# Directv vs DISH - Which HD is better



## DesertRatR

I am a brand new user do forgive me if this is a redundant question. I am annoyed that Directv won't pick up Pac-12 Sports (we're passionate about Pac-12 sports), so I am going to cancel DTV. Choices are Comcast or DISH. With BB winding down I've got until July to decide. My neighbor recently switched from DISH to DTV for cost reasons after having been a DISH subscriber for years. He thinks DTV has better looking HD channels. I know nobody with DISH so I can't make my own comparison. I'd appreciate any feedback on the number of HD channels of the two broadcasters and their quality.


----------



## Davenlr

Quality will depend a lot on your display size, and viewing distance. But if one provider has the channels you want, well, any quality is better than none at all.

As for the channel lineup between providers, there is a good comparison chart on the AVS website. Here in Arkansas, Comcast (Xfinity) has more basics than either DirecTv or Dish, but Directv has more regional sports channels.

Using the raw resolutions, DirecTv HD is best, Comcast comes in next, followed by Dish. Very subtle differences though.
For SD channels, DirecTv is dead last in quality. Its all going to depend what you plan on watching.


----------



## DesertRatR

I just bought a 60" LED TV (LG 60LM7200). We sit about 12' from the screen, slightly out of spec to the 3:1 rule of thumb. The TV is by far the clearest and brightest I've ever seen. In general does sitting a bit close with a very high quality display improve a somewhat inferior HD feed, or make it appear worse?


----------



## damondlt

HD

Fios
Directv
Dish Network
My Local Cable
SD

Fios
Cable
Dish Network
Directv


----------



## Davenlr

DesertRatR said:


> I just bought a 60" LED TV (LG 60LM7200). We sit about 12' from the screen, slightly out of spec to the 3:1 rule of thumb. The TV is by far the clearest and brightest I've ever seen. In general does sitting a bit close with a very high quality display improve a somewhat inferior HD feed, or make it appear worse?


The closer you are, the worse the picture will appear to be, since you will start noticing all the compression artifacts, macroblocking on fast motion, etc. I sit about 12' from my 60" display as well. While I have never had Dish, Comcast on a Tivo XL4, and DirecTv on a HR34 look comparable to me. There are a few channels, notably Destination Discovery, Nat Geo that are a tad sharper looking on DirecTv than Comcast if you do an A/B comparison. Most are so close its a toss up, until you get to SD channels. I find them almost unwatchable on Directv. Sharp and crisp on Comcast. We do have a 100% digital Comcast plant here, so your mileage may vary depending on how your local cable system is set up. I havent heard any complaints from Dish customers that have switched, so Ill let them report on the quality there.


----------



## domingos35

DesertRatR said:


> I am a brand new user do forgive me if this is a redundant question. I am annoyed that Directv won't pick up Pac-12 Sports (we're passionate about Pac-12 sports), so I am going to cancel DTV. Choices are Comcast or DISH. With BB winding down I've got until July to decide. My neighbor recently switched from DISH to DTV for cost reasons after having been a DISH subscriber for years. He thinks DTV has better looking HD channels. I know nobody with DISH so I can't make my own comparison. I'd appreciate any feedback on the number of HD channels of the two broadcasters and their quality.


don't let anyone tell you that directv's HD is better than dish's because its not
i have dish and comcast and had directv years ago
in my area comcast's HD looks very good but dish's is better
dish has the best DVR's 
i would go with dish


----------



## lparsons21

Technically the Direct HD is better than Dish's. But most reports show that viewers either see no difference, or consider the difference to be very, very minor.

When I switched from D* to E* recently, I had a couple days of being able to view both on the same TV via the same AV receiver and couldn't see hardly any difference between the two in HD. My TV is a 73" Mitsi DLP that I sit about 10' from, so I would expect to be able to see any real difference quite easily.

The biggest difference between the video on Direct and Dish is in SD. Direct's is horrid, Dish's is actually pretty good on most SD channels, though some suck badly.

To me, the difference between the HD on D* and E* isn't significant enough to even be a consideration as to which to pick. At this stage of the game, it really should be about the channels available in HD. Cost is about the same between the two sat services these days.


----------



## RAD

lparsons21 said:


> The biggest difference between the video on Direct and Dish is in SD. Direct's is horrid, Dish's is actually pretty good on most SD channels, though some suck badly.


Is that now true on both the eastern and western arc's? IIRC EA was better because it used MPEG4 for all the SD channels were WA was on MPEG2 and was about on par with DIRECTV's SD channels.


----------



## lparsons21

RAD said:


> Is that now true on both the eastern and western arc's? IIRC EA was better because it used MPEG4 for all the SD channels were WA was on MPEG2 and was about on par with DIRECTV's SD channels.


I suppose I should have qualified that huh? 

I'm on the EA and don't know what the WA's SD looks like.

EDIT: I have read from others that with the Hopper/Joey the SD on both ARCs is very good, though I've not read anything from those that have had the Hopper/Joey setup on WA and then switched to the EA.


----------



## sigma1914

IMO, the PQ debate is similar to the Audio Quality debate ... Some people can tell the difference and some can't tell. It's your personal opinion that matters.


