# Which Has Higher Quality HD...cable or D*?



## johnp292 (Mar 16, 2009)

I know this is a very open-ended question and it may be a matter of opinion, but over in another web site I was talking about how much better my HD picture is now that I'm on D* compared to my cable (RCN). Several posters there dispute this, citing that cable has a higher HD bit rate than D*.

I still say I have a better picture now, and my wife agrees. 

So that would seem to me that one of the following is the case:

1. D* really is better and the RCN-ers are jealous 

2. My RCN service had a problem I didn't know about

3. It's my imagination


Comments?


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

If you're looking for the best HD (other than OTA and Blu-ray), Verizon FiOS has the best HD quality.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

While this may seem like a straightforward question that everyone could chime in on, it really only applies to those who are on the same cable system you are.

Bit rates don't mean much as cable uses MPEG2 where satellite uses MPEG4.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

If it looks good to you, don't worry about it.


----------



## johnp292 (Mar 16, 2009)

Yeah I know....if I could GET fios, I would have


----------



## johnp292 (Mar 16, 2009)

say-what said:


> If it looks good to you, don't worry about it.


I'm not worried about it. But being a techie I like to look for objective evidence that supports my subjective conclusions!


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

I have a cable hookup in addition to D* - gets me a lower rate on broadband. I just about never look at it.

But, once in a while, I'll take 'em up on an HD free trial just for an A-B comparison. The best D* HD runs right past the best Comcast HD in my neck of the prairie.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

As long as DirecTV's HD suffers from Brrrriiiiiiippppppp it's tough to vote for their system.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Without being able to switch between DirecTV and Cable on the same channels on the same television, it will be difficult to do a comparison, as there are too many other variables that come into play.

And even if you do a comparison, it is really only valid for comparisons to the specific cable system you were watching. Other cable systems, even from the same corporation in another town, could have better or worse picture quality.

At the end of the day, if you are happy with the picture quality you receive, then don't sweat it. If you are unhappy with the picture quality, then might want to try other things (like calibrating your television) before researching other providers. If you do need to research other providers, you would need to find a friend who would be on the same cable system who has both cable and DirecTV in HD. This might be easier to do during football season when a lot of people add DirecTV for Sunday Ticket.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

DirecTV High Definition is better than Charter Cable High Definition in my neck of the woods too. There is really no comparison if I do a side by side comparison and swap TVs for each system, DirecTV's Picture Quality is by far superior.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Each cable system will vary, as others have posted.
I did and "A/B/C" between the same channel/TV and DirecTV MPEG-4, Cable MPEG-2, & the OTA feed "straight" from the station.

#1 was OTA
#2 [and close] was DirecTV
#3 [and a very distant third] was cable.

YMMV [and will]


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

johnp292 said:


> But being a techie I like to look for objective evidence that supports my subjective conclusions!


As as a techie, you should know that we can't simulate your TV, cable system and personal preferences for you.

You're on you own.


----------



## johnp292 (Mar 16, 2009)

harsh said:


> As as a techie, you should know that we can't simulate your TV, cable system and personal preferences for you.
> 
> You're on you own.


I wasn't asking anyone to. I thought there might be some technical information out there regarding the two technologies.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

johnp292 said:


> I wasn't asking anyone to. I thought there might be some technical information out there regarding the two technologies.


 It simply comes down to bandwidth.
OTA has the greatest and uses MPEG-2
Cable also uses MPEG-2, but tries to squeeze as many channels in that they can. This can cause resolution to be reduced, but they sure as hell won't admit it.
DirecTV & Dish, have gone with transcoding the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, which reduces the bitrate/bandwidth, with "little loss" of PQ.


----------



## johnp292 (Mar 16, 2009)

Upstream said:


> Without being able to switch between DirecTV and Cable on the same channels on the same television, it will be difficult to do a comparison, as there are too many other variables that come into play.


I guess I could have done that for a day or so while I still had RCN after the D* was installed.

I wasn't looking for info to make a decision, I was just curious what other's experiences and/or knowledge might reveal.

I changed for several reasons, and I'm happy with the decision. Satellite is a new experience for me and I'm interested in learning more about how it works and what the capabilities are, hence the somewhat tongue-in-cheek original post.


----------



## johnp292 (Mar 16, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> It simply comes down to bandwidth.
> OTA has the greatest and uses MPEG-2
> Cable also uses MPEG-2, but tries to squeeze as many channels in that they can. This can cause resolution to be reduced, but they sure as hell won't admit it.
> DirecTV & Dish, have gone with transcoding the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, which reduces the bitrate/bandwidth, with "little loss" of PQ.


