# Comparison between OTA HD Locals and SAT HD Locals PQ ?



## sbuko (Jan 10, 2006)

Can someone give me their opinion of the difference in picture quality between their local OTA HD channels and new local SAT HD channels.

I've been using the OTA HD channels in ATL for some time and am wondering if I'll be dissappointed when I get the E* ATL HD Locals.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

you'll want to use the OTA whenever possible, as those will always be full quality. some have reported their sat locals being as good, some others have noticed a slightly softer image with the sat. 

If you are setting timers for recording purposes, always choose OTA first (especially considering the low signal you'll get from 129 and the occassional rain fade you will experience until dish can boost that signal, likely with a new or another bird). OTA will be more reliable if you get decent signal, and sat HD will give you the ability to record 3 at once instead of just 1 with OTA only  OTA won't suffer typically from weather issues like Sat can at times. And OTA does get you "all" the local HD offerings, if you are not too far out. 

when i look at OTA and Sat locals, and why each is offered etc., OTA is the best hands down, when it's an option. Sat HD locals serve 2 functions: access to HD locals for those OTA isn't an option, and the ability to record more than one HD local at a time (without adding more OTA tuners).


----------



## sbuko (Jan 10, 2006)

The recording of multple local HD shows at the same time is the motivation for me. 

I currently have a 942 with excellent OTA reception. We watch all local channels in OTA HD. Problem is when someone goes in there and wants to record something they always choose the OTA channels. We have had many overlaps which causes one show to not record.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

haha, you need a priority list  if show X is already set to record, the next has to be in SD, too bad, so sad  I have a lot of this with my 921  

And I'm with you, I want the 622 for 2 or 3 HD local recordings at a time (like last night, 9pm, CBS/ABC/FOX). I can't stand all this waiting  it's driving me batty haha). but then, who gets to be the OTA show? ack!! haha


----------



## c_caz (Jul 15, 2003)

On my Pioneer Elite - 622 setup locals are hands down sharper. Do the Sat version suck? No. They just are a bit softer. To be honest if only seeing the Sat version I would say they look great, but then going to OTA it's just clearer (maybe more 3D looking?)

Anyway it is all about choices; only 1 OTA tuner and 2 Sat tuners. Record what matters off of OTA (if you get good reception)

One more point... I get 4 Sat locals in Minneapolis, but get PBS National and 5 PBS channels, WB, UPN, and a couple of other local Digital stations OTA.


----------



## liferules (Aug 14, 2005)

I agree OTA HD is amazing! Sat HD is very good, just a little less sharp...


----------



## Jerry 42 (Feb 25, 2003)

As discussed in other threads - OTA is at full 1080 rez, while Dish and Direct are down rezzing to 1220 (or 1440) a/k/a HD lite. Any HD is normally better than SD but full rez HD is better than HD lite.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

To be fair, all SD is "SD Lite" as well. It is the nature of the satellite business to try to fit channels into the smallest space possible in order to add more channels. PQ has been shown to have more to do with the number of bits given to the video stream than the number of pixels encoded.

In the case of HD locals, E* is doing 4 HDs per transponder in MPEG4 (in most markets). While MPEG2 satellite channels consume more transponder space a fourth of a transponder isn't bad in MPEG4.

The other issue limiting satellite quality is that they receive their signals from the broadcast stations. Unless the broadcast station has some issue (such as too many subchannels robbing bits) and they are handing E* a pre mux signal prior to their own compression by definition satellite can be no better than OTA.


----------



## bhenge (Mar 2, 2005)

Your OTA digital local provider can be equally guilty of stealing bandwidth from HD in order to squeeze in more channels. Our local PBS station has a total of 5 sub-channels 4.1 thru 4.5. The 4.2 channel is HD. That is 4 SD channels and one HD channel on one broadcast channel. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that to broadcast that many channels, you have to steal bandwidth from somewhere. Occasionally, the PBS station will shut down one or two of the sub-channels to provide more bandwidth to the HD channel and the quality goes way up when that happens. All other local digital stations in our area broadcast one channel of HD and one or two SD sub-channels. Does anybody know how many full rez HD channels one broadcast channel can deliver?


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

bhenge said:


> Does anybody know how many full rez HD channels one broadcast channel can deliver?


One full HD channel is 18-19mb if I recall correctly. So one station can transmit one program max in full bandwidth HD.

However many have elected to provide HD at around 14mb and a single SD sub-channel and PBS depending on where you are, has 4-5 sub channels that occasionally go down to provide more bandwidth for HD.

Here in the Twin Cities, PBS has two channels, one for its multi-cast channels, and one for it HD broadcast.

While, You can tell the difference when an HD channel is multi-casting, though I am not that picky, the HD channels, even at a lower bandwidth look significantly better than any SD channel any day. However, if I had a "choice", I would prefer that they not multi-cast at all and dedicate their channel to provide the best quality.


----------



## Virus (Sep 22, 2005)

OTA will always look better providing you have good signal.


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

And OTA is free.


----------



## bimmerboy750 (Feb 28, 2006)

Fifty Caliber said:


> And OTA is free.


and that's the best PQ of all.


----------

