# Dish HD: Not Ready for Public Consumption



## TXK (Sep 10, 2006)

Dish Network really should never have released HD to the public until they had it working. I've had mine since late May, and I have been through three or four service calls, with nothing but frustration and down time while waiting for someone to come out here and hack together a temporary fix.

When it works, the HD is spectacular, though with limited programming. The problem is that it is not technically ready for public consumption. One problem, according to the service people--there have beeen three different teaams out here, some more than once--and they all have theories as to why it does not work reliably. The two most plausible theories are that HD requires three satellites (110, 119, and 29 where I live), and the satellites are very far apart, making it almost impossible to get the three dish pickups to work at the same time. Another, more troubling suggestion from the repair personnel is that the satellites (or the transponders) get overloaded when a lot of users are accessing the same signal at the same time.

Oh, and you should not even consider getting Dish HD unless you live in a major metropolitan area. The service peiple in my small-town area are overworked, and many have to drive here from considerable distances. My current service appointment is seven days away.

I was watching NFL footbal earlier today (Sunday), and there was some pixelation, and then as the afternoon game with the Dallas Cowboys about to start, it went out. This seems to fit the "overloaded satellite/transponder" theory mentioned above. But who knows? Certainly none of the many very polite people at the Dish Network tech support section, and certainly none of the five technicians that have been to my house since last May.


Dish HD is an expensive rip off, overall, but the HD is really beautiful when it works! Bye for now--I'm going to go rent a DVD. The Cowboys will probably suck, anyway.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Basically you're right, but technically ... Way out of base 
"the satellites are very far apart" - not related to HD PQ;
"satellites (or the transponders) get overloaded when a lot of users are accessing the same signal at the same time" - not ever close to reality.

We have a lot of posts/threads about HD-Lite ( overcompression, downrezzing, bit-starving) - take your time for little self-education and read those threads.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

TXK said:


> Dish Network really should never have released HD to the public until they had it working. I've had mine since late May, and I have been through three or four service calls, with nothing but frustration and down time while waiting for someone to come out here and hack together a temporary fix.
> 
> When it works, the HD is spectacular, though with limited programming. The problem is that it is not technically ready for public consumption. One problem, according to the service people--there have beeen three different teaams out here, some more than once--and they all have theories as to why it does not work reliably. The two most plausible theories are that HD requires three satellites (110, 119, and 29 where I live), and the satellites are very far apart, making it almost impossible to get the three dish pickups to work at the same time.
> 
> ...


Hope that when the next installer gets there it is good one that knows what he is doing. BTW It might better if you can just have them replace the Dish 1000 with 2 dishes. One for 110/119 and one for the 129 sat or if there is a good look angle for 61.5 sat. The HD programming is the same on both of the later 2 sats. Look at your post to see answers to indivual questions that you have stated.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I almost don't like to put a friendly :welcome_s before what I have to write below -


TXK said:


> The two most plausible theories are that HD requires three satellites (110, 119, and 29 where I live), and the satellites are very far apart, making it almost impossible to get the three dish pickups to work at the same time.


Plausable. In the south the satellites are "further apart" than they are in the north (apparent location in the sky from the receive dish viewpoint. The Dish 1000 and other multisat dishes (including D*'s Phase III) have to take into account the separation differences in their design - a common design is used all across the US. Perhaps tweaking the separation of the LNBs to work better in the south would make it work worse in the north. E* has apparently come up with a "happy medium".


TXK said:


> Another, more troubling suggestion from the repair personnel is that the satellites (or the transponders) get overloaded when a lot of users are accessing the same signal at the same time.


The number of _receive_ dishes does not affect the power output of a satellite. There is no way that you can suck the signal away from other subscribers. If a repair technician has suggested this they were pulling your leg (or completely incompetent). I've suggested it a couple of times here at DBSTalk as a joke - but that is all it is. Don't believe it as truth!


TXK said:


> Dish HD is an expensive rip off, overall, but the HD is really beautiful when it works! Bye for now--I'm going to go rent a DVD. The Cowboys will probably suck, anyway.


Many satisfied customers ... sorry to see anyone have problems. (We generally like problem free TV, even if we don't work for the company.)


----------



## jimborst (Jun 13, 2006)

TXK said:


> Another, more troubling suggestion from the repair personnel is that the satellites (or the transponders) get overloaded when a lot of users are accessing the same signal at the same time.


Wow, any service person that told you this should never be let back! I have had the HD package for a few months now and had no problems (other than some pixilation on a few occasions, and a couple of rain fades). I really think a new installer is needed.


----------



## bear paws (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> . There is no way that you can suck the signal away from other subscribers. quote]
> 
> What?? you mean i'm not sucking up my idiot neighbors signal because I'm SW of him and thus closer to the sat. Dang! :lol:
> 
> ...


----------



## TXK (Sep 10, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> Hope that when the next installer gets there it is good one that knows what he is doing. BTW It might better if you can just have them replace the Dish 1000 with 2 dishes. One for 110/119 and one for the 129 sat or if there is a good look angle for 61.5 sat. The HD programming is the same on both of the later 2 sats. Look at your post to see answers to indivual questions that you have stated.


Thanks for the tips, and thanks for confirming my opinion of the repair person who told me that the satellites could get overloaded depending on use. That never made a bit of sense to me, but he is a certified Dish Network technician, so who am I to question him? Although it might be technically possible to encode the satellite broadcasts so that only one specific receiver could pick up the signal, using some sort of complex coding or encryption system, it just seemed way too complicated to make any sense. (Of course, there's a chance that guy will be the one that comes back to fix it next time.)

The last repairman that got it running, back in August, suggested the two-dish solution as a possibility, but he finally got it running just by carefully aligning the dish. Nothing has happened to change that allignment.

