# The HD rumormill - Tues or Wed?



## BreezeCJ (Jan 8, 2007)

I just saw this over at SatelliteGuys.us :

http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv-hd-discussions/108108-what-we-hearing.html

It appears the new channels may not appear until Tuesday or Wednesday. While there could be a chance they could go up earlier, it is doubtfull as they need to prep for the NFL Ticket on Sunday which takes a lot of work to put on.

We should see anywhere from 10 to 25 HD channels next week. With TBS HD and CNN HD being the first ones available. Additionaly channels will be rolled out through the month of October.

Say GOODBYE to HDLITE on DirecTV, we are hearing full resolution on all the new MPEG4 channels! All channels will be using VBR (variable bit rate) encoding. In addition DirecTV is only putting 4 MPEG4 channels per transponder (Dish Network does 6 per transponder at 1440x1080) DirecTV will be doing 4 per transponder at 1920x1080. (The 720p channels will be at full resolution which is 1280x720)

It is expected that current MPEG2 HD channels will be available in MPEG4, for the MPEG4 versions of the channels users must tune to the SD channel number for that channel and the MPEG4 version will automatically be tuned.​


----------



## Chazb (Jan 29, 2007)

I have to give a woot woot on that it does sound good.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Well that's all really good news. I especially like the 4 channles per transponder and at full resolution. I also like that the current MPEG2 channels will be available in MPEG4. But what will people complain about now?


----------



## STEVEN-H (Jan 19, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> Well that's all really good news. I especially like the 4 channles per transponder and at full resolution. I also like that the current MPEG2 channels will be available in MPEG4. But what will people complain about now?


Let's see there are 16 transponders available on 103. That would be a total of 64 channels. And Direct is saying 100 by year end without D11. Something does not add up.


----------



## The_Geyser (Nov 21, 2005)

I was planning on moving my dish this weekend since I do not get Sat's 110 or 119 due to leaves. If this is true, I may wait. I'm getting 103 b strong in the 90's.


----------



## Jon D (Oct 12, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Well that's all really good news. I especially like the 4 channles per transponder and at full resolution. I also like that the current MPEG2 channels will be available in MPEG4. But what will people complain about now?


Oh. Don't worry. They will complain.. Probably about there only being 4 channels on a transponder. :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

16 transponders with 4 channels each is only 64 channels. Sorry, it's not happening.


----------



## henryld (Aug 16, 2006)

A post of a document, that Earl pulled earlier today because of a lack of D* explicit posting permission, stated a next wednesday rollout. Don't know if this info is allowed and if not mods please delete.


----------



## Tibs (Jul 6, 2007)

They can use the existing HD bandwidth to suppliment and still reach 100 with 4 per transponder. The math works.


----------



## vertigo235 (Mar 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> 16 transponders with 4 channels each is only 64 channels. Sorry, it's not happening.


Well, the finaly goal might be 4 per transponder, once D11 is up, of course, that is only 128 though... Assuming D11 will have 16 transponders as well.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

STEVEN-H said:


> Let's see there are 16 transponders available on 103. That would be a total of 64 channels. And Direct is saying 100 by year end without D11. Something does not add up.


Let me preface this first by saying I know little about satellites.

Where does the current HD come from?


----------



## ChrisQ (Sep 8, 2007)

Jon D said:


> Oh. Don't worry. They will complain.. Probably about there only being 4 channels on a transponder. :lol:


As long as one of them is the NFL Network you won't hear a peep out of me


----------



## rabi (Feb 10, 2006)

relax....this is all from Scott...

who knows what the truth is...


----------



## gregftlaud (Nov 20, 2005)

Yah when I saw the rumor earlier today about them launching on sunday morning b/c they were gonna be promoting it on commercials during football games I was skeptical..........considering all the work that goes into the sunday ticket and the fact the first two weeks of the ticket alot of people have had some issues. I dont think they would want to have to deal with launching new channels and doing the work on nfl on the same day!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tibs said:


> They can use the existing HD bandwidth to suppliment and still reach 100 with 4 per transponder. The math works.


What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## rrrick8 (Mar 20, 2007)

henryld said:


> A post of a document, that Earl pulled earlier today because of a lack of D* explicit posting permission, stated a next wednesday rollout. Don't know if this info is allowed and if not mods please delete.


There is no document being used in this post. It is only relaying what Scott G has said is "rumored"

Shouldn't be any problem with that.


----------



## AlanSaysYo (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm starting to think the new HD rollout is perpetually 4-5 days from whenever "now" is. 

Add me to the "wake me up when it happens" camp. I'm sick of half-believing any of these dates.


----------



## STEVEN-H (Jan 19, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> Let me preface this first by saying I know little about satellites.
> 
> Where does the current HD come from?


Well current HD is mpeg 2 and will continue to be for some period of time. The only bandwidth available to Direct for the 100 promised channels is form D10 which has 16 transponders.


----------



## cdavis0720 (Jun 25, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> 16 transponders with 4 channels each is only 64 channels. Sorry, it's not happening.


That was my first thought too. BUT is 16 all the available transponders actually on D10. In theory there would be 32 transponders right? I know some are conus which I assume are for the new national channels How many are spot beams?

Carl


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

STEVEN-H said:


> Well current HD is mpeg 2 and will continue to be for some period of time. The only bandwidth available to Direct for the 100 promised channels is form D10 which has 16 transponders.


There is some MPEG4 now, right? Where does that come from?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

cdavis0720 said:


> In theory there would be 32 transpoders right?


No, why would you think this?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> There is some MPEG4 now, right? Where does that come from?


Spaceway 1 & 2, aside from channel 498 which is MPEG4 and coming from D10.


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> There is some MPEG4 now, right? Where does that come from?


Spaceway 1 and 2. Im not sure if they can do CONUS, but they are nowhere even near being filled according to Tom.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Spaceway 1 & 2, aside from channel 498 which is MPEG4 and coming from D10.


So why is it that you are saying that we will be limited to 64 channels? Can't the additional come from currently available bandwidth? Am I missing something?


----------



## cdavis0720 (Jun 25, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> No, why would you think this?


Because when I go to the signal strength screen they all show 32... granted only 101 is actually using all 32 but that's why I would think that.

Carl


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

To Hilmar2k's point. Won't they repurpose some of the existing transponders on the current sats? It won't all come from 103b, will it? /steve


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

No, they don't own the space on the 16 that say NA.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

cdavis0720 said:


> Because when I go to the signal strength screen they all show 32... granted only 101 is actually using all 32 but that's why I would think that.


They don't show all 32. They show 16, with the other 16 being NA. The grid just has 32 because that's how many it needs to fit all of 101's transponders.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> So why is it that you are saying that we will be limited to 64 channels? Can't the additional come from currently available bandwidth? Am I missing something?


Exactly - existing bandwidth can be used ...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Exactly. Won't they repurpose some of the existing transponders on the current sats? It won't all come from 103b, will it? /steve


Until D11 is up and running, all new HD will come from 103b. Once D11 is up, then 99a will be used for HD as well. The current satellites will not be used for new HD any time soon.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steve said:


> Exactly. Won't they repurpose some of the existing transponders on the current sats? It won't all come from 103b, will it? /steve


They will be moving locals off of 72.whatever and how much space do you think there is? Only 10 MPEG2 channels worth. That may get 15 MPEG4 channels but they won't be until after D* shuts down MPEG2 HD (which we know won't be until after the NFL season is over).


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> So why is it that you are saying that we will be limited to 64 channels? Can't the additional come from currently available bandwidth? Am I missing something?


I am not saying that we will be limited to 64 channels. I am saying that if they put 4 channels on each of the 16 transponders, that will limit us to 64 channels, which is why they won't do that.


----------



## cdavis0720 (Jun 25, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> They don't show all 32. They show 16, with the other 16 being NA. The grid just has 32 because that's how many it needs to fit all of 101's transponders.


Got it! I didn't know if N/A meant didn't exist, didn't belong to D* or just wasn't currently turned on okay.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> I am not saying that we will be limited to 64 channels. I am saying that if they put 4 channels on each of the 16 transponders, that will limit us to 64 channels, which is why they won't do that.


That's what I meant. Man, can't leave anything to inference on this site, can you?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

drx792 said:


> Spaceway 1 and 2. Im not sure if they can do CONUS, but they are nowhere even near being filled according to Tom.


Spaceway 1 & 2 were initially planned to do some CONUS channels, but testing indicated that it took too much power to do it. That's why they haven't been used in that capacity.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> That's what I meant. Man, can't leave anything to inference on this site, can you?


This thread is moving so fast with so many people asking so many questions, I can't take time to infer anything. I'm just going by what's written so that everything is clear.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> They don't show all 32. They show 16, with the other 16 being NA. The grid just has 32 because that's how many it needs to fit all of 101's transponders.


What a second, now I'm confused. Are you saying that D* only has 16 transponders on the new sats at 103b and 99a for a total of 32? If thats the case, why would they build these sats with only 16 transponders on them?


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Thought D10 only had 14 CONUS transponders. Others were spotbeams.


----------



## EMoMoney (Dec 19, 2005)

dmurphy said:


> Exactly - existing bandwidth can be used ...


What existing bandwidth? D* is already having to take down TNT HD on Sundays to accommodate NFLST. There is no available bandwidth.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> I am not saying that we will be limited to 64 channels. I am saying that if they put 4 channels on each of the 16 transponders, that will limit us to 64 channels, which is why they won't do that.


So does that mean they'll be in HD lite?


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

rabi said:


> relax....this is all from Scott...
> 
> who knows what the truth is...


The truth is out there...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

theratpatrol said:


> What a second, now I'm confused. Are you saying that D* only has 16 transponders on the new sats at 103b and 99a for a total of 32? If thats the case, why would they build these sats with only 16 transponders on them?


There is only a limited amount of RF spectrum that DirecTV is allowed to use. They could put on more transponders, but each one would have to be narrower and in the end they would actually end up with less capacity.


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

EMoMoney said:


> What existing bandwidth? D* is already having to take down TNT HD on Sundays to accommodate NFLST. There is no available bandwidth.


Looks like TNTHD is listed on the sunday Guide.


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

The quotes say UP TO x amount of channels right?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sixto said:


> Thought D10 only had 14 CONUS transponders. Others were spotbeams.


You are correct. So it would be 56 channels with 4 on each transponder, even worse.


theratpatrol said:


> So does that mean they'll be in HD lite?


Depends on how you define HD-Lite. I think they will look great. Will the 1080i channels be 1920x1080i? My guess would be no.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

djzack67 said:


> Looks like TNTHD is listed on the sunday Guide.


It always is.


cnmsales said:


> The quotes say UP TO x amount of channels right?


"over 70 available in October and up to 100 by the end of the year."


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> There is only a limited amount of RF spectrum that DirecTV is allowed to use. They could put on more transponders, but each one would have to be narrower and in the end they would actually end up with less capacity.


So how does 101 have 32 then, is it because 101 is Ka?



Jeremy W said:


> Depends on how you define HD-Lite. I think they will look great. Will the 1080i channels be 1920x1080i? My guess would be no.


So we're still not getting true HD then? Hmmm.......

Thanks


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

djzack67 said:


> Looks like TNTHD is listed on the sunday Guide.


Last Sunday they left TNTHD up and took off many PPVs and shopping channels.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

cnmsales said:


> The quotes say UP TO x amount of channels right?


You are correct, There may be only 64 national full time HD channels(or less), the remaining 36 could be sports channels and RSN's and PPV


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> You are correct. So it would be 56 channels with 4 on each transponder, even worse.
> 
> Depends on how you define HD-Lite. I think they will look great. Will the 1080i channels be 1920x1080i? My guess would be no.