----------



## Volatility

It depends on what features you are looking for. Both the Genie and the Hopper offer their own advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## cypherx

damondlt said:


> HD
> 
> Fios
> Directv
> Dish Network
> My Local Cable
> SD
> 
> Fios
> Cable
> Dish Network
> Directv


Is fios still #1 for PQ? They still use MPEG2, wouldn't MPEG4 be better?

Agree that DirecTV is dead last for SD picture. I wish they would improve that. That is my number 1 reason for wanting so many channels to go HD. I know bandwidth is a concern but even if some channels could go ED (Extended Definition) like at least S-Video quality.

My local cable company requires DTA's for channels 28-100. Those channels are in ClearQAM and after scanning the cable they only put 10 SD channels on a given frequency. Because a frequency is 38.8 mbps, that means each SD channel is given 3.88 mbps MPEG2. That's why SD looks so much better on Cable. With a good TV that has great post processing, SD is actually watchable on there.

My mom has Dish and I have DirecTV. Her house has an older toshiba rear projection which doesn't touch the picture quality of my Plasma at home. The convergence and focus is really off on her "craigslist special'. I can't really accurately say who has better HD since it's not a fair playing field for me to assess quality. A lot of people say DirecTV because at most they only pack 6 HD's per transponder. Dish has a few channels that are up to 8 or 10 HD's a transponder. But you have to realize Dish uses Turbo FEC and 8PSK (thanks to better rain fade performance with Ku band). This means there's more bandwidth on a transponder to begin with. Just because its 8:1 or 10:1 HD compression isn't an apples to apples comparison because you have to look at the overall transponder bandwidth. Also you have to closely look at which channels are sharing bandwidth on a transponder. You can't mix all action demanding 1080i channels and expect it to look great. Providers these days are doing a good balance of 720p and 1080i channels with a mix of content.


----------



## lparsons21

Volatility said:


> It depends on what features you are looking for. Both the Genie and the Hopper offer their own advantages and disadvantages.


While what you say is very true, it has nothing to do with the subject question. You can't get much more specific in a question than this one. 

HD on both is more than good enough that most people either cannot see the difference, or notice that is so slight it doesn't matter. For those that are highly critical of PQ and can actually see and be bothered by it, then D* would be the slightest edge choice.

Of course the reason to switch or not should be from the overall product differences and how they fit or don't.


----------



## trh

Are you still under contract with DircTV and if yes, have you factored in the ETFs?


----------



## Hoosier205

DesertRatR;3199138 said:


> I am a brand new user do forgive me if this is a redundant question. I am annoyed that Directv won't pick up Pac-12 Sports (we're passionate about Pac-12 sports), so I am going to cancel DTV. Choices are Comcast or DISH. With BB winding down I've got until July to decide. My neighbor recently switched from DISH to DTV for cost reasons after having been a DISH subscriber for years. He thinks DTV has better looking HD channels. I know nobody with DISH so I can't make my own comparison. I'd appreciate any feedback on the number of HD channels of the two broadcasters and their quality.


DirecTV has far more HD and superior picture quality.


----------



## P Smith

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV has far more HD and *superior *picture quality.


Not true.

Sounds as PR pitch...


----------



## lparsons21

and 'more HD' is meaningless if the 'more' doesn't include channels you want in HD.

The reality today is unless you are a die-hard sports fan, both services are just 2 sides of the same coin.


----------



## acostapimps

When I watch SD channel on Directv it's show dependent, if its a HD program then it look decent but nowhere good at all, Or maybe it's because I watched a few LQ youtube videos that I got used to it


----------



## donalddickerson2005

lparsons21 said:


> and 'more HD' is meaningless if the 'more' doesn't include channels you want in HD.
> 
> The reality today is unless you are a die-hard sports fan, both services are just 2 sides of the same coin.


So true.
I have DirecTV due to needing MLBEI I live in Atlanta but my team is the cardinals.
If you love pac-12 then you need to go with dish till DirecTV gets it.
I have had cable down here but like EVERYONE else I came running back. Cable is never ever ever going to be in my home.


----------



## acostapimps

donalddickerson2005 said:


> Cable is never ever ever going to be in my home.


Are you sure about that? Never say never.


----------



## donalddickerson2005

acostapimps said:


> Are you sure about that? Never say never.


I'll go OTA before I go to cable.
I messed up 2 times with cable.
1st in north Dakota 2001 (disaster) that's when I looked up DirecTV had them from 2002-2006
Then my 2nd time was in 2007 down here in Atlanta because I called upon charter and they said they had WAY more programming and sports so I gave them a go.
Well I've been with DirecTV since 2008.


----------



## Volatility

DirecTV's HD is more technologically advanced, however the difference between Directv and Dish's is very minor. So minor it does not matter.


----------



## RAD

Volatility said:


> DirecTV's HD is more technologically advanced, however the difference between Directv and Dish's is very minor. So minor it does not matter.