I also have a standard-definition TV-DVR connected to the same satellite in addition to the 622 HD unit. Sometimes this unit works when the HD unit fails, but now they are both stone dead. I tried to wiggle the dish, and it is still locked down tight. All the external connections are tight, and the dish is not damaged or even dirty. There's a little haze and a few white clouds, but no rain or bad weather anywhere in the area. I'm a little worried about the trees. I even paid $300 to have one removed--though none of the people who had been out here thought the trees would interfere. (One of them said that if the tree grew, it might cause trouble with satellite 110, so I had it taken down just in case.)

Thanks for the info and the two-dish suggestion.


----------



## bkleven (Jul 8, 2006)

So you are saying both of your receivers (622 and SD DVR) are getting no signal lock?

I would be inclined to think the most likely culprit is a bad dish (i.e. LNBs) or bad cabling.

It sounds like your biggest problem is the installers/techs that service your area. Based on what you have said, they don't seem too bright, and they should have figured out your problem months ago.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

TXK said:


> Thanks for the tips, and thanks for confirming my opinion of the repair person who told me that the satellites could get overloaded depending on use. That never made a bit of sense to me, but he is a certified Dish Network technician, so who am I to question him? Although it might be technically possible to encode the satellite broadcasts so that only one specific receiver could pick up the signal, using some sort of complex coding or encryption system, it just seemed way too complicated to make any sense. (Of course, there's a chance that guy will be the one that comes back to fix it next time.)
> 
> The last repairman that got it running, back in August, suggested the two-dish solution as a possibility, but he finally got it running just by carefully aligning the dish. Nothing has happened to change that allignment.
> 
> ...


(As bkleven says in this post :
So you are saying both of your receivers (622 and SD DVR) are getting no signal lock?

I would be inclined to think the most likely culprit is a bad dish (i.e. LNBs) or bad cabling.

It sounds like your biggest problem is the installers/techs that service your area. Based on what you have said, they don't seem too bright, and they should have figured out your problem months ago.)

One more possibility is a switch problem. Are both on the same cable or are they in different locations in the house on different cables? If they are in 2 different areas of the house and on 2 different lines, it may be the switch that they share in common is bad.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TXK said:


> Although it might be technically possible to encode the satellite broadcasts so that only one specific receiver could pick up the signal, using some sort of complex coding or encryption system, it just seemed way too complicated to make any sense.


There are different types of transmission. For example 8PSK transponders can be seen by HD receivers and some newer SD receivers only but not by older receivers. Go to 'point dish' on a 501 and you will find a lot of transponders on 110 and especially 129 that have 'no signal' whereas on a 622 they have plenty of signal. These are being transmitted in 8PSK instead of QPSK.

Individual channels can also be encrypted on a per receiver basis. Technically your receiver still gets the channel, authorized or not, but only decrypts the channel and displays it if it is given permission to by E*. All part of the authorization system that allows people to subscribe to packages from Dish Family to the America's Everything Pack.


TXK said:


> I also have a standard-definition TV-DVR connected to the same satellite in addition to the 622 HD unit. Sometimes this unit works when the HD unit fails, but now they are both stone dead.


Now we are in to the bigger problem.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

I hadn't noticed any pixelation since last Sunday with SD news channels (cnn, fox, msnbc) and OTA HD not looking well. I also tuned in to the Dallas game today which was on FOX HD local OTA. It was not watchable. Signal strength was 95. I can't tell if this is a dish receiver issue or not without rewiring my TV. HD OTA games on CBS and NBC were great today. My local FOX hd channel broadcasts on a VHF frequency. I wander if that matters?


----------



## fsquid (Aug 30, 2006)

yikes, I was about to order, but this and the other thread where the guy couldn't find the sat had me second guessing myself.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

fsquid said:


> yikes, I was about to order, but this and the other thread where the guy couldn't find the sat had me second guessing myself.


Don't let a couple of mistakes scare you off. 95% of installs are smoothe with few problems - only the problems get posted.

I've had my 622 since February 14, 2006 and the only trouble I had was with the 129 satellite. I just added another dish looking at 61.5 and now no dropouts, no pixellations, solid as a rock - I love it.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

fsquid said:


> yikes, I was about to order, but this and the other thread where the guy couldn't find the sat had me second guessing myself.


Jim is right the 95% good comments are unlikely to show up here. I have been w/ E* HD since June 05 (Voom legacy), There have been problems w/ both the 942 I had and the VIP622. Most of the were S/W problems that were fixed w/update downloads. At one time w/ the 942 I almost had advance tech on speed dial and knew most of the tech's by 1st name. Only thing that i'm still disappointed about is the fact that advance tech & I really thought there should be 2 OTA HDTV tuners as well. It must have been too expensive or not enough room for E* to include those in the VIP 622.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

If you have some coax couplers, i think you could by pass the switch in your install (sw34?) and run the lines from the dish to the 622 directly that way. If the switch is faulty (I had one for 2 years, and thought it was a problem with the dish the whole time) it can cause your signal to dropout with the slightest weather issues. And even at times drop for no reason.

If bypassing the switch does nothing to help, at least you'll know the switch is likely good


----------



## fsquid (Aug 30, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> Don't let a couple of mistakes scare you off. 95% of installs are smoothe with few problems - only the problems get posted.
> 
> I've had my 622 since February 14, 2006 and the only trouble I had was with the 129 satellite. I just added another dish looking at 61.5 and now no dropouts, no pixellations, solid as a rock - I love it.


Is having two satelites a normal thing?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

fsquid said:


> Is having two satelites a normal thing?


The main dish will have 110/119 2nd dish on either 61.5 or 129, In this are it is necessary to have a 3rd for the LIL on 148.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

fsquid said:


> Is having two satelites a normal thing?