1080i at less than 1920x1080 = HD-Lite


----------



## EMoMoney (Dec 19, 2005)

djzack67 said:


> Looks like TNTHD is listed on the sunday Guide.


As Jeremy pointed out, it will be listed in the guide. Tune in on Sunday and there's a 99.9% chance it's not online. They simply don't have the bandwidth.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

theratpatrol said:


> So how does 101 have 32 then, is it because 101 is Ka?
> 
> Thanks


101 is Ku, using narrower transponders. I believe DirecTV also has more spectrum at 101, but I could be wrong.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

theratpatrol said:


> So how does 101 have 32 then, is it because 101 is Ka?
> 
> Thanks


DirecTV is licensed by the FCC to use a certain set of frequencies from each orbital slot.

They are licensed for more at 101 than at any other (at this time), I believe. That's why 101 shows more transponders - in effect it is the "main" SD source for D* programming.

Does that help ?


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

This was the best data we had:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1082130&postcount=256


----------



## EMoMoney (Dec 19, 2005)

paulman182 said:


> Last Sunday they left TNTHD up and took off many PPVs and shopping channels.


Was the NASCAR race on TNT last week?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

raott said:


> 1080i at less than 1920x1080 = HD-Lite


I think that's a silly definition, but that's your choice.


----------



## henryld (Aug 16, 2006)

Does VBR enter into this equation at all when discussing resolution over multiple channels?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

EMoMoney said:


> As Jeremy pointed out, it will be listed in the guide. Tune in on Sunday and there's a 99.9% chance it's not online. They simply don't have the bandwidth.


It was on last week


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

henryld said:


> Does VBR enter into this equation at all when discussing resolution over multiple channels?


VBR has nothing to do with the resolution.


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

They could easily go up to 5 or 6 channels per transponder one day. E* has 6 per transponder.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

ChrisPC said:


> They could easily go up to 5 or 6 channels per transponder one day.


That day would be next month, which is why I can't see them even starting out like that. 5 or 6 channels per transponder really isn't bad, and would still have quality up to or even surpassing the HD locals.


----------



## mdmcvay (Aug 30, 2006)

EMoMoney said:


> Was the NASCAR race on TNT last week?


No. They're on ABC for the rest of the year.


----------



## EMoMoney (Dec 19, 2005)

mdmcvay said:


> No. They're on ABC for the rest of the year.





compnurd said:


> It was on last week


Ok, I seem to recall they took it down at least once this season and many times last season. But the my point is if they have to take down any channels whether it's TNTHD, PPVs or shopping channels, they don't have existing bandwidth.


----------



## GP_23 (Sep 13, 2007)

EMoMoney said:


> Was the NASCAR race on TNT last week?


They are on ABC for the chase, don't you follow Nascar


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

EMoMoney said:


> Ok, I seem to recall they took it down at least once this season ans many times last season.


They took it down week one.


----------



## EMoMoney (Dec 19, 2005)

GP_23 said:


> They are on ABC for the chase, don't you follow Nascar


Obviously not.


----------



## dlmax63 (Sep 22, 2007)

I just got off the line with a CSR who initially stated that some of the channels have already gone live. I then asked him which ones and he listed some of the initial launch channels I've read about in the forums. When I told him that this is not the case he had me hold for a few moments, came back and apologized that he had been off for 3 days and only now found that the channels failed to launch. When asked about a new date he said that the new HD date is "postponed indefinitely". Upon hearing this, I asked if some of the new programming is still to be available by the end of the month. He replied that that is no longer a '_guarantee_'. This is not encouraging

Oh well,.. having been a call center trainer I of all people should know that if you ask 10 CSRs the same question - you will most likely get 3 or 4 different answers. My only hope is that his response about by the end of the month is not a bad sign of further delays.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dlmax63 said:


> Upon hearing this, I asked if some of the new programming is still to be available by the end of the month. He replied that that is no longer a '_guarantee_'. This is not encouraging


That is also incorrect. The new information that we got *today* on channel 498 still says that we'll start getting channels before the end of the month.


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

Two things. 

1. They are currently mepg4 channels, because I get my locals HD via mpeg4
2. DO you think that the total amount of channels they will carry by the end of the year will be 100, if so, you think this will include the ones we already have in mpeg2?

Might work


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

tsmithfd said:


> DO you think that the total amount of channels they will carry by the end of the year will be 100, if so, you think this will include the ones we already have in mpeg2?


There is no doubt that any count will include the current MPEG2 channels, whether they're mirrored in MPEG4 or not. If DirecTV's count will actually reach 100, I don't know. But even if it does, I guarantee you that it'll be padded out with BS fluff just like Dish's 70 count is right now.


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

I agree, I can not really think of many more channels that would be worthy after 100. Heck I only watch about 30 now all the time. FX, FOX, CBS, ABC, HBO, USA, TNT...stuff like that


----------



## bscolvin (Aug 19, 2007)

Boeing's web site says Directv-10 and 11 have 32 national transponders. from eto at SatGuy.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bscolvin said:


> Boeing's web site says Directv-10 and 11 have 32 national transponders. from eto at SatGuy.


That's the number of TWTAs, not transponders. Each tranponder has two TWTAs.


----------



## henryld (Aug 16, 2006)

Did this get a little off topic?


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

I would rather have 100 full HD channels instead of 150 HD Lite channels any day!


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> I would rather have 100 full HD channels instead of 150 HD Lite channels any day!


+1!


----------



## Directvlover (Aug 27, 2007)

Are there even 150 networks broadcasting in HD?


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

Directvlover said:


> Are there even 150 networks broadcasting in HD?


No, that's why it always says "up to".


----------



## caimakale (Oct 31, 2006)

Directvlover said:


> Are there even 150 networks broadcasting in HD?


If you build it, they will come.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Directvlover said:


> Are there even 150 networks broadcasting in HD?


nO.


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> I would rather have 100 full HD channels instead of 150 HD Lite channels any day!


You said that right. Its all about the picture quality and 5.1 Dolby Digital for me...


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

If 4 full HD channels takes up all the bandwidth of a TP then their can only be roughly 128 channels running at full HD right? Thats 22 shy of 150. I'm not factoring the 720p channels in so they may be able to squeeze out more bandwidth but I'm not settling on HD Lite! I'm no engineer or satellite specialist but the simple math is 32TPs x 4 channels per TP (at full 1080i HD) gives us only 128 channels in full HD. I really hope I'm wrong here because HD lite is crap. I hope D* does this the right way,which I'm sure they will. We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Brandon428 said:


> I really hope I'm wrong here because HD lite is crap.


Do you have HD locals? Do you consider them to be crap?


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

Brandon428 said:


> If 4 full HD channels takes up all the bandwidth of a TP then their can only be roughly 128 channels running at full HD right? Thats 22 shy of 150. I'm not factoring the 720p channels in so they may be able to squeeze out more bandwidth but I'm not settling on HD Lite! I'm no engineer or satellite specialist but the simple math is 32TPs x 4 channels per TP (at full 1080i HD) gives us only 128 channels in full HD. I really hope I'm wrong here because HD lite is crap. I hope D* does this the right way,which I'm sure they will. We'll just have to wait and see.


well..I guess you will have to get ALL your channels via OTA then. Good luck pulling down that CNN HD OTA.


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

I would not say any of it is crap, It is better than standard digital. But lets be honest here... have any of you seen a Blu-Ray player connected to a samsung 61 inch DLP, 1080p TV via a $150.00 monster HDMI cable?

That is TRUE HD ! ! !

Everything else is ok


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

tsmithfd said:


> via a $150.00 monster HDMI cable?
> 
> That is TRUE HD ! ! !


It's also a true waste of money, but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## henryld (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:



> It's also a true waste of money, but that's neither here nor there.


:hurah: :grin: :hurah: :lol:


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

Half the crap that I buy is a waste of money, but it is fun stuff to play with


----------



## caimakale (Oct 31, 2006)

tsmithfd said:


> TV via a $150.00 monster HDMI cable?


It would have look just as good with a $15.00 cable. The hype that monster has built it's name on doesn't matter much when you are talking about a digital signal like that of HDMI.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

tsmithfd said:


> I would not say any of it is crap, It is better than standard digital. But lets be honest here... have any of you seen a Blu-Ray player connected to a samsung 61 inch DLP, 1080p TV via a $150.00 monster HDMI cable?
> 
> That is TRUE HD ! ! !
> 
> Everything else is ok


No, but I saw a great 1080P movie with a $6.95 monoprice HDMI cable.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It's also a true waste of money, but that's neither here nor there.


Monoprice - $5
Monster - $80 :eek2:

Hmmmm?


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

Thats what I tried telling my friend before he purchaed it. Its all digital...


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Do you have HD locals? Do you consider them to be crap?


I really can easily see the difference in detail. If the new channels are anything less than 1920x1080 I'm going to join the class action suit against them for HD Lite because I just won't stand for that. I would rather 50 HD channels in full High Definition than 200 in HD Lite. I've seen Fios HD in full 1920x1080 and it looks the way it should....not HD Lite. Thats just me though. If it doesn't bother you guys then thats good for you all but in my opinion and preference I think its wrong to take from the picture and still call it 1080i HD and I think 1920x1080 looks substantially better than 1280x1080 or for that matter even 1440x1080,but again thats just one mans opinion


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Jeremy, I guess I was a little taken back that this new high tech satellite only has 16 national transponders, I was under the impression that they both had 32 for a total of 64. I don't understand why D* wouldn't get as much transponder space as possible to bring us true full HD resolution, 1920x1080. To me, and many others on here, that is true HD.

D* is saying that they can give us up to 150 national HD channels, but thats between 2 satellites, D10 and D11. 150 divided by 2 is 75, 75 divided by 16 comes out to about 4.68, I guess they could do 4 to 5 channels per transponder and get away with it?

Of course if every channel goes HD then they might run into a problem.

Thanks again for the info.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

tsmithfd said:


> I would not say any of it is crap, It is better than standard digital. But lets be honest here... have any of you seen a Blu-Ray player connected to a samsung 61 inch DLP, 1080p TV via a $150.00 monster HDMI cable?
> 
> That is TRUE HD ! ! !
> 
> Everything else is ok





Jeremy W said:


> It's also a true waste of money, but that's neither here nor there.





caimakale said:


> It would have look just as good with a $15.00 cable. The hype that monster has built it's name on doesn't matter much when you are talking about a digital signal like that of HDMI.





davring said:


> No, but I saw a great 1080P movie with a $6.95 monoprice HDMI cable.





Sirshagg said:


> Monoprice - $5
> Monster - $80 :eek2:
> 
> Hmmmm?


Man, I knew once I read that Monster Cable comment that it was going to stir the hornets nest a little.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> I would rather have 100 full HD channels instead of 150 HD Lite channels any day!


I would just like to see my Steelers look like they are not melting into molten metal:flaiming !


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

theratpatrol said:


> I don't understand why D* wouldn't get as much transponder space as possible


They are using as much space as possible. The number of transponders does not directly correlate to the amount of spectrum they're using. If they were using 32 transponders on each satellite, they would actually have less true capacity due to the overhead introduced by each transponder.


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> Man, I knew once I read that Monster Cable comment that it was going to stir the hornets nest a little.


I agree. I have messed with monster cables and the bargain basket 15 dollar ones and performance wise their is no difference but as for longevity (how long they last) I don't know. They claim because their triple gold plated with diamond in-crested handles etc. they will maintain high performance for longer,but I don't buy that one bit.