Can you please expand on your response? I look at the new Dish Hopper with Sling and it appears that it might be more advanced. Yes it doesn't have built in WiFi and SWiM, but it does have a larger hard drive, faster processor and built in Sling.


----------



## lparsons21

The new Hopper w/Sling does have wifi.

His comment was about the HD quality and not the tech behind it, and was in line with what most observe. D* and E*'s HD PQ is nearly the same to the viewing eye of all except those with picky eyes, and of course fanbois!


----------



## damondlt

lparsons21 said:


> The new Hopper w/Sling does have wifi.
> 
> His comment was about the HD quality and not the tech behind it, and was in line with what most observe. D* and E*'s HD PQ is nearly the same to the viewing eye of all except those with picky eyes, and of course fanbois!


IMO HD PQ doesn't mean Squat anyway. If the Price, Programming,Equipment Balance doesn't level out then I don't care about the PQ. 
I would say PQ is the last thing on my list.
The differences between all providers are so close, I for one couldn't even use that as a factor.

We aren't comparing 1980's SD programming off of Rabbit ears.


----------



## lparsons21

These days I would agree with you. HD PQ just isn't an issue since both SAT services offer excellent HD PQ.

For me it is all about the money and the channels. All else is just something to consider after I've looked at those two. The Hopper/Joey and Genie/Mini-Genie setup is more or less the same with slightly different approaches. Right now it seems the Genie system is having growing pains, but those should be worked through fairly quickly I would think. And the Hopper/Joey for all its greatness in many respects, is just too handy with icons and thumbnails everywhere, even when those don't make sense for their useage.


----------



## acostapimps

damondlt said:


> IMO HD PQ doesn't mean Squat anyway. If the Price, Programming,Equipment Balance doesn't level out then I don't care about the PQ.
> I would say PQ is the last thing on my list.
> The differences between all providers are so close, I for one couldn't even use that as a factor.
> 
> We aren't comparing 1980's SD programming off of Rabbit ears.


+1


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV has far more HD and superior picture quality.


I agree about the quality part, although it's subjective. Care to tell us how Directv has *FAR *more hd? Be specific, provide real proof!


----------



## RAD

Using the channel chart in post http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=196101 it shows a total of 143 full time HD channels on Dish and 191 full time HD channels on DIRECTV. Yes Dish has more 'basic' HD channels then DIRECTV but when looking at the total channel count DIRECTV comes out ahead. Even if you subtract the 30 full time HD RSN's that DIRECTV has that Dish doesn't DIRECTV still is ahead in the total channel count.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

I'll weigh in here...

My in-laws have DISH because of their Chinese programming offerings. They are on their 5th HD-DVR in 4.5 years. Besides the DVR failures, they've also had other DISH equipment die on them as well. The HD appears to be big a step down in picture quality from DirecTV and our local cable provider Time Warner, IMHO. 

If it weren't for the Chinese programming, they would have DirecTV. For international programming choices, DISH wins easily. 

As for the Pac 12 network, well, I'll wager that will be added at some point.


----------



## CCarncross

I guess I'm in the minority here...its entertainment and a luxury item for me. PQ and the channels I want to see are the 2 most important for me, then the equipment and how it works...and although a little sluggish at time, I just like the way the Directv equipment works....money is a distant 4th.....I can always cut back on my programming if I don't want to pay what I pay...I dont give a flying you know what who has the most HD channels, as long as its the channels I want to see.


----------



## lparsons21

For me, the HD PQ is similar enough that it isn't an issue. So I'm down to the channels I want and Dish has more of them than Direct does for me.

How fast/slow the equipment is just isn't enough of an issue, nor is the 'more sports' mantra that is flung around here a lot.

And of course, saving a buck or two doesn't hurt but isn't the first think I look at.


----------



## Curtis0620

lparsons21 said:


> For me, the HD PQ is similar enough that it isn't an issue. So I'm down to the channels I want and Dish has more of them than Direct does for me.
> 
> How fast/slow the equipment is just isn't enough of an issue, nor is the 'more sports' mantra that is flung around here a lot.
> 
> And of course, saving a buck or two doesn't hurt but isn't the first think I look at.


So what non-premium channel is worth it to give up Disney, ABC Family, etc.?


----------



## lparsons21

Reelz HD for one, Epix for another.

And since I'm 69 and on the big set, I'm the only chooser, neither of those you listed are of interest to me at all. Of course, if I chose to watch them I would see them in SD that is very watcheable.

Give me scripted dramas, some comedies, boxing and golf and I'm good to go. Throw in a movie or three and I'm even better!


----------



## Curtis0620

lparsons21 said:


> Reelz HD for one, Epix for another.
> 
> And since I'm 69 and on the big set, I'm the only chooser, neither of those you listed are of interest to me at all. Of course, if I chose to watch them I would see them in SD that is very watcheable.
> 
> Give me scripted dramas, some comedies, boxing and golf and I'm good to go. Throw in a movie or three and I'm even better!


So nothing worth giving up Disney, ABC Family, etc.


----------



## lparsons21

Curtis0620 said:


> So nothing worth giving up Disney, ABC Family, etc.


For you it seems. 