Thanks, that was exactly the kind of info I was looking for!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Without being able to switch between DirecTV and Cable on the same channels on the same television, it will be difficult to do a comparison, as there are too many other variables that come into play.





johnp292 said:


> I guess I could have done that for a day or so while I still had RCN after the D* was installed.


I _did_ do that when I first switched from Comcast to DirecTV a couple years back. I saw little to no difference in picture quality... That is, until I got used to DirecTV's PQ... Now, when I go to a friends house with Comcast, it looks very inferior...

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> It simply comes down to bandwidth.
> OTA has the greatest and uses MPEG-2
> Cable also uses MPEG-2, but tries to squeeze as many channels in that they can. This can cause resolution to be reduced, but they sure as hell won't admit it.
> DirecTV & Dish, have gone with transcoding the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, which reduces the bitrate/bandwidth, with "little loss" of PQ.


Living ~40 miles due West of Chicago, my OTA is slightly better PQ than HD locals of NBC, ABC & FOX. I prefer to record OTA (for this reason as well as less likely signal drop from storms), but can certainly enjoy D* local HD, which is quite good. Either one is SIGNIFICANLY better that COMCAST Chicago, with a broader HD channel palate, too...


----------



## bt-rtp (Dec 30, 2005)

For Raleigh with Time Warner cable it is:

1st - OTA - Excellent - 100%
2nd - DirecTV - Very good - 95%
3rd - TW cable - poor 65%


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Charter cable compresses the heck out of their HD in my neck of the woods down south. They've effectively made it SD. Super high compression destroys the picture, no matter how high the bitrate. Just look at D*'s SD.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Charter cable compresses the heck out of their HD in my neck of the woods down south. They've effectively made it SD. Super high compression destroys the picture, no matter how high the bitrate. Just look at D*'s SD.


I'm not sure it's "compression", but merely reduced resolution.
DirecTV's SD is "only" a 480 x 480 image size. Clearly this isn't "4x3" aspect ratio.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not sure it's "compression", but merely reduced resolution.
> DirecTV's SD is "only" a 480 x 480 image size. Clearly this isn't "4x3" aspect ratio.


Getting OT here, but I see compression artifacts (posterizing, mosquito noise, blockiness, blurryness, reduced color depth) all over the place, like a really low quality JPG. A nice, crisp 480x480 image should look pretty good, almost as good as a commercial DVD, which on D* it clearly does not. I can download certain SD movies on demand from D* and they DO look as good as a DVD, so I know a good SD picture is possible. Years ago, D*'s SD was beautiful. Can anyone who's seen D*'s SD on a 60" screen honestly say it looks good?

Anyway, rather than gripe about D*'s lousy SD, which I've ended up doing, I was just trying point out that in my area, cable HD looks nearly as bad as D* SD, which is bad.

Did I mention cable HD and D* SD are both terrible?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Getting OT here, but I see compression artifacts (posterizing, mosquito noise, blockiness, blurryness, reduced color depth) all over the place, like a really low quality JPG. A nice, crisp 480x480 image should look pretty good, almost as good as a commercial DVD, which on D* it clearly does not. I can download certain SD movies on demand from D* and they DO look as good as a DVD, so I know a good SD picture is possible. Years ago, D*'s SD was beautiful. Can anyone who's seen D*'s SD on a 60" screen honestly say it looks good?
> 
> Anyway, rather than gripe about D*'s lousy SD, which I've ended up doing, I was just trying point out that in my area, cable HD looks nearly as bad as D* SD, which is bad.
> 
> Did I mention cable HD and D* SD are both terrible?


 Not to kick this much farther but, I think a lot of "the crap" comes from stretching the SD back to 4:3. Sometime back someone posted what the images look like for SD and the old Ku HD, and you could clearly see the "squished" image, along with the actual resolution.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

I hear a lot of yakking about FIOS, and if it is available to you, great... 

However here are some facts as of the end of Jan 2009:

FIOS total availability is 9.2 million homes... of those, 21% or 1.9 million have the service.

FIOS availability to 9.2 million homes means that it is available to less than 7% of the single family homes in the United States.

While FIOS service may be nothing short of incredible, it is available to such a small percentage of homes that it is in fact, hardly a factor. Wiring New York City for FIOS also slants the numbers.

Of course, if FIOs is available in your area it may be the best thing since sliced bread, but over 90% of the country has no access to the service.


----------



## CrazyforYeshua (Feb 23, 2008)

Here in TWC country, D* is hands down the winner in HD. My daughter has TWC, and her HD is "blurrier", and just looks bad.....