Two dishes isn't uncommon - especially in areas around the edges of the country where the signal isn't so good on D1000's (or is non-existant as in the NorthEast).

There is no one dish that does 61.5° and any of the central satellites. It is too big of a spread. (You can buy third party dishes that *may* be able to pull that of based on adjusting the LNBs for your exact location, but generally people don't - 68° degree arcs in the sky are hard to see with one dish.)

BTW: Think of the slots as orbital locations - one dish can see as many as four orbital locations (the new Dish1000+). Multiple satellites can be clustered at the same orbital location, so technically you can see two E* satellites by pointing a single orbit dish at 110°. There are also two E* satellites at 61.5° and 148°. No biggie, just staying accurate.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

TXK said:


> Thanks for the tips, and thanks for confirming my opinion of the repair person who told me that the satellites could get overloaded depending on use. .


It could just be a misunderstanding of what he was saying... for example, each satellite has a given amount of bandwidth available to it that they allocate between channels. If they give a lot of bandwidth to channel X, that's less bandwidth for the other channels to use. The more bandwidth a channel has the better it looks (more information, less compression artifacts.) So depending on usage (popular channels are more likely to get better bandwidth) the video quality can change from channel to channel and even show to show on a given channel.

I'm not saying that's what he originally said, but it seems possible.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Generally speaking, E* is not changing the bandwidth based on ratings 'on the fly'. They occasionally will swap channels around to get a better balance between fast moving stations that require more bandwidth and more static stations that don't so the variable bit rate compression that they use doesn't collide when all the stations on a transponder are moving faster than average - but they are not allocating bandwidth from show to show.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Echostar uses stat mux equipment at the uplink center (there is one per transponder assiagnment) that "look" at all the channels assigned to it and allocate bandwidth on the fly based on what it thinks the needs will be for that channel in the next few milliseconds. Bandwidth is constantly changing but there is a base limit that they can be set for so that any one channel can't suck up too much bandwidth. Bandwith DOES change from show to show and, many times, within a show itself but, as James said, it is not RATINGS based.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bill, that is part of the Variable Bit Rate process ... looking at what is needed to transmit the program as cleanly as possible ... not a ratings based process. Please read to what I was responding to. Thanks.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

James,

I agree with you bandwidth is not RATINGS based but DISH (and the other satellite vendors) clearly do vary the bandwidth within and between programs and this makes some programs look a lot worse than they should. I have edited my post to try to make it clearer the point that I was trying to get across.


----------



## RLMesq (Mar 9, 2003)

bear paws said:


> Seriously, you got to get someone out there that lives in this century, not a 12th century Tali-ban mullah.


In case you didn't notice, he's in Texas, not Afghanistan. I personally know many Texans who are very intelligent people, firmly routed in the 21st century, despite the worldwide impression to the contrary generated by one particularly high profile individual.


----------



## wilme2 (Jul 14, 2005)

TXK said:


> The last repairman that got it running, back in August, suggested the two-dish solution as a possibility, but he finally got it running just by carefully aligning the dish. Nothing has happened to change that allignment.
> 
> Thanks for the info and the two-dish suggestion.


I live in Dallas, did my own install to 61.5 before 129 was an option. Just upgraded to a leased 622, so had to have a pro install. When the guys came out he was really good, but just couldn't get the 1000 to work well enough with all three satellites. We ended up taking the DP LNB, attaching it to my 61.5 Dish 300, and all was well. My point is that if you know the channels you are having trouble with are at 129, then go to a second dish if you have clear line of sight. The dish itself is inexpensive, the LNB can be reused, and your 1000 would just need a 2 LNB bracket...


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

Can someone switch to Fox news right now, channel 205 and report if you see the very jittery video I see with my 622? Does the news text at the bottom flow smoothly?


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

wilme2 said:


> I live in Dallas, did my own install to 61.5 before 129 was an option. Just upgraded to a leased 622, so had to have a pro install. When the guys came out he was really good, but just couldn't get the 1000 to work well enough with all three satellites. We ended up taking the DP LNB, attaching it to my 61.5 Dish 300, and all was well. My point is that if you know the channels you are having trouble with are at 129, then go to a second dish if you have clear line of sight. The dish itself is inexpensive, the LNB can be reused, and your 1000 would just need a 2 LNB bracket...


Hey, I'm in the Dallas area too and I'm wanting to swing my dish300 from 61.5 to 129. What kind of signal strength are you getting on 129 with your dish300?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

kmcnamara said:


> Hey, I'm in the Dallas area too and I'm wanting to swing my dish300 from 61.5 to 129. What kind of signal strength are you getting on 129 with your dish300?


Why do you want to move your 61.5 to 129? What's on 129? Everything that is on 129 is mirrored on 61.5. All of your local OTA's both SD & HD are on 110. So why fix what isn't broken? If they shut down 61.5 then you could swing the dish over to 129. If you don't have it already here is the Dish net Channel chart.

http://www.dishchannelchart.com/


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

I guess you missed my "don't ask" comment... 

They've uplink FOXSW-HD at 129 and apparently won't mirror it at 61.5. That's the only reason.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

kmcnamara said:


> I guess you missed my "don't ask" comment...
> 
> They've uplink FOXSW-HD at 129 and apparently won't mirror it at 61.5. That's the only reason.


I looked for it and still did't see on this thread. Guess the pain in my neck (which is killing me right now) had me over look it. If you have your latitude and longitude you can go to lyngsat.com. Use their SatTracker and it will give you approximate point angles for a prime focus dish. Then you can subtract the offset feed angle for the Dish 300 and be close enuff to start peaking your dish. The channel chart is stating that Fox Sports SW HD is on 129 but not available to the public yet. ARe they incorrect? If they are you should email them to let them know. Good Luck w/ the re-point.