Those channels haven't been shown on my TV in many, many years. They weren't in HD at all when I last had them on.

You seem to be trying to make a point but missing. I said that it is all about the content for me, and it is the content that I care about. For you, it seems your content desires are different than mine, who knew? :lol:


----------



## John Strk

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV has far more HD and superior picture quality.


I would have to agree. I've had Directv on my 6 year old Sony rear projection and have compared both FIOS and Dish on family member's newer TV's, both Panasonic Plasmas, and I find something wrong with the picture every time I'm visiting them. I've tried calibrating their sets but sadly the picture quality is inferior to Directv!!


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207011 said:


> I agree about the quality part, although it's subjective. Care to tell us how Directv has FAR more hd? Be specific, provide real proof!


They have far more HD channels. That's pretty simple.


----------



## P Smith

"far more" could be easily outweigh by desired channels, not the relatively number


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> They have far more HD channels. That's pretty simple.


Hey, you came back! So tell me, what does it matter exactly how many channels either provider has if they don't have the channels you want to watch? BTW, when are you returning to the Letterman/Ferguson thread? That's going to be entertaining!


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207243 said:


> Hey, you came back! So tell me, what does it matter exactly how many channels either provider has if they don't have the channels you want to watch? BTW, when are you returning to the Letterman/Ferguson thread? That's going to be entertaining!


It matters when one has far more HD channels and superior HD picture quality. That's just one of the many reasons why Dish has long lagged far behind DirecTV. No need to return to a thread there I have already straightened people out.


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> It matters when one has far more HD channels and superior HD picture quality. That's just one of the many reasons why Dish has long lagged far behind DirecTV. No need to return to a thread there I have already straightened people out.


So what if my favorite two or three channels aren't on Directv. What good does the better picture quality or higher number of other hd channels matter? BTW, you got skooled on the other thread, real bad, too!


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip said:


> So what if my favorite two or three channels aren't on Directv. What good does the better picture quality or higher number of other hd channels matter? BTW, you got skooled on the other thread, real bad, too!


Dish doesn't have a single top tier channel that isn't carried by DirecTV.


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> Dish doesn't have a single top tier channel that isn't carried by DirecTV.


Do you have comprehension issues? I didn't say anything about top tier channels. Answer the question! What does it matter exactly how many channels either provider has if they don't have the channels you want to watch?


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Dish doesn't have a single top tier channel that isn't carried by DirecTV.


which has exactly nothing to do with the price of tea in China, or really answer the question.

For me these days, how many channels are in HD isn't anywhere near as important as which channels are there. In my case that means Dish has more of what I want than does Direct.


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207289 said:


> Answer the question!


I did.


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21;3207291 said:


> which has exactly nothing to do with the price of tea in China, or really answer the question.
> 
> For me these days, how many channels are in HD isn't anywhere near as important as which channels are there. In my case that means Dish has more of what I want than does Direct.


So apparently you want fewer channels and subpar HD picture quality. Odd...


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> I did.


No you didn't. You answered a question that wasn't even asked. If you can't back up what you say, why do you even bother? You remind me of a Monty Python skit.


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> So apparently you want fewer channels and subpar HD picture quality. Odd...


Most people agree that Directv has better hd quality, but it's not a dramatic difference. Again, what good is marginally better quality if you can't watch the channels that you want the most? Odd is you answering questions that aren't asked.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> So apparently you want fewer channels and subpar HD picture quality. Odd...


LOL! You can always be depended on to do the parroting trick. And it is real cute when your feathers are fluffing around those pom-poms. :lol:

My HD PQ is as good to the eye as it was when I had Direct. I had a few days of my Hopper and HR24 connected to the same 73" DLP and sitting at the same roughly 10' away and couldn't tell enough difference to care.

And it isn't about 'fewer' or 'more' overall channels as I only watch a small subset of the Top 250, 3 Premiums and [email protected] that I subscribe to. Same group I watched on D*, but with the addition of Reelz in HD and Epix.


----------



## studechip

lparsons21 said:


> LOL! You can always be depended on to do the parroting trick. And it is real cute when your feathers are fluffing around those pom-poms. :lol:
> 
> My HD PQ is as good to the eye as it was when I had Direct. I had a few days of my Hopper and HR24 connected to the same 73" DLP and sitting at the same roughly 10' away and couldn't tell enough difference to care.
> 
> And it isn't about 'fewer' or 'more' overall channels as I only watch a small subset of the Top 250, 3 Premiums and [email protected] that I subscribe to. Same group I watched on D*, but with the addition of Reelz in HD and Epix.


Clearly you should be a Dish customer! I'm in the same boat, but I am a Yankee fan, so I can't have Dish, gotta have the YES network!


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207297 said:


> No you didn't.


Yes, I did. Given what channels are missing from DirecTV, your scenario is not plausible. Choose a better argument and you'll get a better response.


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes, I did. Given what channels are missing from DirecTV, your scenario is not plausible. Choose a better argument and you'll get a better response.


Troll.