----------



## bigref (Sep 11, 2007)

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


----------



## Baldmaga (Sep 1, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


The Components that came out of my HR20 box were 3x better than the 50 dollar cables I bought for my H20.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

AlanSaysYo said:


> I'm starting to think the new HD rollout is perpetually 4-5 days from whenever "now" is.
> 
> Add me to the "wake me up when it happens" camp. I'm sick of half-believing any of these dates.


DITTO!


----------



## StuartK (Sep 15, 2007)

There is a chart at the dbsforum site that shows 48 transponders each at 99, 101 and 103. 4* 144 would be 576 channels. Many of those are local and that space is probably used for other services like internet access.

Is this chart on that site correct.


----------



## bigref (Sep 11, 2007)

Baldmaga said:


> The Components that came out of my HR20 box were 3x better than the 50 dollar cables I bought for my H20.


I doubt that! Try buying a AudioQuest video cable that is mostly silver content.


----------



## ghostdog (Jul 6, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


 It "may" hold up longer but will not improve the quality of the picture.
To each his own.


----------



## bigref (Sep 11, 2007)

Some people haven't a clue!:nono:


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


This is a topic for a different (or new) thread, but I think you will find that you are in the vast minority on this topic. This has been debated ad nauseum, and the general consensus (among posters and experts) is that Monster cables and the like are a total waste of money. You can buy an equal quality cable for 1/10th of the price w/o sacrificing any picture/audio quality. This is true for everything from speaker wire to HDMI cables.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> Man, I knew once I read that Monster Cable comment that it was going to stir the hornets nest a little.


OK can anybody anwser this? Do I need HDMI cable or just component cables? Component cables is what I am using and the HD picture is astounding on the 70 channels, the sound is not bad either.
My equip.....34"Panasonic 1080i Tau HD Tube TV 
Pioneer Dolby surround system.... not 5.1
H-20


----------



## RoundRockJohn (Apr 24, 2007)

ActiveHDdave said:


> OK can anybody anwser this? Do I need HDMI cable or just component cables? Component cables is what I am using and the HD picture is astounding on the 70 channels, the sound is not bad either.
> My equip.....34"Panasonic 1080i Tau HD Tube TV
> Pioneer Dolby surround system.... not 5.1
> H-20


If you're happy with what you have, then don't let anyone tell you don't like it. Use what you like, and that's all that should matter.


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


actually its been proven the more expensive cables are only really needed if you are running cables long distances. Standard 3-8 Ft cables have no diffrence at all in PQ and perform just as good as the expensive ones.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

bigref said:


> Some people haven't a clue!:nono:


I certainly won't argue with you on that one.


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


I have both monster and the cables that came with the HR20 and their is no visible difference. I have a KDS60a2020 and believe me its calibrated to the most optimal picture. Their is no difference at all to me and most agree.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> I have both monster and the cables that came with the HR20 and their is no visible difference. I have a KDS60a2020 and believe me its calibrated to the most optimal picture. Their is no difference at all to me and most agree.


That's exactly my point, there is no *visible* (or audible) difference. It _might_ be measurable on an oscilloscope, but not by the human eye (or ear).


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

drx792 said:


> actually its been proven the more expensive cables are only really needed if you are running cables long distances. Standard 3-8 Ft cables have no diffrence at all in PQ and perform just as good as the expensive ones.


I agree with your here but only if your running it over 15,20ft.


----------



## superfan1 (Sep 12, 2007)

ActiveHDdave said:


> OK can anybody anwser this? Do I need HDMI cable or just component cables? Component cables is what I am using and the HD picture is astounding on the 70 channels, the sound is not bad either.
> My equip.....34"Panasonic 1080i Tau HD Tube TV
> Pioneer Dolby surround system.... not 5.1
> H-20


Componet vs HDMI you still should be able to see a little better picture q 
with HDMI.

Did your TV not come with any HDMI cables?
Dont go out and buy and MDMI monster Cables... standerd ones will work just fine...


----------



## Shardin (Nov 26, 2006)

RoundRockJohn said:


> If you're happy with what you have, then don't let anyone tell you don't like it. Use what you like, and that's all that should matter.


+1 No need to get excited over the cable brand or price....geeez, we better get those channels going soon or people are going to freq out....


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

superfan1 said:


> Componet vs HDMI you still should be able to see a little better picture q
> with HDMI.
> 
> Did your TV not come with any HDMI cables?
> Dont go out and buy and MDMI moster Cables its a waist of money standerd ones will work just fine...


I rather HDMI over component there is a difference there in quality to me other than convenience but you should try both and see which one you like better,because it always comes down to your personal preference.


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

All this arguing about cables doesn't apply to HDMI, right? HDMI is a digital signal, right. So it doesn't matter what the cable is made of as long as the digital signal is not corrupt.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> I have both monster and the cables that came with the HR20 and their is no visible difference. I have a KDS60a2020 and believe me its calibrated to the most optimal picture. Their is no difference at all to me and most agree.


+1 I bought a $100 HDMI Monster Cable from Bestbuy with my TV (Hey I was new to HDTV) and to be honest I see no difference what-so-ever compared to the HDMI cable that came with my HR-20. Hey to each their own, I like the picture and since it's digital I really see even less of a reason expensive cables will be much better at 6ft. Go with what makes you happy, as I also think my $200 stereo is just perfect for me reach:


----------



## Hoxxx (Jun 19, 2004)

STEVEN-H said:


> Let's see there are 16 transponders available on 103. That would be a total of 64 channels. And Direct is saying 100 by year end without D11. Something does not add up.


this info comes from a pdf file I downloaded from ILS. it shows far more available space than what Directv shows now. so I am assuming they just need to get them all working.

here is the info.

Platform: Boeing 702. Boeing 702 accommodates
larger quantity of transponders and boasts
the most advanced performance characteristics
among Boeing-manufactured spacecraft.
Payload: The powerful payload integrates 32 active
and 12 spare National Service Ka-band Traveling
Wave Tube Amplifier (TWTAs) in addition to 55
active and 15 spare spot beam TWTAs. Рowered
by a massive solar array that spans more than 48
meters consisting of ultra triple-junction gallium
arsenide solar cells. DIRECTV 10 will receive and
transmit programming with 11 Ka-band reflectors.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Barmat said:


> All this arguing about cables doesn't apply to HDMI, right? HDMI is a digital signal, right. So it doesn't matter what the cable is made of as long as the digital signal is not corrupt.


You'll hear people argue otherwise, but you are correct. Would your printer print better with an expensive USB cable? As long as the cable is in tact and of any quality at all, no difference between a $7 monoprice cable and a $100 Monster cable. In fact, if you compare them, they look identical.


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> You'll hear people argue otherwise, but you are correct. Would your printer printer better with an expensive USB cable? As long as the cable is in tact and of any quality at all, no difference between a $7 monoprice cable and a $100 Monster cable. In fact, if you compare them, they look identical.


Thats a perfect example.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

HDMI is a digital signal, it doesn't matter if the cable cost $1.00 or $1000 dollars. It'll be the same picture quality. It either works or it doesn't. This isn't rocket science!


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

StuartK said:


> There is a chart at the dbsforum site that shows 48 transponders each at 99, 101 and 103. 4* 144 would be 576 channels. Many of those are local and that space is probably used for other services like internet access.
> 
> Is this chart on that site correct.


It is, if each Ka transponder has the same bandwidth as the Ku transponders at 101/110/119.

However, DirecTV has been using wider channels on Ka (and, according to some reports, variable width). As a result, there will likely be 24 transponder channels at 99 and 103 - 14 CONUS and 10 spotbeams, split between Directv-10 and 11, and Spaceway 1 and 2.

DirecTV owns ALL the Ka capacity at both 99 and 103 (and all the Ka at 101 as well). Each Ka slot has about 33% more bandwidth than a Ku slot. Add in 8PSK modulation, and you get another 50% more bits per second.

If you don't what 8PSK is, don't worry. Bottom line is that a Ka slot can deliver up to twice as much digital data to any spot in the country as a Ku slot ( 33% more thanks to more bandwidth = 133% plus 50% improvment due to 8PSK: 1.33 + (1.33 * .5) = 1.995, or 199.5%). And DirecTV has 2 FULL slots....they only have about 1.5 Ku Slots (all of 101, and parts of 110/119). Plus, should they ever want to, they have 101 Ka to use as well.


----------



## gonzlobo (Jul 4, 2006)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


LOL! Another victim of m*nster cables.


----------



## tomcat11 (Aug 5, 2006)

I choose Pure AV Silver Series cables, they are reasonably priced and the quality is excellent. HDMI, Optical Audio, and many others are availible. That Monster stuff is all hype:eek2:


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Are we talking about Monster and non-Monster cables coming out on Tuesday or Wednesday? I didn't think so.

:backtotop


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

Directvlover said:


> Are there even 150 networks broadcasting in HD?


Yes there are well over 150 HD. To see the list of current HD satellite channels go to:

http://www.lyngsat.com/hd/index.html

Click on each HD satellite and add up the channels. It is an amazing list.

In the next 12 months every channel will make a decision:

Evolve or die.

There will be channels who evolve too late and will be left out of the 150.

And no one will remember who they were.

- Craig


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> Thats a perfect example.


Thanks, I've been waiting all month to use it. 

And now, I'm off to bed, saving my 1000th post for tomorrow.


----------



## tomcat11 (Aug 5, 2006)

purtman said:


> Are we talking about Monster and non-Monster cables coming out on Tuesday or Wednesday? I didn't think so.
> 
> :backtotop


Yes we are.............. were talking about actually using those cables. Tues or whenever...........this HD prediction @#$%^ is just flat worn out. 
Everyone will be able to complain about the new channels soon enough!:eek2:


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


In advance: :soapbox:

You know my only thing here is what if they are happy with their system? Does everyone need a 103" plasma tv and $20,000 A/V box?

If $2 hdmi makes you happy use it!!! If you got the cash to spare and really think the higher priced cables make your life better by all means use them, but please don't look down on someone who is saying their cables work for them. After all since Home Theater Systems are just that at home, shouldn't it be that person's choice on how they set it up? Is there some standard that we must all adhear to?

/ :soapbox:


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

HDMI cables are not created equal....if you are looking for 1440p

and to keep it on topic...

I don't foresee D10 transmitting in 1440p.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

This thread isn't about the new HD channels at all. Bummer!


----------



## glennb (Sep 21, 2006)

I've had it with being told - 
This day the HD channels will come online !!! Nope. Bummer..
The latest rumor is this day !! Nope. Bummer...
Now it's This day !! Nope. Bummer...


----------



## TermiNader (Jul 10, 2007)

I'll put my money on the 26th, no sooner.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

TermiNader said:


> I'll put my money on the 26th, no sooner.


I think the 26th is likely the new target date...and if money were involved, I'd put it there. But I'd like to see them beat that by a day or two...


----------



## teebeebee1 (Dec 11, 2006)

bwaldron said:


> I think the 26th is likely the new target date...and if money were involved, I'd put it there. But I'd like to see them beat that by a day or two...


Great and everyone will be playing Halo3 and ignore the big HD HGTV marathon!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but your statement is generalistic and incorrect. _Some _cheap cables *are *as good as expensive ones, and that's a fact.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

teebeebee1 said:


> Great and everyone will be playing Halo3 and ignore the big HD HGTV marathon!


I told my family as long as they don't launch on the same day as Halo 3 I'm happy. I have a feeling it's going to happen that way.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

generalpatton78 said:


> I told my family as long as they don't launch on the same day as Halo 3 I'm happy. I have a feeling it's going to happen that way.


