and turn it into focus in seconds and can read the license plate, I'll be impressed.


I agree.

I remember the first big screen TVs ... all SD, of course. Huge screens that would rival today's 8K TVs ... and projectors that would fill a wall. With a SD image. The number of digits in the price tag seemed to make the image much clearer than SD on a smaller set.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> And you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.


I don't believe the onus is mine in this case.


> Perceived picture quality is in the eye of the beholder.


And perhaps why people loved DIRECTV for its special blend of pre-compression video enhancements.


> At best the box will negotiate with the TV to find its capabilities.


Sounds like you may have partaken of slice1900's Koolaid. HDMI negotiates only make, model and perhaps serial number along with basic capabilities like pixel matrix, sound and HDR/WCG capabilities. It would be a large database indeed that could look up make and model along with the unknown firmware revision to construct an optimal solution. EDID doesn't answer key questions about whether or not motion compensation is enabled or even the chosen viewing mode (i.e. sports, movies, PC or custom).


> The only way to get what is received from the Internet direct to a TV monitor is if the app receiving from the Internet is built in to the TV. No TV can create quality that is not passed to it from every step from source to screen.


A somewhat violent reversal from one paragraph to the next here. Which is it?

I'm not sure how much utility there is in knowing what the compression scheme was in trying to "undo" the damage at the consumer level. It might be helpful but I'm not convinced that anything sort of a very expensive dedicated video processor (not to be confused with a general purpose data processor) could sort it all out on-the-fly. I'd guess you're not going to find anything like that in an ATV but you have options with the in-built TV capabilities where at least the display's full set of parameters are known. Apple has two targets with the ATV: Cost at least double its comparable retail market value and insure a great experience with Apple TV+. I don't think there's room in there for $$$ worth of video processing genius.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> A somewhat violent reversal from one paragraph to the next here. Which is it?


The problem is you have a severe reading disorder. "No TV can create quality that is not passed to it from every step from source to screen." A TV that receives streamed content direct from the Internet would not have some other box potentially changing the picture quality. Crappy output from an intermediate box is not going to be fixed by even the most expensive TV or second intermediate box.

It may take some experimentation to determine what output from the initial receiver is best used by the TV set. But having the initial receiver set to a lower resolution than the desired outcome is a limit that cannot be overcome by additional processing. You will never get a pristine 4K or 8K picture from a 1080 or 720 source. The best you can do is get an acceptable picture - and "acceptable" is an opinion.


----------



## stewdog1 (Sep 6, 2007)

I haven't read 8 pages of comments, but i have definitely noticed a difference in the hockey feeds. It used to be I could see the lines in the ice from the blades. Now it's just white and a bit fuzzy


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

stewdog1 said:


> I haven't read 8 pages of comments, but i have definitely noticed a difference in the hockey feeds. It used to be I could see the lines in the ice from the blades. Now it's just white and a bit fuzzy


What channel?


----------



## stewdog1 (Sep 6, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> What channel?


Either NBC Sports or the Center Ice channels. Nothing has changed on my end.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> The Fire TV should recognize the 4K TV when you plug it in. You might need to go into settings and select 4K on the Fire TV. The apps on the TV will already be 4K. I had a Marantz, and the ARC (Audio Return Channel) did not work with my TCL, so *IF* you get it all hooked up, and put the Marantz on TV, and dont get any audio from the TV apps or FireTv , you can also run an optical cable from the TV to the Marantz. All this eARC and CEC stuff is relatively new, and some combinations dont work. I am sure yours will work fine being a new TV.
> 
> I know you said you were thinking of getting a new AVR, but I would hold off if you can work it out with your current one, because the current chips in the new AVRs do not pass the full 48Gb/s of the HDMI 2.1 spec, so waiting until they have a new passthrough chip that works would be the best option for now.


The Sony is a great tv, beautiful picture. It just smoked the plasma hands down. I bought a really well kept Marantz 4K AV7703 for a great price and sold my AV7005. Everything's hunky dory and I'm happy as a clam.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> But having the initial receiver set to a lower resolution than the desired outcome is a limit that cannot be overcome by additional processing.


Until this bit of obviousness, I don't think anyone suggested down-conversion at any point in the discussion. The issue is where up-conversion is best handled -- whether having deep insight into the stream parameters is more useful than knowing everything there is to know about the display parameters.

The only use case I can think of for a streamer to down-convert is if the user chooses the wrong format and the streamer/service isn't smart enough to send the lower resolution stream instead.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I don't think anyone suggested down-conversion at any point in the discussion.


Not even me. "A lower resolution than the desired outcome" is not suggesting down converting. It is stating the fact that whatever output the first box is set to no further processing is going to be able to add information not in that output. If you want 4K output set the initial box to 4K.