----------



## wilme2 (Jul 14, 2005)

kmcnamara said:


> Hey, I'm in the Dallas area too and I'm wanting to swing my dish300 from 61.5 to 129. What kind of signal strength are you getting on 129 with your dish300?


I actually left it pointing at 61.5. (Sorry wasn't clear in my post...)

I can't think of a reason to switch to 129 at this point. There are rumors about RSNs, but until they go live I wouldn't worry about it...


----------



## HD_Wayne (May 23, 2006)

I will just chime in here and say that I am very happy with my hd sub. I have HDSilver with 2 6000's and one ViP211 receiver. No real problems. For antennas I use a Dish 500 and a 30" dish for 129. I used a 1000 with good pictures but was not happy with the low readings on 129 so I switched it out for the two dish setup. Hopefully this winter there will be no outages due to rain. The 1000 dish needs to be peaked right on using the 119 satellite. That with a plum mount and the skew set right and you should be ok. I know that dish is not uplinking the best signal compared to the C band version but I am still very satisfied with it. Lets just hope it will improve when the MPEG4 H.264 transmissions really start rumored to be some time next year or when ever they get it working right. I know that the new HD channels are tagged as being MPEG4 for the new receivers but the program stream inside the transport stream is still MPEG2 encoded at this time. Well thats just my 4 cents. (raised for inflation)

Wayne


----------



## mikedobcol (Sep 25, 2006)

I have had excellent luck with the hd programming. It rarely pixelates and goes out. The only problem I have had is that hdmi connection has gone out which is a box issue not a satellite problem. I look forward to the day when everything is presented in hd tv.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Here is a letter that a friend got from E* about there PQ. If you don't believe them then maybe you should strat your own class action law suit. 

Dear Mr. Roxin,

Thank you for expressing your concerns in our product. We are sorry you
are disappointed by our product and hope that we can satisfy your
consumer needs going forward. The picture we provide, by definition,
is High Definition Television - 1920X1080 and 1280X720P. There are
several reasons there may see changes in our HD channels. One reason is
the incoming broadcast from the provider. Some of the programming you
receive is sent to us, from the provider, exactly the way you are seeing
it. We are also subject to space limitations on our satellites. Dish
Network is constantly working on improving our picture quality. We will
continue to attempt to find new ways to improve and value your feedback.


The HD world is relatively new, and at DISH we are constantly trying to
find the right mix to get more HD and with the best possible resolution.
We work for improvement in this area every day. We are constantly
analyzing our channel layout and try to find better "match ups" for the
bandwidth sharing. As we add channels and improve technology, you may,
from time to time, see fluctuations in the picture quality. We
apologize for this; however, we are doing this in an attempt to continue
to offer more choices to our customers without serious quality
degradation. We have also made strides in improving the quality of many
channels on the service in the past few months and strive for additional
improvements in the future. The best advice we can give to our
customers is to be patient. We have maintenance on these HD channels
that are scheduled clear into the year 2007.

Thank you,
Jennifer
Executive Communications
Phone (720) ***-****


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Maintenance on hd channels? What do they mean about maintenance? I picture a group of workmen sitting around on the highway with a sign that says "men working" , while one guy does all the work.


----------



## fsquid (Aug 30, 2006)

I've had the dish for 2 days now and I think the HD channels look just gorgeous.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

you come litte late and missed REAL PQ on HD channels
check here and search for "HD-Lite" theme


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That lame old debate again? Sheesh.

When one has to have "special equipment" in order to see the difference between what was and what is it is a stretch to say that PQ has been decreased. It's only a number ... And I would challenge anyone with identical sets to tell the difference between "old" and "new". Judge PQ by the picture, not by esoteric numbers.

Glad you like what you see, fsquid.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok guys... I already removed one post for a personal attach on a user and a moderator here. Lets keep it on topic and avoid personal attacking people whose opinions do not mesh with your own. 

I know the HD-LITE is a hot button for some and there are some interestng threads here that you can do by using the search engine without going off site. I also know there is additional information at other sources and suggest people that are interested to gather up knowledge from both sides of the argument. 

Now lets try and keep this topic to facts and opinions at stay away from the personal insults.


----------



## indysatelliteguy (Sep 30, 2006)

ok first of all

your dish is passive. It cannot overload the satellite. The satellite cannot overwork itself based upon demand, so ... their explanation is BS

more later


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Third attempt to keep the discussion 

PQ is defined and supporting by numbers ! Resolution, ie detaling, and bandwith ie support moving parts of picture.
Anyone who participate in the debates must have solid base, but not juggling by words.

I came here with solid engineering background and can't accept PR-type discussion; if it will come same way to discuss how to build spacecrafts or missiles, then you could imaging where we could be after that.

Yes, there is should some equipment to measure, yes there is must be METRICS for compare and do conclusion !
But not words like "slightly". 33% is it "slightly" degradation ?! From 1920x1080i to 1280x1080i.

The person who never seen real PQ in 1920x1080i 16Mbps. - How you can use him as an argument ?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Numbers are important and relevant... although some people quote measurements to back up their point that are incorrect because they are calculating incorrectly... but that is another discussion entirely!

But... while numbers are important, what you see on the screen is equally important.

Folks with the 32" TVs don't see the compression nearly as much, so they will have to see a much worse quality picture before they will know there is a problem. Similarly, I have seen where the DLP or LCD technology actually is more susceptible to problems than a CRT display. Case-in-point. Someone who has a fixed-resolution LCD display of 1280x720 will notice problems if the image is not EXACTLY that resolution... because the display is optimized to display that resolution and other resolutions are more obvious... whereas a CRT is more flexible since there is no fixed-resolution and small amounts of degradation are essentially smoothed over by the normal operation of the set.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

fsquid said:


> I've had the dish for 2 days now and I think the HD channels look just gorgeous.