It's looking like the channels will be launching at 6AM Wednesday morning. That's a good 30 hours after Halo 3 launches.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but your statement is generalistic and incorrect. _Some _cheap cables *are *as good as expensive ones, and that's a fact.


this is true... my company has a shipment of HDMI 1.3 category 2 cables on the way... and i can promise you they are just as good as any monster cable on the market and cost 1/10 of the price... and for any that have a "THX" rating or approval on them... it's all about the benjamins...


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable.


I have some ocean front property for sale in Arizona... Please PM me for details..


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> It's looking like the channels will be launching at 6AM Wednesday morning. That's a good 30 hours after Halo 3 launches.


That was 2 days ago, I still don't see any new channels.......OH wait, you mean next Wednesday.......sorry!  :hurah:


----------



## EaglePC (Apr 15, 2007)

as i read ,don't know why i would really go there to read stuff

http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv-hd-discussions/108108-what-we-hearing.html

i see it states It appears the new channels may not appear until Tuesday or Wednesday 
I do see a date maybe he was talking abuot 9/18 19.

in my opinion and Eagle is wrong all the time 
I say 2 things now.

1.its anytime now as i am writing to sept30th/2007
2. maybe FCC has to see there new HD programming.

EaglePC for President


----------



## setiamon (Sep 13, 2007)

Frack the FCC and Frack the Frackin Cylons


----------



## coit (Feb 13, 2007)

As long as they can't seem to make half of peoples boxes even receive the test channels properly, it seems that the HD rollout is no where near.

I predict none in September, given Earl's 480/481/498 test post and its feedback.


----------



## bigref (Sep 11, 2007)

Well Trust me, I DO know what I am talking about. And Never, ONCE, did I mention Monster. A cable with silver content, will win any day. You are correct, some what with HDMI. When you talk about digital audio, Optical, or Coax, if the cable is not up to stuff, you can have jitter and timing issues, which WILL affect the sound of your audio.

Not putting any one down. If you are happy with that $200 Receiver, then by all means, please don't switch. I have been lucky enough over the years to buy some top flight audio equipment to go into the theater. That is my hobby. 

Well getting ready to go out and make some calls on the football field that will make some more people unhappy I guess. Not sure if our local game is HD or not today. First time this TV package is in the stadium I am working today.

Well to stay on topic, no HD today here.

PS. Not interested in the land, would rather buy a cable! :lol:


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

Here is the latest from a CSR at direct tv HD forum.


Response (John B) 09/21/2007 06:58 AM
Dear Mr. Snyder,

Thank you for writing. I personally reviewed your account, and would like to thank you for being a loyal, valued customer. We’re excited about our upcoming expansion of our HD programming. Among the first channels to expect are A&E HD, Cinemax HD East & West, The History Channel HD, Starz HD East & West, TBS HD, which we look forward to bringing you. Many of the new channels coming this fall will be available for the first time anywhere on DIRECTV exclusively for our customers.

Right now, we’re making sure customers have the proper equipment in place to see these new channels. As we make the final preparations for each of our new HD channels, to ensure that your viewing experience with the new HD programming continues to meet our high quality standards when the first set of these new channels are activated, please go to directv.com/hdcheck to confirm that you’ve got the right equipment.

We expect the first of our new HD channels to begin appearing as early as next week, with additional channels to follow later this fall and winter. Stay tuned to directv.com/hd as your source for more info as it becomes available.

Thank you for your patience and understanding


Sincerely,

John B. U6003
DIRECTV Customer Service


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

bigref said:


> Well Trust me, I DO know what I am talking about. And Never, ONCE, did I mention Monster. A cable with silver content, will win any day. You are correct, some what with HDMI. When you talk about digital audio, Optical, or Coax, if the cable is not up to stuff, you can have jitter and timing issues, which WILL affect the sound of your audio.
> 
> Not putting any one down. If you are happy with that $200 Receiver, then by all means, please don't switch. I have been lucky enough over the years to buy some top flight audio equipment to go into the theater. That is my hobby.
> 
> ...


Can I come over and watch the superbowl:bowdown:


----------



## bigref (Sep 11, 2007)

ActiveHDdave said:


> Can I come over and watch the superbowl:bowdown:


Sure!:joy:


----------



## Scott Farkis (Sep 8, 2007)

Correct me if i am wrong, but there cannot be too much extra bandwith floating around or D* wouldn't have to shut down TNT to carry Sunday ticket


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Scott Farkis said:


> Correct me if i am wrong, but there cannot be too much extra bandwith floating around or D* wouldn't have to shut down TNT to carry Sunday ticket


Did you read all of the posts in this thread? That was mentioned, oh maybe 11 times.


----------



## cdavis0720 (Jun 25, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Did you read all of the posts in this thread? That was mentioned, oh maybe 11 times.


Congrats on # 1000!!!!!!

Enjoy your always insightful posts!

Carl


----------



## colebert (Aug 20, 2007)

premises: 

1. not all channels are 1080i
2. some are 720p (ESPN)
3. 1080i requires higher bandwidth than 720p

conclusion: Perhaps the 4:1 ratio only pertains to 1080i channels.


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

colebert said:


> premises:
> 
> 1. not all channels are 1080i
> 2. some are 720p (ESPN)
> ...


and I suspect all of ABC/Disney will be 720.

I would also see that the 64 new plus the 10 existing would be the 70+ HD

The possibility exists that they could short change some channels to give full versions of others.

Finally, I would suggest that most people are not going to see the difference between the various "HD LITE" versions in the short term. Most of us don't have the 108" 1080P monitors. For early HD adopters, the limitations are likely in their TV's. Not saying it doesn't stink that they are shortchanging some, but the difference in PQ is, for most people, marketing. It is like wine, most of us can tell the difference between mad dog and a $12 bottle of wine. But the difference between $12 and $50 escapes most pallets.

I bet some of you video freaks are going to wish you had my uncorrected astigmatism.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

oldfantom said:


> and I suspect all of ABC/Disney will be 720.
> 
> I would also see that the 64 new plus the 10 existing would be the 70+ HD
> 
> The possibility exists that they could short change some channels to give full versions of others.


The one flaw I see in your reasoning is that they plan to simulcast the current MPEG2 channels on MPEG4. So you can't add today's HD lineup to the proposed availability of 64 channels to get over 70.


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> The one flaw I see in your reasoning is that they plan to simulcast the current MPEG2 channels on MPEG4. So you can't add today's HD lineup to the proposed availability of 64 channels to get over 70.


As fluid as this process seems right now, I am not sure we can say that they will simulcast, or that they will only get 4 per. Or that they will go full res. To sort out fact from proposed fact from fiction is getting tough. I have been reading these post so long I can't recall who said what and the source of that speculation.

Frankly, I am sure I won't care one way or another. I have never believed that content will match capacity this year anyhow. It all smacks a little of the 90's internet hype. Everyone had to rush to get web site even if they had no real business need.

I am waiting with baited breathe for the announcement of C-SPANHD and C-SPAN2HD. Robert Byrd turning slowly to dust in glorious 1080i!!! :eek2:

(as promised in earlier posts - the bit about Byrd in 1080i is sarcasm)


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> The one flaw I see in your reasoning is that they plan to simulcast the current MPEG2 channels on MPEG4. So you can't add today's HD lineup to the proposed availability of 64 channels to get over 70.


With all the current HD RSN's, aren't there now more than 10 existing HD channels?

Or are the RSN's being included in the 64 channels, in the above example?

/steve


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Steve said:


> With all the current HD RSN's, aren't there now more than 10 existing HD channels?
> 
> Or are the RSN's being included in the 64 channels, in the above example?
> 
> /steve


Until an RSN goes national, it cannot be counted. According to D*, there are 13 current HD channels, including the 4 major networks.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I just found this thread... just a note on the original topic: All rumors, all "according to CSRs" etc. are just rumors. How will you know when the new HDs come on line? You'll read it here, or you'll see them on your TV.


----------



## mirwin101 (Oct 9, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> I certainly won't argue with you on that one.


I knew someone wouldn't be able to resist.... :lol:


----------



## Bathel (Aug 18, 2007)

colebert said:


> premises:
> 3. 1080i requires higher bandwidth than 720p


Please help me understnad this.

1080i is Interlaced... so isn't really only sending 540 lines at a pop (even, odd lines). Yes 1080i ends up with a little better resolution as the TV holds back the first frame and combines it with the second frame, but wouldn't 720p require a higher bandwidth or at least about the same bandwith as it's sending a full 720 lines of data at a pop?


----------



## MiamiPhins (May 28, 2007)

I highly doubt they will roll out the new HD's anytime soon with all of these problems with channel 498. Sorry to burst everybody's bubble. I think these are some serious issues with the receivers that hopefully they can patch with software however if there are hardware problems with the MPEG4 decoder chips then this could be a disaster for D*. I'm only speculating based on what I've read from other posts that the issue may be related to MPEG 4.


----------



## mirwin101 (Oct 9, 2006)

Bathel said:


> Please help me understnad this.
> 
> 1080i is Interlaced... so isn't really only sending 540 lines at a pop (even, odd lines). Yes 1080i ends up with a little better resolution as the TV holds back the first frame and combines it with the second frame, but wouldn't 720p require a higher bandwidth or at least about the same bandwith as it's sending a full 720 lines of data at a pop?


I believe 1080i has 1920 pixels per line, while 720p has 1280 pixels per line...


----------



## alwayscool (Sep 24, 2006)

All you people speculating about how many HD channels D* can fit on the sats is crazy. Do you really think they didn't calculate this in advance before saying 100 new HD channels? LOL :nono2:

Also they said by the end of september which is 8 more days away. If we don't have any new HD channels by October 1, then we can kick and scream. Until then we can go fishing.


----------



## drisner (Jun 8, 2007)

Bathel said:


> Please help me understnad this.
> 
> 1080i is Interlaced... so isn't really only sending 540 lines at a pop (even, odd lines). Yes 1080i ends up with a little better resolution as the TV holds back the first frame and combines it with the second frame, but wouldn't 720p require a higher bandwidth or at least about the same bandwith as it's sending a full 720 lines of data at a pop?


"True" 1080i has more data per row, so you would still need more bandwidth. I also believe, but could be wrong, that the frame rate on interlaced is faster than on progressive so you are talking more like four frames of progressive per five frames of interlaced.

But you are right in thinking that 1080i is much less bandwidth that 1080p.


----------



## Bathel (Aug 18, 2007)

drisner said:


> "True" 1080i has more data per row, so you would still need more bandwidth. I also believe, but could be wrong, that the frame rate on interlaced is faster than on progressive so you are talking more like four frames of progressive per five frames of interlaced.
> 
> But you are right in thinking that 1080i is much less bandwidth that 1080p.


Thank you ... I hadn't done the math.

1920x1080x30 vs 1280x720x60

The 1080i/(30 frames) does have a bit more bandwidth required than the 720p/(60 frames). Somehow in my mind it didn't seem to... I had to pull out the calculator.

The questing I have now is .... is most 1080i sent at 30 fps or 24 fps? If at 24 fps, it would require less bandwidth and wouldn't the 24 fps be better for the deinterlacer? .... Never minde on that 24fps, I was thinking 1080p broadcast to convert to 1080i/30.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

drisner said:


> But you are right in thinking that 1080i is much less bandwidth that 1080p.


Which is moot, because no one is broadcasting 1080p.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

MiamiPhins said:


> I highly doubt they will roll out the new HD's anytime soon with all of these problems with channel 498. Sorry to burst everybody's bubble. I think these are some serious issues with the receivers that hopefully they can patch with software however if there are hardware problems with the MPEG4 decoder chips then this could be a disaster for D*. I'm only speculating based on what I've read from other posts that the issue may be related to MPEG 4.