----------



## JcT21 (Nov 30, 2004)

the only thing im able to compare to Directv's PQ is dish. i was a directv customer for a very long time. switched to dish 4 months ago and now im back with directv over dish's technical issues. however, right away i noticed that dish PQ was inferior compared to directv. to me, directv's HD PQ is excellent. i now understand what people mean when they say dish is HD lite. some say you cant tell the difference but its very obvious. my parents have dish for decades. they're able to see that my directv has better PQ than dish. 

unlike my kids, im not a fan of streaming so i cant say either way about their PQ.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Not even me. "It is stating the fact that whatever output the first box is set to no further processing is going to be able to add information not in that output. If you want 4K output set the initial box to 4K.


The question remains whether the box or the TV is better when it comes to rendering the final output on a given input (assuming no down-scaling as that would be insane to even contemplate). If the source stream is HD, setting the output of the streaming box to 4K will cause it to fabricate details that didn't exist in the original stream. The TV can't simply reverse any damage done by the streaming device as part of that conversion. With the new knowledge that certain video "proc amp" processing functions can be carried out by the soon-to-be-released ATV, this gets even more scary.

Your use of the term "information" is curious. Further processing may not restore information, but it may improve upon the rendering and given the chance to work with less tinkered-with data, the TV algorithms do a better job at rendering that data for its display.

Once the compression is undone, there should be no loss if you turn off video processing in the streaming device. The TV should have access to exactly the same data that the streaming box would be working with to do its up-conversion.

I'm not at all convinced that the average streaming box has the means to do a better conversion that the average TV. I'm also unconvinced that the ATV is above average in the video processing department simply because it has a hot phone SoC (designed for decidedly unconventional displays) in it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Once the compression is undone, there should be no loss if you turn off video processing in the streaming device. The TV should have access to exactly the same data that the streaming box would be working with to do its up-conversion.


If you have a streaming device with an "off" setting congratulations. Undoing the compression is converting the signal to a format the next device can handle. Usually a less compressed format with the streaming device filling in the picture elements lost due to compression. It isn't like opening a ZIP file or TAR ball on a computer and getting every bit of data that was put in the file in the right order. Video compression is not loss-less.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Video compression is not loss-less.


While the compression operation (that takes place before storage on the streaming servers) is indeed lossy, decompression of the resultant stream is _not_ a lossy operation and is indeed just like undoing an archive file. No matter how many times you do it, the results will be exactly the same.

Why would a streaming device transcode the input stream? The streaming device may apply video processing (scaling, motion compensation, de-jittering, etc.) but that's absolutely not to be confused with lossy compression.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> While the compression operation (that takes place before storage on the streaming servers) is indeed lossy, decompression of the resultant stream is _not_ a lossy operation and is indeed just like undoing an archive file. No matter how many times you do it, the results will be exactly the same.


In a perfect world the output would be bit by bit identical but we do not live in a perfect world - and you are certainly not going to be able to uncompress to the level of recreating the original input stream bit by bit identical. Not on a live stream.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> In a perfect world the output would be bit by bit identical but we do not live in a perfect world - and you are certainly not going to be able to uncompress to the level of recreating the original input stream bit by bit identical. Not on a live stream.


Given the same input stream, every decode will be bit-by-bit identical. The lossy part applies uniquely to the compression operation.

Since we don't have access to any other version of the data (unless you're still trying to argue intentionally forcing a lesser stream quality), your argument is nonsense. The question is how do we make the best of what we do have access to. That comes entirely down to the video processing that gets applied after the decode.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The SoC in an Apple TV is more powerful than what is in any TV sold, even the very highest end, so all things being equal it should do a better job of upscaling than the TV.


I have an Apple TV 4K and LG OLED (2016 B6 model). The Apple TV does a slightly better job of HD to 4K upscaling than the TV, I think. It also does a surprisingly good job with motion, i.e. doing 3:2 pulldown to convert 24p content to 60p.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

DIRECTV’s picture quality is what I would classify as okay. It should be the best. There are still some sports channels that have that annoying little judder in the audio. Sometimes it is there & sometimes it's not. Sometimes the frame will even pause & jump quickly to the next picture frame. It's just a split second, but it is there sometimes.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Cartoon Network’s east coast feed has had split-second audio dropouts and distortion for over a year now. And no, I haven’t bothered letting them know. It’s not like the old days when you’d immediately get connected to an actual guy in Tech, who could then confirm the problem and work on it. Now you have to run the gauntlet with people who don’t have the channels in front of them to monitor any problems—particularly when so many customer service calls are being handled overseas. I now only phone DirecTV for billing questions, or a change in programming (for which I hold my breath and pray the change is executed correctly).

Besides, at the rate they’re losing customers (2-3 million per year), in 5 years DirecTV as we know it may well and truly be a memory. They’re down from 20 million subs just a few years ago to 13 million. It’s a protracted death.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

i find the DTV PQ to be awesome though 323 and stars black i think and another movie channel look like crap like there in SD mode but if you get a HD feed it looks amazing and the 4k is jaw dropping


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

If you have a station/channel issue, contact that station directly. They feed the programing and they need to fix or change. Pretty simple. Maybe there is a way to contact that broadcast station and express your concerns? DTV can't fix the feed.

Also, this world is ever changing in all areas you can think of. How can you make a difference?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> If you have a station/channel issue, contact that station directly. They feed the programing and they need to fix or change.