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21;3207302 said:


> LOL! You can always be depended on to do the parroting trick. And it is real cute when your feathers are fluffing around those pom-poms. :lol:
> 
> My HD PQ is as good to the eye as it was when I had Direct. I had a few days of my Hopper and HR24 connected to the same 73" DLP and sitting at the same roughly 10' away and couldn't tell enough difference to care.
> 
> And it isn't about 'fewer' or 'more' overall channels as I only watch a small subset of the Top 250, 3 Premiums and [email protected] that I subscribe to. Same group I watched on D*, but with the addition of Reelz in HD and Epix.


Says the Dish sub attempting to justify their choices...

The difference is real and it is substantial. You routinely mention your Mits as if it is something worth bragging about. Hint: it isn't.


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207300 said:


> Most people agree that Directv has better hd quality, but it's not a dramatic difference. Again, what good is marginally better quality if you can't watch the channels that you want the most? Odd is you answering questions that aren't asked.


The vast majority of available HD channels are viewable through DirecTV. Far more than what Dish offers. What channels they do not yet have are of the bottom of the barrel variety.


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> Says the Dish sub attempting to justify their choices...
> 
> The difference is real and it is substantial. You routinely mention your Mits as if it is something worth bragging about. Hint: it isn't.


Oh, I get it now. Not only is your opinion on tv providers the only one that matters, you are also the expert on what television we should be watching it on! Good to know!


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> The vast majority of available HD channels are viewable through DirecTV. Far more than what Dish offers. What channels they do not yet have are of the bottom of the barrel variety.


But what if Directv doesn't have the channels that someone wants more than other ones? Maybe he wants Reelz or Epix in hd? What then? Don't his choices matter?


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Says the Dish sub attempting to justify their choices...
> 
> The difference is real and it is substantial. You routinely mention your Mits as if it is something worth bragging about. Hint: it isn't.


You know the definition of 'expert' is a former drip under pressure, right?

I don't have to justify a thing and I don't. When I had Direct I said I wanted Epix and Reelz in HD, as time went on it became apparent that they weren't going to any time soon. I figgered I waited long enough, so I switched.

Will I ever switch back? Sure, when it is solely in my best interest to do so, just as switching to Dish was solely in my best interest in both channel selection and of course, saving a few bucks for a bit.

My Mits is wonderful. I replace a 54" Panny plasma with it and am very pleased. Nice and bright, crisp, great blacks and motion artifacts. Is it the perfect set? No. But neither is yours.

The reason I mentioned it is the size. 73" from 10' away gives a darned good perspective as to how good the HD signal is.


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207317 said:


> Oh, I get it now. Not only is your opinion on tv providers the only one that matters, you are also the expert on what television we should be watching it on! Good to know!


Am I an expert on display technology and calibration? Yes. You're welcome.


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207320 said:


> But what if Directv doesn't have the channels that someone wants more than other ones? Maybe he wants Reelz or Epix in hd? What then? Don't his choices matter?


Bottom dweller channels? Again, choose a better argument. Haha!


----------



## studechip

studechip said:


> Oh, I get it now. Not only is your opinion on tv providers the only one that matters, you are also the expert on what television we should be watching it on! Good to know!





Hoosier205 said:


> Am I an expert on display technology and calibration? Yes. You're welcome.


You have once again shown your lack of comprehension skills. I didn't ask (or care) if you were an expert on the technology or calibration. I asked if you were an expert on what television we should be watching. There are MANY factors that go into that decision, most of which you don't have a clue about. The "best" display isn't the one that should be bought, it's the one that best fits the customer.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Bottom dweller channels? Again, choose a better argument. Haha!


Makes more sense than most of your arguments. Am I supposed to care that they aren't the top tier, and if so why should I care if they have some shows I want to watch?

Epix has some European boxing that isn't shown other places, and blockbuster type movies that I like. Reelz has Bomb Girls and XIII that I enjoy watching.

I sub to Premier when I'm with D* usually, and Everything on Dish usually. Right now I have the T250, plus 3 premiums (no cinemax), [email protected] and subs to Netflix, HuluPlus and Amazon.

All because I want to watch what I want to watch.

I don't care about RSNs nor most sports.

And that is exactly why I can say I like both services and have used both at different times, always with excellent results. Of course, the results are slower on D*!


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> Bottom dweller channels? Again, choose a better argument. Haha!


It doesn't have to be a better argument to best a troll. The truth is good enough.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Am I an expert on display technology and calibration? Yes. You're welcome.


Yep, former drip under pressure is a very good description.

I've never seen anything that indicates you are an expert in those two fields other than your doing some research and calibrating your own tv. And of course, a bit of braying now and then...


----------



## donalddickerson2005

The big event coming up is well covered better by DirecTV than any other ..... The Master's. If you love golf baseball NFL or tennis you have to have DirecTV and yes they are all in HD.


----------



## Hoosier205

studechip;3207330 said:


> You have once again shown your lack of comprehension skills. I didn't ask (or care) if you were an expert on the technology or calibration. I asked if you were an expert on what television we should be watching. There are MANY factors that go into that decision, most of which you don't have a clue about. The "best" display isn't the one that should be bought, it's the one that best fits the customer.