Lots of people are currently viewing MPEG4 chanels today without any issues. I don't think any of this has anything to do with MPEG4. I still believe that we will have a bunch of new channles by the end of next week.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Bathel said:


> Thank you ... I hadn't done the math.
> 
> 1920x1080x30 vs 1280x720x60
> 
> ...


Which is why 1080i is often sent by the carrier (be it D*, E*, etc) at 1440x1080. That puts its bandwidth requirement at just under that of 720p.


----------



## byron (Nov 15, 2004)

anyone have any tips on what channels will be put up there this week? I'm especially anxious about the possibility of FSNNY-HD and MSGHD. Any chance of those being available?


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

byron said:


> anyone have any tips on what channels will be put up there this week? I'm especially anxious about the possibility of FSNNY-HD and MSGHD. Any chance of those being available?


I believe I've seen posts mentioning those as a part of the new HD rollout, but I have yet to see anything official. I wouldn't be surprised if we got 1 or both of those before years end, but don't hold your breath.


----------



## kuntakintay (Oct 18, 2006)

oldfantom said:


> Finally, I would suggest that most people are not going to see the difference between the various "HD LITE" versions in the short term. Most of us don't have the 108" 1080P monitors.


I can tell the difference between the standard NBC HD OTA quality and The HD LITE NBC HD OTS channel, especially during sporting events. I have a 2 year old 62" Samsung 1080i DLP, definitely not cutting edge. There is a difference...


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

kuntakintay said:


> I can tell the difference between the standard NBC HD OTA quality and The HD LITE NBC HD OTS channel, especially during sporting events. I have a 2 year old 62" Samsung 1080i DLP, definitely not cutting edge. There is a difference...


As I say, I have no doubt you and others can see the difference. Of course, unless we do blind tests - so to speak - there is no way to know where the threshold is for each viewer on various equipment. Anyway, I guess I should heed the spirit of the mod's post a couple back - it is all just some interesting diversionary chatter before the event happens. We will all see what we see when we see it, see?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Spaceway 1 & 2 were initially planned to do some CONUS channels, but testing indicated that it took too much power to do it. That's why they haven't been used in that capacity.


Actually, I don't think that SpaceWay 1 & 2 were ever initially planned to do some CONUS channels, though it appeared that DirecTV DID consider it.



tsmithfd said:


> 2. DO you think that the total amount of channels they will carry by the end of the year will be 100, if so, you think this will include the ones we already have in mpeg2?


It is my understanding that the "100" number does count the current HD channels.



Directvlover said:


> Are there even 150 networks broadcasting in HD?


Some time ago, someone posted on AVSForum that they worked for a network group, and that DirecTV told them that if they didn't start up some HD channels, DirecTV would drop their SD channels.

Whether or not the poster mentioned above was on the up and up, I don't know (and the above sounds almost absurd), but what is known is that DirecTV has been ACTIVELY getting networks to upgrade to HD. Of the HD channels known to be coming to DirecTV, most of them caught people unaware of their intent to upgrade to HD until DirecTV mentioned them. DirecTV has said they're in negotiations with other networks... and there aren't many of them currently available or announced that DirecTV doesn't have, so expect more to be announced soon.



hilmar2k said:


> So why is it that you are saying that we will be limited to 64 channels? Can't the additional come from currently available bandwidth? Am I missing something?


As it has been stated many times since you asked this question, there simply isn't any currently available bandwith... hence why DirecTV hasn't been adding any HD channels over the last couple of years (outside HD-LIL).



Titan25 said:


> It is, if each Ka transponder has the same bandwidth as the Ku transponders at 101/110/119.
> 
> However, DirecTV has been using wider channels on Ka (and, according to some reports, variable width). As a result, there will likely be 24 transponder channels at 99 and 103 - 14 CONUS and 10 spotbeams, split between Directv-10 and 11, and Spaceway 1 and 2.
> 
> ...


BRAVO Titan25, the best post on this thread!!

I like Scott G., but I believe his "source" may be a little confused. Tandberg has tested 8 FULL RESOLUTION MPEG4 HD channels using 8PSK on a 36 mhz transponder (like D10 and D11)... and that was last year. I've read that DirecTV will be using different encoders on the national channels (so I don't know if they are still using Tandberg encoders, or just newer encoders, possibly the ones I mentioned above), but even if they are using another company's encoders, which may or may not be better than Tandberg, I still think 4 is too ridiculous a number to even consider at this time given Tandberg's ability to offer 8...

~Alan


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I like Scott G., but I believe his "source" may be a little confused. Tandberg has tested 8 FULL RESOLUTION MPEG4 HD channels using 8PSK on a 36 mhz transponder (like D10 and D11)... and that was last year. I've read that DirecTV will be using different encoders on the national channels (so I don't know if they are still using Tandberg encoders, or just newer encoders, possibly the ones I mentioned above), but even if they are using another company's encoders, which may or may not be better than Tandberg, I still think 4 is too ridiculous a number to even consider at this time given Tandberg's ability to offer 8...
> 
> ~Alan


So what I am getting out of this is that we should not be concerned about a limited amount of bandwidth available, or receiving less than full resolution channels when the new HD launches? Is my math correct that, based on that info, D10 should have capacity for 112 full resolution channels (14x8)?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hilmar2k said:


> So what I am getting out of this is that we should not be concerned about a limited amount of bandwidth available, or receiving less than full resolution channels when the new HD launches? Is my math correct that, based on that info, D10 should have capacity for 112 full resolution channels (14x8)?


It's possible that they could have more.

1. The Tandberg encoders mentioned above announced the 8 FULL RESOLUTION HD channels more than a year ago. It's possible that they could have refined them more.

2. If DirecTV is using another company's encoder, it's possible that they have been able to fit more, but we're not aware of it.

3. What does 8 FULL RESOLUTION HD channels mean? Are all of them 1080i? If so, mix in some 720p channels and you could fit more on a transponder.

But it's possible that they have less:

1. Some people are saying that DirecTV is using different encoders than they use for the local HD channels... so it's possible that it can't fit 8, but I'd still say at least 6... given Tandberg's ability.

2. We don't know how much FEC was used when fitting 8 FULL RESOLUTION HD channels on the transponder. DirecTV could want to use more... but I'm still going to say 6 for a minimum maximum amount of FULL RESOLUTION HD.

It's possible! That's all I'm saying...

~Alan


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

DirecTV is using Harmonic DiviCom Electra 7000 encoders for the new HD channels.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV is using Harmonic DiviCom Electra 7000 encoders for the new HD channels.


Ohhhhh, Harmonic DiviCom Electra 7000 encoders!! Why didn't you just say so?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Ohhhhh, Harmonic DiviCom Electra 7000 encoders!! Why didn't you just say so?


Yeah, it's quite a mouth full.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV is using Harmonic DiviCom Electra 7000 encoders for the new HD channels.


According to the Harmonic's website:



> For instance, the Electra 7000's advanced compression tools make 5-6 HD services per 8PSK transponder a reality.


Unfortunately, that tells us nothing about whether or not it's full resolution, or what size transponder they are talking about... unlike Tandberg's.

So... maybe I'm wrong...

For anybody with better technological understanding than I, check out:
Harmonic Inc.

~Alan


----------



## tnedator (Apr 29, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> The one flaw I see in your reasoning is that they plan to simulcast the current MPEG2 channels on MPEG4. So you can't add today's HD lineup to the proposed availability of 64 channels to get over 70.


Why would they sumulcast the existing MPEG2 channels on MPEG4? That seems like a total waste of bandwidth.


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

tnedator said:


> Why would they sumulcast the existing MPEG2 channels on MPEG4? That seems like a total waste of bandwidth.


because eventually that MPEG2 will be no more. And it means that people with MPEG4 can see TNT HD on sundays with ST now goin.


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

BreezeCJ said:


> I just saw this over at SatelliteGuys.us :
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv-hd-discussions/108108-what-we-hearing.html
> 
> ...


If you are going to quote something quote the whole thing. Because when it doesnt happen you or others are going to point to this and are going to run around calling Scott a liar.
_
First off... *Everything you read here should be considered a RUMOR *until you see it yourself... And I think you are going to like what you see.

Second... this information is made up of not only information I found out myself through my contacts but is also made up from information that other staff members have found and reported in our staff area. The information has been compiled together (and a lot of it matches from all of our sources)

So here we go..._

I see the crap has already started:



rabi said:


> relax....this is all from Scott...
> 
> who knows what the truth is...


----------



## vertigo235 (Mar 18, 2007)

tnedator said:


> Why would they sumulcast the existing MPEG2 channels on MPEG4? That seems like a total waste of bandwidth.


MPEG4 should be better quality


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

tnedator said:


> Why would they sumulcast the existing MPEG2 channels on MPEG4? That seems like a total waste of bandwidth.


1. Get people used to the future channel numbers. Someone posted a list from a DirecTV magazine showing HBO-HD listed on MPEG2 channel numbers (70, 509) and 501... seperately from each other. I would just assume that it's another "virtual channel" except for 501 being listed seperately from the other two. The same goes for the rest of the MPEG2 simulcast channels (Showtime, ESPN, ESPN2, TNT) except for HD-DNS and the channels in the 90s.

2. Higher quality channels. DirecTV downrezzes current MPEG2 HD channels, so providing better quality channels could better their service.

3. DirecTV could advertise that that their HD-DVR holds 50 hours of satellite-delivered HD content instead of just some HD content.

If I were DirecTV, I would block access on MPEG4 receivers to the MPEG2 HD channels after the MPEG4 ones were available.

Depending on how they do it, DirecTV shouldn't have a problem with the bandwith to simulcast ten HD channels.

~Alan


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

rabi said:


> relax....this is all from Scott...
> 
> who knows what the truth is...


You guys really should get a life and quit ragging on people who post updates on other sites before this rag gets them.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

elwaylite said:


> You guys really should get a life and quit ragging on people who post updates on other sites before this rag gets them.


You should get a life and stop posting on sites you consider to be rags.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

With HDNet and its movie channel only available in MPEG2 and no concurrent SD version, what will happen to it when they go MPEG4?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

seern said:


> With HDNet and its movie channel only available in MPEG2 and no concurrent SD version, what will happen to it when they go MPEG4?


For a while it will be simulcast in both MPEG2 and MPEG4. Eventually, the MPEG2 version will go away. Obviously D* wants everyone to upgrade to an MPEG4 box.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

seern said:


> With HDNet and its movie channel only available in MPEG2 and no concurrent SD version, what will happen to it when they go MPEG4?


They will both disappear into the Twilight Zone:lol: :lol: :lol: :nono2: :nono2:


----------



## TMar (Sep 2, 2007)

Last time I check anything over 480 is HD. 720 (1280x720) is HD, so how is 1440x1080 HD lite? This all comes down to individuals definitions of what HD is. Personally I'll take a good 720p over an 1080i any day.


----------



## shellnc (Sep 23, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> For a while it will be simulcast in both MPEG2 and MPEG4. Eventually, the MPEG2 version will go away. Obviously D* wants everyone to upgrade to an MPEG4 box.


Newbie here. I have the HR20 upstairs and the HR10 downstairs. I just can't see Directv shutting out HR10 users for a good long while. They basically gave me the HR20 a month ago because I have Sunday Ticket and Superfan. I will be POed if they shut off the 70's channels and I get nothing from my HR10.

I'm sure at some point that they will want me to do a trade in, but I own the HR10 and I have to pay a lease fee on the HR20. Basically what I paid $500 for just 2 years ago will be rendered obsolete.