Please take your time and read posts of Gary Murrell, one of them you can see here http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=48722


----------



## gsarjeant (Sep 15, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Please take your time and read posts of Gary Murrell, one of them you can see here http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=48722


I understand that you're an engineer, but it is possible to hold an opinion about picture quality that doesn't have anything to do with the numbers. We aren't talking about spacecraft or missiles here. We're talking about a television picture, and it simply isn't true that someone isn't qualified to say whether or not that picture looks good unless he's measuring resolution and bitrate.

The statement that fsquid made, "I think the HD channels look just gorgeous", is completely subjective. And to be frank, I agree with him. There's no point at all in responding to that with metrics and measurements. Perhaps Dish is sending less information per channel than they used to send. That doesn't change the fact that some of us think that the existing offerings look great. All that says to me is that the picture may someday look even better. Great! I won't complain if that happens, but for now I'm not disappointed at all.

By all means, if someone claims that Dish is broadcasting in 1920x1080i 16Mbps and you have the numbers to prove him false, then point to the numbers. But it doesn't make any sense to tell me that I can't think my picture looks good because Gary Murrell's equipment says it doesn't.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

We cant discuss HD PQ in this manner, while I'm agree with personal feeling of some ppl with different TV sets, 
I would not agree with discussing real physical signal in term of different person's eyesight or light in TV room.
There is metrics, there is a signal. 
As an engineer sitting in encoder's room or uplink station I can't operate base on someone personal opinion. 
I would relay to measures.

Now if you take you lovely bear or whiskey with 33% less ingredients 
Or if airlines will order jets with 33% less size seats for pack 1/3 more ppl into and you will surpize one day, how tought to fit in the chair .


----------



## gsarjeant (Sep 15, 2006)

The problem is that the post you responded to (and later quoted specifically) wasn't discussing the real physical signal. It was just one person's opinion of what he saw. There's no reason to reply to that with metrics, as you're talking about entirely different things (the objective properties of the signal versus someone's subjective impression of it).

We can't argue over the wavelength of green light. That is a question with a correct answer (~510 nm). However, we can argue all day long over whether or not green looks good, and the wavelength of the light has nothing to do with our opinions on that matter.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

well, if HD public consumption will based on this type of argument ...
then we will follow down to follow DirecTV case

Only engineer's facts and public awareness could changes this trend.


----------



## gsarjeant (Sep 15, 2006)

Hopefully if the standard is 1920 x 1080i and Dish claims to support the standard, then ultimately they will be held to it, either by their customers or (perish the thought) legislation. The letter that whatchel1 posted cetrainly implies that the party line at Dish is that they support 1920x1080i HD broadcasts, and that any decrease is a temporary effect of adding new channels. I hope that that will turn out to be the case.

I've got nothing against public awareness; I just don't think that the metrics do anything to refute fsquid's opinion of the picture he sees on his tv. People are resistant enough to numbers as it is. They'll be even less sympathetic to the numbers argument if they are flogged with the metrics for saying somthing as simple as "I like the way my picture looks".


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Then I don't see difference in my initial post here "you come litte late and missed REAL PQ on HD channels" and don't understand personal pressure from JL and deleting my posts. [I'm always can correct words if the Mods will not agree with my wording what touching other ppl personalities].


----------



## fsquid (Aug 30, 2006)

Guys, this is only TV, we can put the TI-83s up and just watch some TV


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> We cant discuss HD PQ in this manner,


Actually we can. Some people look so much at the numbers that they forget the output. Don't be like those people! What is the PQ difference between the original 2 HD on a MPEG2 QPSK carrier and the latest 4 HD on a MPEG4 8PSK carrier? You can give us bitrates and frame sizes but can you really say that X was XX% better than Y? Without looking at the video?

There are a lot less bits allowed per channel today than their once was ... and in the future as MPEG4 encoders improve we may see six or more MPEG4 HD channels on a carrier. Does having six channels on a transponder instantly make the PQ 50% less than having four channels on a transponder? 33%? 20%? What is the number? The future increase in the number of channels on a transponder will come from improving encoders. If all we are going to look at are numbers than we might as well not have a HD set to look at.


P Smith said:


> Or if airlines will order jets with 33% less size seats for pack 1/3 more ppl into and you will surpize one day, how tought to fit in the chair .


Actually reducing seat size by 33% allows you to increase passenger load by 50%. I get 2/3s of an old seat, you get 2/3s of an old seat, and Ron sits on the 2/3s of an old seat between us . 50% more passengers.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sure, but next time when we will come to a grocery store and will get 1/3 less of a loaf of bread for same money as before because a cashier will tell you "it's look same as full one"  you should tell us "this is only" bread !


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

gsarjeant said:


> Hopefully if the standard is 1920 x 1080i and Dish claims to support the standard, then ultimately they will be held to it, either by their customers or (perish the thought) legislation. The letter that whatchel1 posted cetrainly implies that the party line at Dish is that they support 1920x1080i HD broadcasts, and that any decrease is a temporary effect of adding new channels. I hope that that will turn out to be the case.
> 
> I've got nothing against public awareness; I just don't think that the metrics do anything to refute fsquid's opinion of the picture he sees on his tv. People are resistant enough to numbers as it is. They'll be even less sympathetic to the numbers argument if they are flogged with the metrics for saying somthing as simple as "I like the way my picture looks".