Haha...you need to read your own post again. Being an expert in display technology and calibration means that I am well versed in ALL of the "many" factors you alluded to. So yes...I am an expert on what television a person should be watching.


----------



## lparsons21

donalddickerson2005 said:


> The big event coming up is well covered better by DirecTV than any other ..... The Master's. If you love golf baseball NFL or tennis you have to have DirecTV and yes they are all in HD.


Yes, D* does a better job of Masters coverage, but I didn't watch all the extra when I had D* so I won't miss it.

Of all the sports out there, the only one I watch wide awake is boxing. Most times that I watch golf I end up napping a bit during the match.

So no, I don't have to have D*!


----------



## studechip

Hoosier205 said:


> Haha...you need to read your own post again. Being an expert in display technology and calibration means that I am well versed in ALL of the "many" factors you alluded to. So yes...I am an expert on what television a person should be watching.


So your immense intellect knows how much money someone has to spend even though you haven't met them? Your immense intellect knows how much room someone has to place their television in even though you have never been to their house? Your immense intellect knows nothing apparently, except how to troll.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Guys, please take your comments to each other to PM.


----------



## CCarncross

studechip said:


> It doesn't have to be a better argument to best a troll. The truth is good enough.


Why dont you quit chest pumping and list the channels you "have to have" that only Dish has so we can put an end to this pointless and ridiculous argument you two knuckleheads are having.:lol:


----------



## studechip

CCarncross said:


> Why dont you quit chest pumping and* list the channels* you "have to have" that only Dish has so we can put an end to this pointless and ridiculous argument you two knuckleheads are having.:lol:


I already did. Please look back in this thread. It's right there. He rejected them, saying they weren't top tier channels. BTW, since you seem to have missed it, I have been playing devil's advocate by presenting an obvious argument against hoosier205s "position". The specific hd channels that Dish has that Directv doesn't isn't the point. The fact that there are channels that Dish has that Directv doesn't, and that someone may want those particular channels, is the point. They don't have to be top tiered channels, only available. He apparently doesn't think that fact matters.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Hoosier never thinks anything matters but his opinion, as has been demonstrated across multiple threads in which he browbeats people over what his 'expert opinion' dictates.


----------



## CCarncross

studechip said:


> I already did.


Actually I went back and looked and I cant find it, there isnt a post where you listed them, but considering the whole point of this thread was PQ and not content its irrelevant..if you mean where you referred to one channel (Yes Network), I guess thats a list...:lol:


----------



## studechip

Post #57 in this thread. BTW, the op mentioned picture quality, but also wanted the PAC12 network, so clearly he was interested in channel selection, too.


----------



## CCarncross

studechip said:


> Post #57 in this thread. BTW, the op mentioned picture quality, but also wanted the PAC12 network, so clearly he was interested in channel selection, too.


I guess I misread...I asked for *your* have to have channel list and you gave someone else's. Unless you refer to yourself in the third party as "he" in your own post.


----------



## supermod38

reach:
I like Chevy's

:soapbox:
No, maybe ford

Well Chevy is better.


:beatdeadhorse:

I think.........................................................................................


----------



## studechip

CCarncross said:


> I guess I misread...I asked for *your* have to have channel list and you gave someone else's. Unless you refer to yourself in the third party as "he" in your own post.


The he in that post is lparsons21. He specifically mentioned them earlier. My must have channel is YES, which is why I sub to Directv.


----------



## studechip

supermod38 said:


> reach:
> I like Chevy's
> 
> :soapbox:
> No, maybe ford
> 
> Well Chevy is better.
> 
> :beatdeadhorse:
> 
> I think.........................................................................................


Buzzzzz!!!!!! Wrong! It's Studebakers!


----------



## lparsons21

studechip said:


> Buzzzzz!!!!!! Wrong! It's Studebakers!


That brings back fond memories! My first car was a '51 Studebaker, can't remember the model, but it wasn't the Champ it was the full sedan. Great car for the drive-in movies!! 

And yeah, I was the one that said I wanted Epix and Reelz HD as the reason I switched.

While I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone, for me switching from D* to E* and vice-versa just isn't a big deal. Both are great services and the equipment works well enough that it isn't one of the things I really think about a lot when deciding.


----------



## studechip

lparsons21 said:


> That brings back fond memories! My first car was a '51 Studebaker, can't remember the model, but it wasn't the Champ it was the full sedan. Great car for the drive-in movies!!
> 
> And yeah, I was the one that said I wanted Epix and Reelz HD as the reason I switched.
> 
> While I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone, for me switching from D* to E* and vice-versa just isn't a big deal. Both are great services and the equipment works well enough that it isn't one of the things I really think about a lot when deciding.


I'm thinking you had a Land Cruiser or maybe a Commander.


----------



## lparsons21

Land Cruiser as it turns out. My dad had bought it used in '57 for about $200 as I remember and gave it to me in 1960 when I got my drivers license. It was the single most reliable car I had up until this 2009 Buick I own now. Always started, always ran and usually beat others with their Chevys and Fords when we drag raced on the back country roads.