I prefer the tivo system of the HR10, but I don't mind the DVR functions of the HR20. I hate the fact that there isn't a second cache on the HR20. The HR10 sure does run a lot cooler than the HR20.

I just can't see Dtv giving me another HR20 for a while. You can't tell me that they have enough produced to just trade them to all of the HR10 owners and HR10 owners aren't going to want to lose all of their HD just because of this changeover. The HR10 users have been loyal to Dtv, they shouldn't be discarded without thought of this.


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

shellnc said:


> Newbie here. I have the HR20 upstairs and the HR10 downstairs. I just can't see Directv shutting out HR10 users for a good long while. They basically gave me the HR20 a month ago because I have Sunday Ticket and Superfan. I will be POed if they shut off the 70's channels and I get nothing from my HR10.
> 
> I'm sure at some point that they will want me to do a trade in, but I own the HR10 and I have to pay a lease fee on the HR20. Basically what I paid $500 for just 2 years ago will be rendered obsolete.
> 
> ...


well IIRC D* said that all HD would be moving to MPEG4 a long while ago, its a fact that the MPEG2 HD will be shut off for the bandwidth sometime next year. My personal prediction is like around April.


----------



## TARDIS (Sep 5, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> For a while it will be simulcast in both MPEG2 and MPEG4. Eventually, the MPEG2 version will go away. Obviously D* wants everyone to upgrade to an MPEG4 box.


Out of curiousity, as they eventually do away with the MPEG2 HD channels won't that free up more BW? Would they try to improve the quality of SD channels with the extra? Just curious.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

TARDIS said:


> Out of curiousity, as they eventually do away with the MPEG2 HD channels won't that free up more BW? Would they try to improve the quality of SD channels with the extra? Just curious.


It certainly would/will free up bandwidth. What they will do with it I have no idea. Hopefully you're right and they'll increase their SD quality.


----------



## BobbyK (May 26, 2007)

Thats just the way it goes. I paid $700 for my first HD stb, RCA DTC-100. I paid 
1k for a Sony HD 100, $900 for a HD200, $700 for a HD300 and 1k for a tivo and none of them will work with D10.


----------



## Capt.Spaulding (Sep 20, 2007)

i don't know if this has been said, but my wife called D* today because our HDTV took a crap on us and died (long story...very upset), so she called D* to get the HD suspended for the time being (why pay for it if i cant use it....). Anyway, i said to her: "ask the lady (who incidentally turned out to be a man...and got mad because he heard me say "the lady") when the HD channels are going to be on and his response was "The letter i received says by the end of the month...."

Again, every CSR you talk to gives a different answer, so i thought i'd throw in the answer i received (albeit kind of vague).


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

shellnc, Welcome to DBSTalk, sir! :welcome_s



shellnc said:


> They basically gave me the HR20 a month ago because I have Sunday Ticket and Superfan. I will be POed if they shut off the 70's channels and I get nothing from my HR10.
> 
> I'm sure at some point that they will want me to do a trade in, but I own the HR10 and I have to pay a lease fee on the HR20. Basically what I paid $500 for just 2 years ago will be rendered obsolete.
> 
> I just can't see Dtv giving me another HR20 for a while. You can't tell me that they have enough produced to just trade them to all of the HR10 owners and HR10 owners aren't going to want to lose all of their HD just because of this changeover. The HR10 users have been loyal to Dtv, they shouldn't be discarded without thought of this.


When they gave you the HR20, did they consider it an "upgrade" on the HR10-250? When I did the mover's connection thing back in April, they "upgraded" my three HR10-250s with HR20s. I now have all of those (and more) active on my account, so even though this was considered an upgrade of my old HD MPEG2 equipment for new HD MPEG4, I was able to keep my old equipment (one of which I paid $1000 for just three years ago, so I feel your pain).

If that was, in fact, considered an upgrade of your HR10-250, you will not get another HR20 to replace it. If them giving you the HR20 had nothing to do with your HR10-250, then you may be able to upgrade it in the future, though it may not necessarily be free.

Oh, and by the way, that $4.99 a month you pay for the HR20? Owned, leased or whatever, they charge $4.99 a month for each box on your account after the first one, so if you had 2 HR10-250s instead of one of each, you'd still be paying $4.99 a month for the second box - it's a program mirroring fee. Your bill shows the charge as "Leased Receiver" because it is being charged on a leased receiver, not because it's an ongoing lease charge. If you owned the second receiver, it would show on your bill as an "Additional Receiver" charge. Symantics.

I will be keeping my HR10-250s until they die (which one just did a week ago - I now only have two) because they will still record OTA HD and because they still record SD - and they have quite a bit more capacity for SD recordings than a lot of their SD TiVos did. I'm operating under the assumption that sometime next year all HD recording I will do on my HD TiVos will strictly be OTA - all HD provided via satellite will be MPEG4. That's progress, I guess.


----------



## shellnc (Sep 23, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> shellnc, Welcome to DBSTalk, sir! :welcome_s
> 
> When they gave you the HR20, did they consider it an "upgrade" on the HR10-250? When I did the mover's connection thing back in April, they "upgraded" my three HR10-250s with HR20s. I now have all of those (and more) active on my account, so even though this was considered an upgrade of my old HD MPEG2 equipment for new HD MPEG4, I was able to keep my old equipment (one of which I paid $1000 for just three years ago, so I feel your pain).
> 
> ...


No. I told the lady that I had bought a new HDTV for upstairs and I wanted to be able to watch my NFL ST on it. I told her that I have had ST and SF for 2 years and I didn't want to pay $299 for the HR20. I agreed not to cancel it for 2 years and they agreed to give me the HR20 for free.

That is the way that it worked. That doesn't mean that they aren't going to somehow say that it was an upgrade. I'm going to wait and see how this all shakes out before trying to trade the HR10. I feel that they will probably be willing to do so in 6 months.

The way that I look at it, they are going to get their lease fee and HD fee anyway, no reason to charge an existing customer $300 when that customer just paid $500 2 years ago. JMHO


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

I say Wednesday since that when D* has rescheduled its marketing broadcast on Ch. 570.


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

tnedator said:


> Why would they sumulcast the existing MPEG2 channels on MPEG4? That seems like a total waste of bandwidth.


I agree. This is a mistake. I understand that desire in the long-term, but initially it makes no sense to duplicate already existing MPEG2 channels in MPEG4.

Save that for later after you have finished rolling out the new channels. I know as someone who can view MPEG4, I would much rather have it go that way.

I can get by with MPEG2 on that group of channels for a while longer. Duplicating them in the interim just wastes space.


----------



## borghe (Oct 6, 2006)

marksman said:


> but initially it makes no sense to duplicate already existing MPEG2 channels in MPEG4.


you guys act as if they are trying to squeeze an insurmountable number of channels into a very finite space. the truth of the matter is that with D10 right now, they have the capability for more HD channels than are available for carriage right now. so if that's the case, why wouldn't they simulcast the existing MPEG2 in MPEG4?

1) better picture quality for H20 and HR20 users
2) less space taken up for those recordings on the HR20

actually it makes MORE sense to duplicate them then to not duplicate them. It's not like it's taking up desperately needed bandwidth and especially for HR20 users there's a huge benefit.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (Apr 28, 2005)

The MPEG4 channels that start next week will be full HD, don't listen to anyone who tells you different They have no clue as to whats going to be broadcast next week they just like being the center of attension by telling you different.., I'm not saying it will last for a year or 2 but, It will be full HD next week. and you don't need to flame just wait and see. you may see a couple in the morning.


----------



## vertigo235 (Mar 18, 2007)

A waste of bandwidth would be not using it at all, which is what they would be doing if they didn't simulcast.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Fl_Gulfer said:


> The MPEG4 channels that start next week will be full HD, don't listen to anyone who tells you different They have no clue as to whats going to be broadcast next week they just like being the center of attension by telling you different.., I'm not saying it will last for a year or 2 but, It will be full HD next week. and you don't need to flame just wait and see. you may see a couple in the morning.


Tomorrow morning? I doubt that they would launch HD on Sunday, not with football.


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

borghe said:


> you guys act as if they are trying to squeeze an insurmountable number of channels into a very finite space. the truth of the matter is that with D10 right now, they have the capability for more HD channels than are available for carriage right now. so if that's the case, why wouldn't they simulcast the existing MPEG2 in MPEG4?
> 
> 1) better picture quality for H20 and HR20 users
> 2) less space taken up for those recordings on the HR20
> ...


Maybe I am wrong, I was under the understanding that MPEG4 is a new technology of compression that compresses the signal more, with little video quality loss, but still is a compressed image. I assume that MPEG2 would be less compression, so the video quality might be just a little better, but takes up more bandwidth.

Please tell me if I am wrong


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

tsmithfd said:


> Maybe I am wrong, I was under the understanding that MPEG4 is a new technology of compression that compresses the signal more, with little video quality loss, but still is a compressed image. I assume that MPEG2 would be less compression, so the video quality might be just a little better, but takes up more bandwidth.
> 
> Please tell me if I am wrong


You are wrong.


----------



## vertigo235 (Mar 18, 2007)

Yes you are wrong.

MPEG4 is really just a more efficient compression method.


----------



## vertigo235 (Mar 18, 2007)

Example, picture of equal visual quality.

MPEG4 might be ~10mb per second
where
MPEG2 would be ~15mb per second


----------



## tsmithfd (Jan 8, 2007)

Thanks for clearing it up for me,

So what you are saying is that mpeg4 is really just a better way to compress the file without loosiing any quaility?

Which also means it saves space on the DVR harddrive?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

drx792 said:


> well IIRC D* said that all HD would be moving to MPEG4 a long while ago, its a fact that the MPEG2 HD will be shut off for the bandwidth sometime next year. My personal prediction is like around April.


At CES in January, DIRECTV confirmed and reconfirmed that the transition would be as organic as possible. They want users to switch on their own time rather than DIRECTVs for a couple reasons including cost, equipment shortages, and installer shortages.

So it all boils down to how many accounts get the advanced HD receivers to replace the H10 and HR10s.

Your guess might be right. I'm expecting at CES this coming January they will announce some form of timeline, perhaps sooner.

The 100 new channels should get a log to people to switch very quickly. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

I would bet that people paying the HD fee who are only getting a portion of the channels available will quickly switch.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

marksman said:


> but initially it makes no sense to duplicate already existing MPEG2 channels in MPEG4.


Actually, I stated several reasons before why it makes great sense.



marksman said:


> I can get by with MPEG2 on that group of channels for a while longer. Duplicating them in the interim just wastes space.


As stated before, they would be wasting space by not duplicating them... as the space would most likely sit there unused...

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

tsmithfd said:


> Maybe I am wrong, I was under the understanding that MPEG4 is a new technology of compression that compresses the signal more, with little video quality loss, but still is a compressed image. I assume that MPEG2 would be less compression, so the video quality might be just a little better, but takes up more bandwidth.


It's not that is compresses the signal more, it's that it compresses it more efficiently.

For instance, OTA HD uses MPEG2 encoding and on 1080i channels, you can see a whole lot of macroblocking even using the maximum 19 mbps that OTA allows... yet some movies have been encoded on HD Media that have been encoded around 10 mbps using one of two forms of MPEG4.

There is some information lost with reencoding MPEG2 to MPEG4, but most people with HD-LIL from DirecTV have a hard time distinguishing between the two... so that's good.

Now, HBO intends on offering some HBO feeds pretty soon that are encoded in MPEG4 (I'm assuming to start with) which should allow EVEN MORE efficient compression... and could theoretically be some of the stronger HD channels available on satellite.