I agree. The problem with saying your dumb and cant see that the picture is degraded assumes that the person who made the statement can't grasp what a true picture should be like. The truth of the fact is that the picture one sees is determined by what is being sent over the air as well as the TV set ability to resolve the image.


----------



## gsarjeant (Sep 15, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Then I don't see difference in my initial post here "you come litte late and missed REAL PQ on HD channels" and don't understand personal pressure from JL and deleting my posts. [I'm always can correct words if the Mods will not agree with my wording what touching other ppl personalities].


I think the main concern is that the thread is really about technical issues with the reception of Dish's HD broadcasts, not about the characteristics of the signal. That is, regardless of what the resolution and bitrate are, people are having trouble receiving it. It doesn't matter what the resolution is if the signal isn't getting from the satellite to the customer's dish.

Secondarily, it's a little offputting to say "I think <whatever> looks good" and to have someone else come in and say "You're wrong. It doesn't."



fsquid said:


> Guys, this is only TV, we can put the TI-83s up and just watch some TV


That's all I've been saying.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

JL, that's not good method of discussing; you put together disfferent things - transponder, compression, PQ; it's not surprize for - I know such tactic to blur the theme; it will not stop me, but regular ppl will be dizzy .
I see you have the experience in PR .


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

I've had Dish HD (622) for 8 months now and I have had few issues. My HD picture does not seem to have any of the issues you list. I'm very happy with the picture quality on my 55 inch Sony DPL TV. HDMI works like a champ for me.

I've heard that the drop out issue is due to watchin too much porn, or NFL.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

gsarjeant said:


> I think the main concern is that the thread is really about technical issues with the reception of Dish's HD broadcasts, not about the characteristics of the signal. That is, regardless of what the resolution and bitrate are, people are having trouble receiving it. It doesn't matter what the resolution is if the signal isn't getting from the satellite to the customer's dish.
> 
> Secondarily, it's a little offputting to say "I think <whatever> looks good" and to have someone else come in and say "You're wrong. It doesn't."
> 
> That's all I've been saying.


Don't put your word in my mouth !

I say "you come litte late and *missed *REAL PQ on HD channels" !


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Sure, but next time when we will come to a grocery store and will get 1/3 less of a loaf of bread for same money as before because a cashier will tell you "it's look same as full one"  you should tell us "this is only" bread !


The same money as before is another problem. In February people paid $20 for E*'s HD package. Several channels have been added, including HD locals. So the loaf of bread may fit in a bread bag that is 33% smaller (but not nessisarily be 33% less quality) but there are more loafs overall in the cart. You end up with more bread for the same money. It just got crushed a little.

What matters to MOST is what appears on the screen. And I fear that too many people will fall into the numbers trap and put a number on PQ without considering ALL of the elements.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That's NICE - we got MORE crumbles instead of bread !!! 

Man ! You did it right ! Nice argument.
I'll quote you next time.


----------



## gsarjeant (Sep 15, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Don't put your word in my mouth !
> 
> I say "you come litte late and *missed *REAL PQ on HD channels" !


Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. Perhaps that's not how you meant it, but that's how it reads to me. No need to get upset. You were wondering why your posts would get deleted and generate pressure from some people, so I offered some suggestions. I suspect that James was also worried that the comment would initiate a big go-round about HD-Lite and resolutions and such. It looks like he was right.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Check Ron Barry's post above. The moderation isn't about HD Lite, it is about how the argument was presented.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

As someone else posted above... numbers on the actual data sent are factual things that can be quoted and compared... but what something looks like to me or you or anyone else is not a quantifiable thing.

I like broccoli. If you do not like it, then it doesn't matter how we compare the actual vitamins and nutrients to show how similar broccoli is to other foods you do like... I will still like broccoli and you still will not.

We can argue and debate whether the signal is compressed, whether it is overly compressed, whether they are downgrading the resolution before compression, and so forth... but if someone says "I like the way my picture looks" you can't say they are wrong.

Picture quality is not a quantifiable thing that you can prove with numbers... You can quantify what is contained in the data that makes up the signal, but you can't quantify why one person likes it and another doesn't.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Yes the post I removed was for reasons I stated. Yes I could have PMed the poster but felt that given the tone of thread that it was better to remove it and issue a general warning to all. 

Hopefully as we engange in this topic, we will keep the personal digs out of the conversation as I indicated above. If not, I am not going to spend time PMing each person to reword their dig. I will either delete the post or delete the dig... I don't have time to to do it and personally I woudl rather spend my time helping rather than remove rocks. I think that is reasonable. If anybody disagrees, feel free to PM me or one of the admins for further discussion because I really don't want to rathole this thead more than it already has. 

Now.. back on topic...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Ron, I know what is corporative etique means, hope you too; 
check first phrase in a post #38. That's what stirred the pot.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

I read a post on the best way to demonstrate "HD Lite" vs "True HD" and I checked this out last week. It's a great example.

You need to have your NBC Affiliate available on both an OTA and through DISH HD Locals.

Watch the Tonight Show on your OTA, and also in PIP via your DISH HD Locals. The background / curtain behind Leno is rock solid on my set when I watch via the OTA (True HD). When I switch over to DISH HD Local (HD Lite) the curtain shimmers in the background. It's very distracting / annoying. As it was explained, this is caused by the loss of lines of resolution due to the "HD Lite" down rez. I'm not an AV Expert, so I can't tell you if that is the actual reason. But as a layman TV Fanatic, I can tell you there was a difference between the two pictures.

Now that being said - that is the only time I have EVER noticed a difference in PQ based on the loss of lines. And to be honest - I hate Leno I'm a Letterman guy - so I'm not actually going to be seeing that very often. 