----------



## dpeters11

RAD said:


> Is that now true on both the eastern and western arc's? IIRC EA was better because it used MPEG4 for all the SD channels were WA was on MPEG2 and was about on par with DIRECTV's SD channels.


SD might be better, but at least based on someone I know on EA, not convinced it would be worth it. He had to have two dishes for domestic channels, and at one point Dish moved our locals to a satellite that couldn't be seen by either dish. I'll take bad SD over that.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Do you see a frog and a bear in a brown Studebaker?

Nooo, but I see a frog and a bear in a rainbow colored Studebaker!


----------



## harsh

Hoosier205 said:


> Am I an expert on display technology and calibration? Yes. You're welcome.


The old subscription to DIRECTV makes one omniscient and expert in everything ploy.


----------



## widmark

Folks have said here that DirecTV has better HD than Dish. I have Directv now thinking of switching to Dish.

I happen to have only 720p tvs. But they take 1080i inputs and the quality of Directv was a very noticeable improvement from TimeWarner Cable HD.

What is the technical reason DirecTV is better in HD than Dish? I saw somewhere that Directv figured out how to deliver 1080p over SAT. Perhaps Dish has not?

If the difference is Dish broadcasts HD in 1080i and Directv in 1080p, then I wouldn't notice the difference anyway on my 720p tvs.

I plan to skip 1080 tv sets and wait for 4K... but presumably 2+ years down the line when there is sufficient content.


----------



## P Smith

dish transforming source material from 1920x1080i to 1440x1080i and keep 1280x720p


----------



## jimmie57

P Smith said:


> dish transforming source material from 1920x1080i to 1440x1080i and keep 1280x720p


Wouldn't 1440 x 1080i create a weird ratio ? Wouldn't it have to be 1440 x 810 or close ?


----------



## P Smith

jimmie57 said:


> Wouldn't 1440 x 1080i create a weird ratio ? Wouldn't it have to be 1440 x 810 or close ?


it's the same as SD 720x540
4:3

their IRD making reverse transformation and you will not see it if you don't know that or you are not a professional

it was typo [640 vs 540=1080/2]


----------



## widmark

Thanks for the quick reply Mr Fix.

Does dish now broadcast all channels in MPEG4 to west coast where I am?

I see from other threads that Dish essentially compresses a lower res video stream to a lower bit rate resulting in lower pic quality. At least if they are using MPEG4 they are using a more efficient compression codec than MPEG2 given the same bit rate. 

On my 720p tvs the lower resolution of Dish HD vs DirecTV shouldn't make much f any perceptible difference, but the lower bit rate might.


----------



## dpeters11

widmark said:


> Folks have said here that DirecTV has better HD than Dish. I have Directv now thinking of switching to Dish.
> 
> I happen to have only 720p tvs. But they take 1080i inputs and the quality of Directv was a very noticeable improvement from TimeWarner Cable HD.
> 
> What is the technical reason DirecTV is better in HD than Dish? I saw somewhere that Directv figured out how to deliver 1080p over SAT. Perhaps Dish has not?
> 
> If the difference is Dish broadcasts HD in 1080i and Directv in 1080p, then I wouldn't notice the difference anyway on my 720p tvs.
> 
> I plan to skip 1080 tv sets and wait for 4K... but presumably 2+ years down the line when there is sufficient content.


DirecTV does have 1080p, but doesn't really matter to any degree. It's only on certain PPV movies. No channel uses it, they are all either 720p or 1080i. Compression makes a bigger difference, as does the codec used. Time Warner at least in my market still uses MPEG2. Bad quality and takes up a lot of drive space for HD.


----------



## jimmie57

P Smith said:


> it's the same as SD 720x640
> 4:3
> 
> their IRD making reverse transformation and you will not see it if you don't know that or you are not a professional


Isn't it supposed to be 720 x 540 ? for 4 to 3 ratio ?

What I have been reading is that they use the rectangle pixel method where a pixel is 1.33 wide vs 1 tall and the 1.33 simulates the same HD that we get with the 1920 x 1080i.
One of these days I will get the opportunity to see a setup with HD and compare the quality for myself. The 2 people I know with Dish both have / had SD service.
Oh well.


----------



## slice1900

Even if you knew someone with Dish HD it would be hard to compare. The variations between good and bad TVs is going to be lot bigger than the variation between Directv and Dish HD. To truly compare you'd need to do it side by side on the same TV, trying several channels to get a representative sample. Not very many people subscribe to both, except maybe during a small window of overlap when they're switching from one to the other.


----------



## widmark

From prior posts it appears:

DTV  Dish 
Typical HD Res: 1920x1080i 1440x1080i

Typical HD Codec... 
... (West/East): MP-4/MP-4 *?* / MP-4 MP-4 = MPEG-4

Typical HD Bitrate: * ?* *?* <10, and DTV is likely variable bit rate, but what is typical for each?