In the case of the cable channels (most of the specifically identified channels in this thread appear to be cable channels), it is likely that DIRECTV has a hand in the end result through their choice of what and how many channels it shares a transponder with.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

The few baseball games I watched today the Picture Quality on DIRECTV looks much improved. I noticed today while watching YES for the Yankees Game, the picture looked alot better than it has and tonight's ESPN Sunday Night Baseball Game the PQ looked awesome.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I've been with DIRECTV since 1995. For all those years the picture quality has always been excellent.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

wonders what kind of t.v. the OP is running that makes all the difference in the world to. i know i would never buy another TCL set again but it was a quick fix at the time. though the things i noticed with the TCL were lots of macro blocking high action motion blur pixelation


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

krel said:


> wonders what kind of t.v. the OP is running that makes all the difference in the world to. i know i would never buy another TCL set again but it was a quick fix at the time. though the things i noticed with the TCL were lots of macro blocking high action motion blur pixelation


Just wondering what series TCL TV you have as there are 5 models today. Budget to more expensive. I have a 3+ year old, 55", 4K, Hdr, and watching football, baseball, high action movies, there is NO motion loss. You can say all TCL TV's are bad. Again, mine is 3 years old and think they only had 3 models at the time. Why didn't you return your TCL?


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Teetertotter said:


> Just wondering what series TCL TV you have as there are 5 models today. Budget to more expensive. I have a 3+ year old, 55", 4K, Hdr, and watching football, baseball, high action movies, there is NO motion loss. You can say all TCL TV's are bad. Again, mine is 3 years old and think they only had 3 models at the time. Why didn't you return your TCL?


it really wasn't doing all that in the beginning that's why i thought nothing on it. though it became more and more noticeable as time went on to late to send it back to place of purchase. the model is 65S421 i'm sure that model is a budget model also... do i think there bad sets no i don't i just think there hit or miss...


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

I was watching 2021 Olympics tennis on my MotoG7 on the DirecTV App. My phone has Max Vision display - Full HD+ resolution amplified by Dolby. The picture clarity was real nice and better than my Samsung smart tv resolution. Why can't today's tv manufacturers add Max Vision to their TV's? You will be surprised by the resolution when you watch movies and sporting events.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ericknolls said:


> Why can't today's tv manufacturers add Max Vision to their TV's?


Max Vision isn't a technology so much as a marketing buzzword for a unusual aspect ratio (18-19:9, 2270x1080 on the G7).

That your phone looks so much different than your TV probably has more to do with both display's capabilities and settings than anything else.


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

harsh said:


> Max Vision isn't a technology so much as a marketing buzzword for a unusual aspect ratio (18-19:9, 2270x1080 on the G7).
> 
> That your phone looks so much different than your TV probably has more to do with both display's capabilities and settings than anything else.


I can agree with that. But, I wish I could get that aspect ratio on my smart tv. The resolution caught my eye. TV manufacturers make it happen! I'll buy as soon as they come to market.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

ericknolls said:


> I can agree with that. But, I wish I could get that aspect ratio on my smart tv. The resolution caught my eye. TV manufacturers make it happen! I'll buy as soon as they come to market.


A TV's processor produces picture quality. The TVs with the best processors have the best picture quality. That said, you have two choices. Get a calibration disc and fine tune your TV's settings or upgrade to a better TV.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It is a lot easier to notice picture problems on a 60" screen than a 6" screen.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ericknolls said:


> I can agree with that. But, I wish I could get that aspect ratio on my smart tv. The resolution caught my eye. TV manufacturers make it happen! I'll buy as soon as they come to market.


Content is not available in the 2270x1080 format so the extra 350 pixels of width would be completely wasted on HD content. There could be a small benefit gained from viewing widescreen stuff at nearer the TV's aspect ratio but it would come at the cost of scaling all the way around.

As slice1900 points out, no full-size TV will come close when viewed at a 20" away but as you back off to normal TV viewing distances, you won't see a resolution difference. 1920x1080 resolution source material is no different on a phone as it is on a TV -- you just need to step back from the TV since the screen is around ten times larger.

I suspect that what you're really seeing is a striking difference in the color and brightness profiles and you might find the phone's profiles physically exhausting to watch on a TV.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> A TV's processor produces picture quality. The TVs with the best processors have the best picture quality. That said, you have two choices. Get a calibration disc and fine tune your TV's settings or upgrade to a better TV.


and sony's x1 processers is one of the best on the market!!!


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

I imagine all TV processors come from the same mfg.........low, mid, high grade. Perhaps the displays have different specs too.....depending on your budget and initial design of PC boards??


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> I imagine all TV processors come from the same mfg.........low, mid, high grade.


While that may be true of some brands, I doubt it is universal. I'd bet that Sony's upper crust processors are exclusive. Probably the same for Samsung and LG.

The Chinese re-brands are probably like a box of chocolates.


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

Here is an interesting article from 3 years ago pertaining to TV processors:
CES 2018: Look to the Processor, Not the Display, for TV Picture Improvements - IEEE Spectrum


----------