I personally would prefer to have more channels in "HD Lite" than in SD. Yes, "True HD" would be great, but if DISH can only provide half as many channels in "True HD", I'd prefer the "HD Lite" with more channels to watch. I'd rather watch Discovery HD Theatre in "HD Lite" than Discovery Channel in SD any day of the week.


----------



## fsquid (Aug 30, 2006)

I'd like to apologize that my comment started this spiral.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm sorry for your apologie, it wasn't you.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

sNEIRBO said:


> I read a post on the best way to demonstrate "HD Lite" vs "True HD" and I checked this out last week. It's a great example.
> 
> You need to have your NBC Affiliate available on both an OTA and through DISH HD Locals.
> 
> ...


What might be happening is that the different look between the OTA vs E* HD could be multiple conversations. For E* to get the HD that they rebroadcast they will have to 1st pick up the original OTA. Then they will have to convert it to the send it to the uplink. Then transmit to sat which then downlinks it. Then our HD receivers have to convert it to a usable form for our systems to use. That is at least 4 conversions, Those are a lot of changes and could cause a good bit of degradation of the signal.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I will have to give the Leno test a try.


----------



## primetimeguy (Sep 30, 2006)

Being new to Dish I did some comparisons between Dish locals, OTA and Charter this weekend. Charter passes the locals unmolested and they compare to OTA. The MPEG4 locals from Dish are slightly inferior to OTA. The "swimming grass" effect was very apparent on the MPEG4 channels but not over the air.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Since Raleigh HD locals aren't up yet... the only time I really was able to directly compare was earlier this year when Dish temporarily uplinked ABCHD for folks in ABC owned & operated markets. My market qualifies, so I was able to compare my ABC OTA and the ABCHD feed from Dish. Granted it was in MPEG2 since I have a 6000 receiver, so I don't know how any of the MPEG4 locals look.

Signals were comparable, and since I saw no noticable huge difference, I watched my OTA instead of the Dish uplink. I'm sure the mileage varies in other markets... but also worth noting that ABC happens to be 720p, and Dish has not been downconverting the 720p channels as far as we have been made aware... so just MPEG compression issues to be a possible culprit of signal problems.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> I will have to give the Leno test a try.


Based on the blow ups in this thread yesterday, I did the "Leno Test" again last night. The most noticeable / distracting issue is -

When Leno is seated at his desk, talking to a guest. NBC uses a front on shot of Jay while he's talking. Behind him and to his right (our left) is a building with vertical stripes on it. Via my OTA, the stripes do not shimmer. Via the DISH HD Local Detroit NBC feed, the stripes shimmer. It's horribly distracting. Not as distracting as Jay's voice, or his lack of a sense of humor . . . but right up there.

For people to be saying that the difference in down rezzing can not be seen, that you need Techno Geek equipment to notice the difference, I think this is a pretty obvious example of down rezzing. Again, I'm no AV expert, but I can see the difference. And again, I will say, I would rather have more content in "HD Lite" than less content in "True HD". I'm just pointing out that there is an example that can be seen by everyone.


----------



## gsarjeant (Sep 15, 2006)

Cool. That sounds like a good comparison. I can't try to reproduce it, unfortunately, since my HD locals are currently only available via OTA. I can say that my OTA feeds are among my best HD signals, though. It would be interesting to see if other people notice the Leno effect.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

To be fair, SD locals have typically been lower quality than other SD channels.

Curiosity about Detroit ... and I don't know how much P Smith and others can answer with their equipment. You have locals two per transponder on "118". I wonder what the bit rate / frame size is compared to what E* is doing on 129° and 110° (spots).

I'll have to look at my OTA feed. The local station robs bandwidth for an SD channel - that tends to cause it's own problems.


"The Leno Effect" ... wow, you've coined a phrase!


----------



## gsarjeant (Sep 15, 2006)

James Long said:


> "The Leno Effect" ... wow, you've coined a phrase!


Ha! My work here is done.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

I still dont understand what the big secret or mystery is to all this. It's the exact same thing that always went on in an SD only world on DBS so why would we expect it to be any diff in the HD world?

Providing the absolute best PQ possible was never a priority. They dont *have* to do that because the majority of their customers dont care about that.. coupled with the the fact that if they dont do that, they can inherently have more total channels on the system.

Of course OTA channels look better than the DBS version. This just in.. the analog ones would've always looked better than the DBS provided ones too except that it was hard to actually get that sort of reception OTA with analog for various diff reasons. At least with H/DTV it's more or less all or nothing so theres more motivation to "bother" with receiving the digital channels OTA and then thus make comparisons.

One of the reasons the PQ "used to be" better on some of the long standing HD channels on the system wasnt because they thought they should provide them in a pristine manner and then suddenly changed their mind.. but rather because of the technology of the time, they didnt hardly have a way to butcher them in the first place. They couldnt squeeze more than 1 or 2 HD channels on a transponder and have an acceptable output. They couldnt mix and match HD and SD channels on the same transponder either.

Once they've been able to do that kind of tweaking.. it's over as far some channels getting more bandwidth and associated bit-rate than was even required for a virtually pristine picture.

Now it's just business as usual. We'll shave here and there and cram as many in as we can and only the real hardcore people will complain about PQ. Prolly the same percentage that always complained in the SD only world too that got no where with their complaints either..


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Now aplly your logic to any product on market ... Food, drugs, TV sets, etc ...

What you'll get without STANDARDs ?! 


The discussion is going that way what those three elderly mans did with observation of an elephant.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Unfortunately what D* and E* are doing fits a standard. Perhaps not the one selected viewers want followed - if it were up to them that form of compression would not be used - but it is ATSC accepted for DBS transmission of HD.