There was an article about this some time ago, but just shows bit rates for DTV and Dish are "less than 10". I'm looking for more precision.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/heres-what-fake-hd-video-looks-like/962


----------



## P Smith

HD West/East compressed by H.264 (MPEG-4 is "an envelope" and could carry H.263 and a few different audio comp algos)

bitrate of each channel (!) is very, have wide range - no such thing as "typical"; if you want get something palpable, get _average_ : write same movie, get it's time and file size, thus AVG will mean something

zdnet ? who is need stinking zdnet, if you are at Dbstalk ?! I did post the numbers for _same_ channel from both providers, measure on-time stream of same material ...


----------



## widmark

You make a good point clarifying codec P Smith thanks. Will be glad when .h265 is implemented although I'm sure it will be awhile. I thought some of the .h264 SAT signals ended up in .m2ts containers but it doesn't matter what container for the purposes of this question anyway.

Average bit rate does matter, even if its just an average, and we should call it that rather than "typical"-- thats fair. Bit rate may be unknowable given the variability between HD channels and programming, but it gives a sense of quality of the stream. Its sounding to me like DirecTV HD signals are closer to 10 and Dish closer to 7s in megabit/s, but that is just speculation. Was hoping someone had tighter/tested numbers. Where are your posted bit rate numbers... do you have a link?

DTV  Dish 
Typical HD Res: 1920x1080i 1440x1080i

Typical HD Codec... 
... (West/East): .h264/.h264 .h264/.h264

Average HD Bitrate: * ?* *?* <10, and DTV is likely variable bit rate, but what is typical for each?


----------



## P Smith

add to that, some HD channels coming in 720p

I did post snapshots of real bandwidth here ... it was last years and it was same discussion's matter


----------



## slice1900

widmark said:


> You make a good point clarifying codec P Smith thanks. Will be glad when .h265 is implemented although I'm sure it will be awhile.


h.265 will only be used for 4K, since no receivers from Directv or Dish support it there is no way it can be used for lower resolutions.


----------



## cypherx

That stinks they just cant download the codec to the receiver. There's such a thing as software defined radio, but no software defined codec? Oh wait, that would be a PC. I download codec packs to play video and that works. Too bad the receivers cant.


----------



## P Smith

now you know the difference between universal computer and specialized receiver


----------



## slice1900

Not every PC has the horsepower to decode h.265, especially for 4K video. Current models do, but for some older ones it wouldn't be possible for it to decode h.265 in real time. You could install a h.265 codec, but if it can't keep up, it wouldn't be of much use.

PCs have a lot more computational power at their disposal than a set top box (and that's one reason they cost more to build) Thus set tops rely on hardware decoders to keep cost in check and avoid running too hot for fanless devices.

FWIW, while software defined radio has been around for a long time, it is just starting to be used in the satellite, television and cellular industries. That should tell you something about "cool technology" versus "cost effective technology"


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The way these things typically work... some aspects of the decompression are via hardware that cannot be upgraded even if the rest of the firmware could be updated... and besides that, these set-top boxes are usually optimized and cost-reduced so that there isn't much room to add features that would require more processing power.

Your PC would be in the same boat UNLESS you are always buying top of the line PC components that are ahead of current software... and even then in a couple of years there is faster hardware that would run the new codecs smoother.

Bottom line... don't expect current hardware to be upgradeable to new codecs, ever. The rare time something might be upgradable, count yourself lucky.


----------



## widmark

slice1900 said:


> h.265 will only be used for 4K, since no receivers from Directv or Dish support it there is no way it can be used for lower resolutions.


h.265 will make its first splashy headlines as the codec that enabled 4K, but ultimately h.264 will be phased out before content under 4K disappears. That means lower resolutions will be piped over h.265. I'm not sure how much it matters which speculation is right.



cypherx said:


> That stinks they just cant download the codec to the receiver. There's such a thing as software defined radio, but no software defined codec? Oh wait, that would be a PC. I download codec packs to play video and that works. Too bad the receivers cant.


Even if they could, the big issue is the CPU on the receivers. Now that so much functionality/competition between cos is in the receiver software, cable/sat is no longer incented to push "just enough" CPUs in receivers. Just enough CPU = more frequent hardware refreshes. IMHO future boxes will provide more CPU headroom to handle software updates. Maybe too that will allow software pushes of new codecs but I sort of doubt it since each new codec update is based on a huge leap in processing power that probably eclipses even the most generous built-in CPU headroom.


----------



## slice1900

widmark said:


> h.265 will make its first splashy headlines as the codec that enabled 4K, but ultimately h.264 will be phased out before content under 4K disappears. That means lower resolutions will be piped over h.265. I'm not sure how much it matters which speculation is right.


That's true, but I didn't mention that because it would be so many years in the future it is almost irrelevant - will satellite TV as we know it even exist then?

Directv is still a minimum of several years away from ceasing MPEG2 broadcasts. Doing so will require replacing every SD receiver in the country first, and there are tens of millions of them. To be able to phase out MPEG4 would require replacing every current (and many future) HD receiver so that all are capable of h.265.

The timeframe depends on whether 4K catches on. If it flops like 3D, it would delay the day when all Directv equipment is able to decode h.265 - basically that wouldn't happen until it is included "for free" in all the available chipsets.


----------