~Alan


----------



## vertigo235 (Mar 18, 2007)

tsmithfd said:


> Thanks for clearing it up for me,
> 
> So what you are saying is that mpeg4 is really just a better way to compress the file without loosiing any quaility?
> 
> Which also means it saves space on the DVR harddrive?


Yes saved space on hd, but to be fair we should say that it's a better way to compress the file without loosing *as much* quality. Any time you compress you loose something.


----------



## zipbags (Oct 14, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV is using Harmonic DiviCom Electra 7000 encoders for the new HD channels.


Is that part of the warp drive or the phaser banks?? :lol:


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> The 100 new channels should get a log to people to switch very quickly.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I should hope so we need those logs to spread HD penetration :lol:


----------



## John4924 (Mar 19, 2007)

FWIW, saw this story posted....

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6480808.html

And this post over at avsforum looks very promising [if accurate]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11700884&postcount=1360

In either case, I guess we shall see

*S O O N . . .*

Cheers,
John


----------



## EaglePC (Apr 15, 2007)

Fl_Gulfer said:


> The MPEG4 channels that start next week will be full HD, don't listen to anyone who tells you different They have no clue as to whats going to be broadcast next week they just like being the center of attension by telling you different.., I'm not saying it will last for a year or 2 but, It will be full HD next week. and you don't need to flame just wait and see. you may see a couple in the morning.


i am all with you on that 
you with me on this
In its press release last week, Smithsonian HD said it would debut "on or around Sept. 26" on DirecTV, while CNBC HD Plus said it would premiere on the satellite service in October.


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

John4924 said:


> FWIW, saw this story posted....
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6480808.html
> 
> ...


Well this sounds good news....


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (Apr 28, 2005)

I told you that you would see a couple in the morning it may have been 1 am and only for 3 hours but they were full res.


----------



## BreezeCJ (Jan 8, 2007)

Last night I was watching the UCLA v. Washington game on channel 647 (Fox Sports Midwest), and in the channel guide listing it was was showing the 'HD' icon along with 'High-Def' in the description. Alas, the show was still in SD.

A harbinger of things to come?


----------



## jburroughs (Jan 13, 2007)

BreezeCJ said:


> Last night I was watching the UCLA v. Washington game on channel 647 (Fox Sports Midwest), and in the channel guide listing it was was showing the 'HD' icon along with 'High-Def' in the description. Alas, the show was still in SD.
> 
> A harbinger of things to come?


This was either a guide error or a Fox Sports error. D* just retransmits what it receives. We will receive in HD whatever the provider sends out.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

BreezeCJ said:


> Last night I was watching the UCLA v. Washington game on channel 647 (Fox Sports Midwest), and in the channel guide listing it was was showing the 'HD' icon along with 'High-Def' in the description. Alas, the show was still in SD.
> 
> A harbinger of things to come?


It was on in HD on channel 94. Just a guide data issue. Those have been going on for a few years, actually, on some SD channels with HD counterparts.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (Apr 28, 2005)

They should be lighting up at 6 am Wed. 26


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

BreezeCJ said:


> Last night I was watching the UCLA v. Washington game on channel 647 (Fox Sports Midwest), and in the channel guide listing it was was showing the 'HD' icon along with 'High-Def' in the description. Alas, the show was still in SD.
> 
> A harbinger of things to come?


That game was on Channel 94 in HD.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

rabi said:


> relax....this is all from Scott...
> 
> who knows what the truth is...


So true, and who knows if he meant that yesterday, but freedom of speech allowed him to change that to something else today making what he says today more true than what he said yesterday. But oh well, integrity is not everyone's strong suit.


----------



## Keeska (Feb 10, 2007)

> 1080i at less than 1920x1080 = HD-Lite





Jeremy W said:


> I think that's a silly definition, but that's your choice.


Nothing silly about it. 1080i is, by definition 1920 x 1080. Anything less is, well, less or lite. That is the fact. No comment on how it looks but it is down-rez, not real HD so it needs a name. HD-lite is as good as any.


----------



## Keeska (Feb 10, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> I agree. I have messed with monster cables and the bargain basket 15 dollar ones and performance wise their is no difference but as for longevity (how long they last) I don't know. They claim because their triple gold plated with diamond in-crested handles etc. they will maintain high performance for longer,but I don't buy that one bit.


The *only* cables which have failed on me (other then the ones the cat bit through) have been Monster. Everything else from the bottom of the line Radio Shack up to real quality (at 1/10 the price of the Monster) have not failed for me.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

Keeska said:


> Nothing silly about it. 1080i is, by definition 1920 x 1080. Anything less is, well, less or lite. That is the fact. No comment on how it looks but it is down-rez, not real HD so it needs a name. HD-lite is as good as any.


Okay, so you have your definition. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Keeska (Feb 10, 2007)

luckydob said:


> Okay, so you have your definition. Take it or leave it.


It is not my definition. It is the industry standard 1080i. Read the spec if think it is mine. I do not see any down-rez 1080i HD mentioned but will gladly change my statement if you show me where I missed it.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

Keeska said:


> Nothing silly about it. 1080i is, by definition 1920 x 1080. Anything less is, well, less or lite. That is the fact. No comment on how it looks but it is down-rez, not real HD so it needs a name. HD-lite is as good as any.


Is 1280x720 HD for you? By definition this is HD. So D* HD is HD, not HD-Lite as you would call it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Standard_video_res.svg


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

luckydob said:


> Is 1280x720 HD for you?


Depends. If it is progressive, then yes.


----------



## Keeska (Feb 10, 2007)

luckydob said:


> Is 1280x720 HD for you? By definition this is HD. So D* HD is HD, not HD-Lite as you would call it.


It has nothing to do with me. 720p is 1280x720 pixels just like 1080i is 1920x1080 pixels.

I am assuming you are objecting to down-rez 1080i being called HD-Lite. I didn't invent this name and don't really care what people call it. Just don't try to pass it off as 1080i HD. If Dish or DirecTV down-rez'ed 720p to 1024x720 pixels that would be HD-Lite also. The point is information is being lost in the down-rez. There is no way you can maintain the same resolution using 1280 or 1440 or whatever pixels per line is being transmitted when the original source has 1920 per line.

Now if you didn't notice I specifically said I have no comment on the perceived quality of 1920x180 vs 1440x1080 vs 1280x1080. (I don't take sides in the 720p vs 1080i debate either.) Whether the difference between 1080i and HD-Lite can be seen or not depends on a lot of factors. But calling something 1080i HD when it is not is an error.

What term would you prefer instead of HD-Lite to describe down-rez 1080i HD?


----------



## tonyn (Aug 3, 2007)

What is wierd about all this rez talk is this: A huge number of people don't really care a lot about how sharp the picture can be. Just go to a movie and see how many people sit in the last rows, so far from the screen their eyeballs are getting little advantage from the great sharpness 35mm film provides. Also have you noticed how many viewers sit 8 to 10 feet back from a 42 inch Plasma? At that distance their visual acuity will not see the difference between 1024 pixels per horiz line and 1920 anyhow.

I am not one of those people. I sit in a theatre close eough to the screen so that the screen nearly fills my field of vision. At my 42in. Plasma I sit about 5 feet away and find I have to get within 3 feet before I begin to resolve individual pixels. I like lots of resoloution, but I bet I am in the minority of all viewers.

There is some general perception among the public that it is bad for your eyes to sit close to a screen, or mabye they just think that to have the visual pleasure of filling your field of vision with lovely, sharp pictures is indulgent and thus evil behavior. People are wierd, like the ones that refuse to use a turn-signal when driving, even tho in most cases it is to their advantage to do so.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

:backtotop


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Is this topic about HD, the coming of, or something else? When will DirecTV turn on some new HD channels, eh?


----------



## camikeva (Nov 26, 2004)

For what it's worth, I was listening to WTOP radio this morning here in D.C. They had an item about a new Smithsonian channel being broadcast in HD starting this Wednesday on DirectTV.


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

9300 & 9301 are on.


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

steveken said:


> 9300 & 9301 are on.


Well, they were, now the TP's are dead.

Edit:
NM, back up now. Must have been doing a little work on the sat. Or its the rain I am getting here at the moment.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

steveken said:


> Well, they were, now the TP's are dead.


Not too dead, Im still watching 9300


----------



## Chaos (Apr 24, 2002)

With these up in test now, I'm betting on HD tomorrow. Officially announcing on Wednesday.


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

I think my problem is the fact that we are having some decent storms running through Little Rock right now, so thats probably all my problems right there.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Just what the heck is a "decent" storm???


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Just what the heck is a "decent" storm???


Almost the "perfect storm". :grin:


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Just what the heck is a "decent" storm???




Down here, it is one where lightning doesn't strike your property and your power stays on.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Well, considering Florida IS the lightning capital of the U.S., I guess you're right.


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

WED.......it will be our WEDding day:icon_hug:


----------



## RobertSeattle (Aug 27, 2006)

I'm half expecting DirecTV to rename "October" as "September, part II"


----------



## GP_23 (Sep 13, 2007)

With all the testing today I wouldn't be surprised to see them go live tomorrow and announce it like crazy on Wed.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

GP_23 said:


> With all the testing today I wouldn't be surprised to see them go live tomorrow and announce it like crazy on Wed.


Wouldn't shock me. I am still expecting 6AM EST on Wednesday. But I am prepared for a little longer wait; i.e., I won't throw a fit if it doesn't happen. I'll do that on October 1.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

RobertSeattle said:


> I'm half expecting DirecTV to rename "October" as "September, part II"


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

GP_23 said:


> With all the testing today I wouldn't be surprised to see them go live tomorrow and announce it like crazy on Wed.


Nope, still expect Wed. It looks like they are trying to work out issue affecting a minority of people and I'd guess that they will use the extra day to continue that.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Sirshagg said:


> Nope, still expect Wed. It looks like they are trying to work out issue affecting a minority of people and I'd guess that they will use the extra day to continue that.


I suspect they "might" turn the channels up in the 9300 range but not create aliases in the final channel numbers for the common folks until Wednesday. Just something I hope to be true.


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> Nope, still expect Wed. It looks like they are trying to work out issue affecting a minority of people and I'd guess that they will use the extra day to continue that.


i agree


----------



## W9CDL (Dec 26, 2006)

Rakul said:


> +1 I bought a $100 HDMI Monster Cable from Bestbuy with my TV (Hey I was new to HDTV) and to be honest I see no difference what-so-ever compared to the HDMI cable that came with my HR-20. Hey to each their own, I like the picture and since it's digital I really see even less of a reason expensive cables will be much better at 6ft. Go with what makes you happy, as I also think my $200 stereo is just perfect for me reach:


I think I got hosed. I looked in the box for an HDMI cable when I got my HR20 700 in Dec. 06. However the installer was _nice_ enough to sell me one for $50.00 after stating it did not come with the receiver. In the interest of saving myself a trip to the nearest store (other side of the city) and to just get it up and running I paid for it but demanded a receipt.


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

W9CDL said:


> I think I got hosed. I looked in the box for an HDMI cable when I got my HR20 700 in Dec. 06. However the installer was _nice_ enough to sell me one for $50.00 after stating it did not come with the receiver. In the interest of saving myself a trip to the nearest store (other side of the city) and to just get it up and running I paid for it but demanded a receipt.


I did not get one with my 100, but got two with my 700's that I got last week. I suspect it is something new that they are doing.


----------



## GC71388 (Mar 12, 2007)

you paid 50 dollars for an HDMI cable? I am sorry....


