# SD PQ: Dish versus Digital Cable



## Nilblog (Aug 2, 2006)

I searched within this forum on this subject but the one thread that was relevant was four years old. Hope I'm not asking an annoyingly frequest question here.

I'm strongly considering making the move from TWC to Dish Network. However, I've never witnessed first-hand a Dish signal and therefore am concerned about the quality. A close friend has DirecTV and the PQ is quite frankly unacceptable to my eyes. Not much more acceptable are the digital channels via TWC (formerly Adelphia). Some channels are worse than others, to the point of being unwatchable. So, the question is, how does Dish's SD PQ generally measure up? Am I going to experience of a lot pixelization and "muddiness"? I'm not expecting perfection but a bump up in SD PQ would augment the incentive to make the leap. Especially important to me is the quality of Turner Classic Movies (really wish TCM-HD were a reality).

Keep in mind, my primary television set is a Sony XBR970 HDTV (34"). Also, I intend to lease the VIP 622 receiver and connect it to my set via HDMI or component cables. Not worried about HD quality on Dish as I've heard it's very much comparable to cable, if generally incrementally inferior.


----------



## SonicBee777 (Aug 2, 2006)

Nilblog said:


> So, the question is, how does Dish's SD PQ generally measure up?


We switched from Adelphia to Dish primarily to get more HD channels. The quality of many of our locals (L.A. area) on the cable was poor, IMO. HD on cable and on Dish was/is good to very good, sometimes amazing.

We also switched fom a 27" Sony CRT to 50" Sony RPTV at about the same time.

The PQ for Dish SD overall, IMO, is OK to very good depending on the station. Our SD locals on Dish are much better than they were on cable, especially KCET (28). On your 34" screen I would guess your perceived SD PQ would be better than on 50" all else being equal.

My feeling is that the negatives I perceive in Dish SD are more related to the size of the screen than to the signal.

I regret turning off cable so quickly when switching to DBS. It would have been instructive to overlap a month to do some comparisons.


----------



## BadFrog (May 31, 2006)

make the switch ...I did many-many moons ago and never regretted it ! IMHO, cable can't touch Dish Sat TV....if you do..I would suggest a DVR 625 for SD. I really enjoy the PQ from the DVR 625 into my 40" LCD HDTV.


----------



## finniganps (Jan 23, 2004)

Go to a local retailer that sells Dish and look at the picture quality there. Change the channels and see what you think. I know Sears and Radio Shack use to carry it - I'm not sure who does these days.


----------



## Nilblog (Aug 2, 2006)

Thanks for the replies, people - all have been helpful.


----------



## DishSubLA (Apr 9, 2006)

I'll just add that my Charter Cable Digital channels stank as far as quality. I don't believe they were using MPEG 2. Instead of black or dark for shadow, there would be an absense of video; highly pixalated. I could see the video being refreshed on some channels. UUUGGGGHHH!! Dish is far more serious about _trying_ to encode the best possible picture and sound. Notice I said _*trying*_. Given bandwidth limitations, they do pretty well.


----------



## von (Aug 3, 2006)

finniganps is correct - look at the quality in person on a set similar to what you will be using.

I have a couple SD PVRs (508) - the quality can be annoying on a 32" Toshiba crt. On a 27" it is ok. Overly compressed video is the problem - pixilation. 

Their customer service and image quality have both decreased since I started subscribing many years ago. For that, I am almost willing to give cable another chance. If it weren't for a family member, I would have dropped them a couple years ago.


----------



## Jack White (Sep 17, 2002)

The picture quality is much worse than it used to be in the early days of DBS.
The picture quality went downhill after they started adding tons of local channels from hundreds of local markets. Which adds up to thousand upon thousands of new channels without adding enough new bandwidth to compensate.
You have to SQUEEZE in those channels by compressing the hell out of the other channels. If you're not critical of picture quaily, then SD picture quality is on small tvs, but if you're hyper critical or have a HUGE screen, then only the SD PPV channels will look ok. With MPEG2 technology you really need at least about 5.0 Mbps for a good picture, but with DIVX you can get away with extremely low bitrates. If all the SD receivers had MPEG4, then the picture would be good even with very low 2.3-2.5Mpbs bitrates.

BTW, XP on DVD burners is about 9.8Mbps, and SP is about 5Mbps. to give you an idea of MPEG2 picture quality vs bitrate.



von said:


> finniganps is correct - look at the quality in person on a set similar to what you will be using.
> 
> I have a couple SD PVRs (508) - the quality can be annoying on a 32" Toshiba crt. On a 27" it is ok. Overly compressed video is the problem - pixilation.
> 
> Their customer service and image quality have both decreased since I started subscribing many years ago. For that, I am almost willing to give cable another chance. If it weren't for a family member, I would have dropped them a couple years ago.


----------



## riverawynter (Aug 10, 2006)

I have to say that I am not impressed with the picture quality in the regular channels. HD looks just fine, but the other channels look very soft. Cable channels were sharper. but based on the TV that you have, it might not be an issue.


----------



## mikec73 (May 5, 2005)

Go ahead and switch. Adelphia sucked and time warner is no better even in areas they have always been in. Cable is still mostly analog with static and interference in many channels. Picture quality is far superior with satellite. Larger tvs do show a little less sharpness but still better than snow! TW here goes out regularly so in that case any picture is better than no picture. Sat never goes out. TW couldnt buy me back!


----------