If D* and E* made up their own standard that would be different. I'd be screaming along with you all if they were downrezzing to 480x480, expanding to 1920x1080i and calling it HD. They are not.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

JL, you knew what standards supporting by TV set manufacturers who strictly follow ATSC and UP, 
but DTH providers doing opposite way - stay in a middle of "tube" between content providers (1920x1080i and 1280x720p) and removing 1/3 of data by downrezz and hi-compressing (irreversible !) and bringing back to your TV set as "TrueHD" watered down picture.
Tell me what will happen if each web site will do same thing with posts - 1/3 reduction - it will be gibberish posts; we're talking about digital content. Sad talk ...
[perhaps we have been "poisoned" by initial stage of HD on satellites ... Ok, but now HD/BR DVD demonstrate to ppl what the level should be ! Why all the opponents of normal HD on DTH looking down not to forward ? 
why you put progress on hold here ? because of some companie think different ? But WE're the consumers - we should demand better PQ ...
Look what's on a market today - better PC, TV, gadgets - everything is faster, better, attractive]


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

James Long said:


> Unfortunately what D* and E* are doing fits a standard. Perhaps not the one selected viewers want followed - if it were up to them that form of compression would not be used - but it is ATSC accepted for DBS transmission of HD.


Sure. Just like what they do with SD is an accepted standard for SD. Has nothing to do with offering something the best it can be.

Whats the accepted standard for a hamburger? A bun and an all beef patty?

Well you can go to McD's and get one for 90 cents thats pretty much hideous or you can go buy one for 5-10 bucks somewhere else that's great as hamburgers go. And some offerings inbetween.

But as long as millions of folks keep doin the McD's thang every day that company is sitting pretty and has no reason to go "gourmet".

Course that doesnt do video freaks any good because far more people care about good food than they do perfect PQ on TV so theres not a good opportunity for someone to make money by starting a service that caters primarily to perfect or "as good as it can be" PQ.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The majority of HD Liters (for lack of a better term) tend to focus so much on the frame size that bitrates and actual viewed quality are practically irrelevant. Take a 10.2 Mbps pipe. Is it better if the picture crammed through it is kept in 1920x1080i, converted to 1440x1080 or converted to 1280x1080? There is a limit to how much information 10.2 Mbps can provide.

Satellite companies have a choice of how to use those Mbps. Here are your two choices: 1) use an ATSC Standard A/81 allowed compression format such as 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 or 2) use higher compression but keep the frame 1920x1080. Sorry, you don't have choice 3) allocate more bandwidth. It is actually more likely that you're looking at the challenge of getting the channel running cleanly in _less_ bandwidth.

Decide: How would you rather see the signal degraded, by reducing frame size or increasing compression? I realize that to "True HD" crusaders that might as well be "would you rather that I pee on your dinner or spit on it" but there is a challenge facing DBS providers: They have to serve millions of customers SD as well as provide new services such as HD.

The last satellite company that decided HD was more important than SD didn't last long. Remember?









BTW: The standard is available here: A/81: Direct-to-Home Satellite Broadcast Standard


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

DP1, you're funny man; trust me - McD have own standard for each type of humburger and more - rules for buying ingridents. You are like a child .


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

JL, reading those pages would be big plus (I keep it printed) - there is good point with aspect_ratio_information: only 1920x1080 and 1280x720 modes are support square samples as in video cameras and LCD/plasma TV sets. 
Only CRT type TVs can accomodate non square pixels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> DP1, you're funny man; trust me - McD have own standard for each type of humburger and more - rules for buying ingridents. You are like a child .


Second caution ... discuss the issues without the insults. Thanks.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Well, I mean not knowing rules/standards give no priviledge to ignore them.

Lucky to be a kid and skip all the routines.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

James Long said:


> Curiosity about Detroit ... and I don't know how much P Smith and others can answer with their equipment. You have locals two per transponder on "118". I wonder what the bit rate / frame size is compared to what E* is doing on 129° and 110° (spots).


James -

I don't know . . . I don't have the Techno Equipment to be able to find out either. I've just got 2 eyeballs that definitely notice that there is a difference between the OTA HD Feed and the DISH HD Local Feed.

Would the reduction of veritcal lines for the "HD Lite" (DISH HD Local Feed) account for the shimmering effect?? It is a vertical stripe that is shimmering, not a horizontal strip . . .

Again, I am not saying that DISH is right or wrong in "Lite'ning" the HD feeds. I would prefer more content in "HD Lite" than less content in "True HD". I am gladly plunking down my $116 per month for the DISH HD Platinum package, and I am not complaining about it. DISH provides the most HD content and the best bang for the buck IMO.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

sNEIRBO said:


> Again, I am not saying that DISH is right or wrong in "Lite'ning" the HD feeds. I would prefer more content in "HD Lite" than less content in "True HD".


And so would most everyone else if push came to shove, I imagine.

I've had HD in my home since the first 6000 receivers rolled off the line in June 2000.

I'm totally beyond analyzing every HD broadcast (other than thinking some look better than others related to source issues) or worrying about resolutions and bit rates. Partly because I'd just as soon sit down and watch it like a normal person and partly because, as I said above, I just accept how the DBS co's go about their business.

Doesnt mean I wont read what others say about all of it and open my trap once in a great while.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Well I am hoping that once they go to mpeg 4 for ALL hd by next summer , this will help Dish provide more hd with better pq. I am also hoping that the mpeg 4 encoders will provide more bandwith savings by then too. Once all programming is in mpeg 4 both hd and sd I hope to see even better picture quality on all channels. THis should happen by 2009 or 2010 if all goes as they outlined it before. By then who knows how much bandwith that the mpeg 4 encoders will provide. Till then we will have to suffer through hd lite , which still looks pretty good to me compared to the sd. I am glad to have all 4 networks in hd now and the 30 hd national channels too.


----------