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

W9CDL said:


> I think I got hosed. I looked in the box for an HDMI cable when I got my HR20 700 in Dec. 06. However the installer was _nice_ enough to sell me one for $50.00 after stating it did not come with the receiver. In the interest of saving myself a trip to the nearest store (other side of the city) and to just get it up and running I paid for it but demanded a receipt.


I did not receive an HDMI cable with either HR20-700 purchased in late 06 either. They started to add them in the box later.


----------



## Swheat (Aug 10, 2005)

W9CDL said:


> I think I got hosed. I looked in the box for an HDMI cable when I got my HR20 700 in Dec. 06. However the installer was _nice_ enough to sell me one for $50.00 after stating it did not come with the receiver. In the interest of saving myself a trip to the nearest store (other side of the city) and to just get it up and running I paid for it but demanded a receipt.


Call D* and complain. Maybe they will credit you the $50.


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

bwaldron said:


> I did not receive an HDMI cable with either HR20-700 purchased in late 06 either. They started to add them in the box later.


No, they didn't. I just got mine on Sept 10 and it didn't have one in it, so, at least with mine, they didn't.

I truely feel for anyone who pays more than $10 before shipping for an HDMI cable.

I just recently bought 2 HDMI cables, one 10 foot and one 6 foot, off Amazon for like $14 grand total. There really is no reason why you need to pay in excess of $10 for any HDMI cable.

While there might be _some_ differences in some cables, I can almost promise you that you won't be able to tell, so throwing more money at it won't help.


----------



## saryon (Aug 12, 2007)

Strange, my -700 had an HDMI in the box, installed last month.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

steveken said:


> No, they didn't. I just got mine on Sept 10 and it didn't have one in it, so, at least with mine, they didn't.
> 
> I truely feel for anyone who pays more than $10 before shipping for an HDMI cable.
> 
> ...


Interesting, I thought they were in the box these days.

You're right about price, though. Heck, monoprice.com has good quality cables at reasonable prices. It is an obscene profit center for the retail stores.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

W9CDL said:


> I think I got hosed. I looked in the box for an HDMI cable when I got my HR20 700 in Dec. 06. However the installer was _nice_ enough to sell me one for $50.00 after stating it did not come with the receiver. In the interest of saving myself a trip to the nearest store (other side of the city) and to just get it up and running I paid for it but demanded a receipt.


You did, indeed, get hosed. I'd try to find the name of the company for which your installer worked and report him. Those cables are supposed to come with HR20s. A friend of mine who is a D* installer tells me that unscrupulous installers swipe them all the time then turn around and sell them, only to pocket the money.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Those cables are supposed to come with HR20s.


The early ones didn't come with HDMI cables.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

bigref said:


> You have NO IDEA what you are talking about if you think a cheap generic cable is as good as a more expensive cable. If you feel that way, #1 you system is not as good as you think it is. A really good display, properly calibrated will blow your mind away. And a good display is not some piece of C*** that you buy in one of the chain electronic stores.:nono2:


True True, butt a cable with the same spec size, capacitance etc. will work the same.

Quabin manufactures a bunch of cable for monster and you can get the same spec cable in a plain gray jacket for under 1/10 of the price and they still make money on it.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> The early ones didn't come with HDMI cables.


He's not talking about the early ones, and neither am I. We're talking about the present ones. He got screwed.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> He's not talking about the early ones, and neither am I. We're talking about the present ones. He got screwed.





W9CDL said:


> I looked in the box for an HDMI cable when I got my HR20 700 in Dec. 06.


December 06 is early, not present.


----------



## Azdeadwood (Aug 18, 2007)

W9CDL said:


> I think I got hosed. I looked in the box for an HDMI cable when I got my HR20 700 in Dec. 06. However the installer was _nice_ enough to sell me one for $50.00 after stating it did not come with the receiver. In the interest of saving myself a trip to the nearest store (other side of the city) and to just get it up and running I paid for it but demanded a receipt.


The HDMI did not come in the box if you got an HR20-700 in December. I got mine in November, the first one didn't work so they direct shipped the second one to me. So I opened the box myself and noticed that their wasn't one.

I got a good deal on my HDMI at Costco.

So when I got my HR20-100 a couple of months ago, I had already bought the HDMI only to find that it was now included in the box.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

12/06 is earli*ER*, not early.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

I had another HR20-700 installed on Friday and it came with the cable and the RF remote RC64R (no antenna).

I'm not looking for a flame here, but the installer said all employees (large subcontractor for D in the northeast) were given mandatory overtime notices starting on Thurs this week. He gave a wink and said there must be something going on.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

I am using the HDMI cable I got from HR10.

I am pretty sure I didn't get one for the two HR20 leased in September '06. I just got a refurbished one in July '07 with a manufactured date of February 2007. I am pretty sure I didn't get one, either, but I will look for it when I get home.


----------



## dcbag (Oct 1, 2006)

wavemaster said:


> I had another HR20-700 installed on Friday and it came with the cable and the RF remote RC64R (no antenna).
> 
> The Antenna is internal on the HR20-700.


----------



## quickfire (Nov 14, 2003)

For those that didn't get a HDMI cable taht has had it installed here lately.....did you watch the TECh open the box in front of you???


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

quickfire said:


> For those that didn't get a HDMI cable taht has had it installed here lately.....did you watch the TECh open the box in front of you???


yep


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

wavemaster said:


> True True, butt a cable with the same spec size, capacitance etc. will work the same.
> 
> Quabin manufactures a bunch of cable for monster and you can get the same spec cable in a plain gray jacket for under 1/10 of the price and they still make money on it.


when it comes to HDMI, there is ZERO ZERO ZERO picture quality improvement with one cable that works, as opposed to anther that works...

those 1's and 0's in the DIGITAL signal don't suddenly become 2's and 14's.

two HDMI cables, so long as neither malfunctions, will give an exactly identical picture and sound.

exactly perfectly identical.

the exact same way a "99" signal strength looks exactly like a 75.

exactly perfectly identical.

anyone who tells you any different is either trying to sell you something, or trying to justify the fact that they got suckered.


----------



## Gmaxx (Sep 25, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> when it comes to HDMI, there is ZERO ZERO ZERO picture quality improvement with one cable that works, as opposed to anther that works...
> 
> those 1's and 0's in the DIGITAL signal don't suddenly become 2's and 14's.
> 
> ...


Preach on, brother, preach on!


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

Gmaxx said:


> Preach on, brother, preach on!


very well...

you can buy RCA screw-on terminators for rg-6 quad-shield, and buy the rg6qs, and make something that has 10x the quality of "high-end" store bought component cables for less than half the price, make them an exact custom fit in length, and if one goes bad, cut another length of rg6qs for a buck or three.


----------



## Deftones (Sep 6, 2006)

Not sure anyone has mentioned this, but there's a news article floating around about the new Smithsonian HD channel. In the article, it says it's going live on Wednesday on DirecTV.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Yup. It's been mentioned a few times already. We shall see, of course.


----------



## Deftones (Sep 6, 2006)

Ok, didn't want to skim through 11 pages of thread to find it. haha


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

Geez, skimming through 11 pages as compared to other forums we have had going on that were much much more......OR USING THE SEARCH FUNCTION AVAILABLE ON EVERY THREAD! Its amazing how many people just don't bother using search like it should be used.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

steveken said:


> Geez, skimming through 11 pages as compared to other forums we have had going on that were much much more......OR USING THE SEARCH FUNCTION AVAILABLE ON EVERY THREAD! Its amazing how many people just don't bother using search like it should be used.


----------



## W9CDL (Dec 26, 2006)

quickfire said:


> For those that didn't get a HDMI cable taht has had it installed here lately.....did you watch the TECh open the box in front of you???


Absolutely! The box was sealed and I was, in fact, the one to break the seal and inventory the contents. Everything was there including the batteries for the remote sealed in plastic. Everything that it except the HDMI cable...:mad2:


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


>


I know it sounded like I needed that, but I think using the search function really is something that people need to have driven into them.

Over the past few weeks I have spent quite a bit of time reading these various threads. I found myself seeing the same exact questions and answers being posted time after time. I mean, it would do so much to clean up threads and reduce frustrations for everyone if people could avoid asking things that have been covered MANY times before.

There is absolutely no reason to have 30+ posts on each thread about things like not seeing 498, what their specific signal levels mean, why they get this message or that message on their screen, and if they should call D*, and things of that nature when others have had the same exact thing happen and posted questions and have been answered.

Anyway, sorry if it seemed harsh or anything, its just that it gets so frustrating when you are trying to sort through all the posts that have been answered when you are trying to find out new information. It just reminds me of my 2 year old constantly asking "whats that" 10 times in a row about an item I have already told him what it was many other times before that. I know that sounds bad and I need patience, but I do have some and am gaining more every day. 

But, I digress, the moral of my story is this... "If you have a question about something you are seeing (or not seeing) on your screen, please be so kind as to use the search function at the top of every page. It will help you get your questions answered and help reduce the flow of repetitive questions on the forum."

I will shut up now.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

steveken said:


> I know it sounded like I needed that, but I think using the search function really is something that people need to have driven into them.
> 
> Over the past few weeks I have spent quite a bit of time reading these various threads. I found myself seeing the same exact questions and answers being posted time after time. I mean, it would do so much to clean up threads and reduce frustrations for everyone if people could avoid asking things that have been covered MANY times before.
> 
> ...


Your position does have merit.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well I see no way after tonight's test at least in my area that D will be rolling out much in the way of HD channels  I had a better test on the weekend than what I'm seeing now :girlscrea


----------



## RichardL (Dec 20, 2006)

Dolly said:


> Well I see no way after tonight's test at least in my area that D will be rolling out much in the way of HD channels  I had a better test on the weekend than what I'm seeing now :girlscrea


Remember that a test that appears to 'fail' can often tell you more than a test that appears to 'work'

I see good progress in that there are a variety of tests with widely differing results - they are learning


----------



## shellnc (Sep 23, 2007)

Dolly said:


> Well I see no way after tonight's test at least in my area that D will be rolling out much in the way of HD channels  I had a better test on the weekend than what I'm seeing now :girlscrea


You can tell this by a test. Heck, I have know idea what the tests are about, so I think I will hold off on any conclusions.


----------



## steveken (Sep 15, 2007)

steveken said:


> No, they didn't. I just got mine on Sept 10 and it didn't have one in it, so, at least with mine, they didn't.


That is about my comments about not getting an HDMI cable. I have to admit that I hadn't looked in the box again since the day it was installed. I truly feel like an idiot now.

I went and looked in the box again just now and I found that I did indeed get an HDMI cable. It was next to the phone cable that came with it, so I just assumed it was a part of the phone cable as I didn't look real closely at it. I can't tell how long it is, but I do have one.

Wow, I feel really dumb.  :blush:


----------



## GirkMonster (Mar 20, 2007)

My installer had an HDMI-DVI cable which he gave me, left me the HDMI cable (used for my upconverting DVD player) and dropped off an extra RF remote. He didn't try to bend me over or ask for extra cash. He did drill through two of my alarm cables, but that appeared to be an accident. I fixed the alarm and moved on.

He also left a full spool of wire that had gotten a bit tangled...


----------



## Ryanm86 (Oct 18, 2006)

GirkMonster said:


> My installer had an HDMI-DVI cable which he gave me, left me the HDMI cable (used for my upconverting DVD player) and dropped off an extra RF remote. He didn't try to bend me over or ask for extra cash. He did drill through two of my alarm cables, but that appeared to be an accident. I fixed the alarm and moved on.
> 
> He also left a full spool of wire that had gotten a bit tangled...


You gotta watch those installers they will try to jack your cables.


----------