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

johnp292 said:


> I guess I could have done that for a day or so while I still had RCN after the D* was installed.
> 
> I wasn't looking for info to make a decision, I was just curious what other's experiences and/or knowledge might reveal.
> 
> I changed for several reasons, and I'm happy with the decision. Satellite is a new experience for me and I'm interested in learning more about how it works and what the capabilities are, hence the somewhat tongue-in-cheek original post.


I live at the Jersey shore and have had D* for many years. My experience has been that I see a better picture than I did with cable, but that was pre HD. My son lives in Upper Darby Pa. and has RCN. His HD picture is as good or better than mine, I think better. But this is soooo subjective, type, age of tv, etc.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Be careful when saying OTA is the best. I know of one example where that's not the case in my part of the state. In Rochester, the PBS affiliate WXXI is broadcasting all four subchannels thus reducing the bit rate on their main HD feed. Time Warner has a direct fiber link to WXXI at full bit rate. I've heard many comments from people who say WXXI is much better on TW then OTA. And while I have never seen it OTA, I can flip back and forth between my PBS affiliate (WNED, where TW does not do that) and WXXI on QAM and the difference in PQ is very noticeable, WNED HD from Buffalo looks great on cable, but no where near as good as WXXI does. Too bad TW didn't do this with more channels.

I have no problems with TWC PQ in my area, I think it's pretty damn good and it's just as good as what I've seen on DirecTV and Dish. While I've never done a A/B comparison with HD, I did with SD, Time Warner SD is much less compressed then DirecTV. In my area, most SD channels are 328 x 480, premium movie channels are 528 x 480 and all HD channels are in their respective resolutions, with very little compression artifacts, if any on the HD side of things.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

johnp292 said:


> [...]
> So that would seem to me that one of the following is the case:
> 
> 1. D* really is better and the RCN-ers are jealous
> ...


If we knew how RCN was processing the original MPEG-2 network feed, we'd know the answer, at least on paper.

An original network feed that isn't compressed any more than the MPEG-2 compression applied by the network is the "gold" standard. So if RCN is simply retransmitting what's sent to them, with no further processing, DirecTV can't be any better looking for HD content, only equal to or worse. (I'm assuming that neither company's set top box is influencing the digital PQ in any way.)

If we continue the assumption that RCN is simply feeding you the unvarnished network feed, whether or not you can see the difference between RCN's signal and the DirecTV MPEG-4 transcoded signal depends on your display, your visual acuity and the distance from which you watch.

Finally, RCN's MPEG-2 trickplay is always going to be smoother than DirecTV's MPEG-4 trickplay. Not much you can do about that. /steve


----------



## Wisegoat (Aug 17, 2006)

As others here have stated, it all depends on where you are. 

For my $.02:

OTA and MPEG4 locals look identical. I cannot tell the difference. I never tune in to the OTA version of HD channels anymore.

TimeWarner cable looks like crap here in Newport Beach. Macro blocking all the time and a picture that looks like the contrast is turned way up. Colors look artificial. 

These are all direct comparisons of the same channels on the same TV. My cable system gives you the locals in unencrypted QAM, so I get them free with my cable modem. I am getting over 12MB/s speeds, so I know the cable setup to the local node is not the issue.

As long as it looks good to the viewer, that is all that really matters. 

But in the DirecTV/Dish/Cable HD comparison game, my belief is that DirecTV wins hands down.


----------



## johnp292 (Mar 16, 2009)

Thanks one and all for the great feedback, and anyone who still wants to offer more please do so, I think this thread is very informative.

For what's it's worth, it is raining steadily here tonight (not a downpour but definately steady) and the picture still looks great on a Panasonic 46" plasma. Definately better than what we had with RCN, whatever the reason.

I HAVE however, encountered the dreaded Brrrrrrrrrrrrp a couple of times tonight, during The Office, a Carnival commercial, and just now on 30 Rock. But I don't think anyone but me noticed it. No effect on the video, just in the audio.


----------



## KoRn (Oct 21, 2008)

We had Charter cable for over 2 years. Had all the HD offerings including dvr etc. Lets just say. We felt completely ripped off after moving to DTV. We was not viewing so called "HD". It was complete utter garbage. When DTV came out and installed our HR22. I said "holy crap"! Now that is HD. Simply no comparison. Even the sound is a billion times better with DTV. And don't even get me started on how much more advanced DTV's boxes are compared to what we had with cable. And that was with their latest offering box wise. Not even CLOSE! :nono2:


----------



## Bluegrassman (Feb 18, 2009)

As so many others have stated, PQ varies widely based on provider, location, your particular environment, etc. I'm a former Comcast customer in a market Comcast has up for sale. We maintained basic cable for the HSI discount. Comcast invests the bare minimum to keep the plant up to try to sell. When we switched to D*, I kept our Comcast HD equip for one week after our install. (actually helped because my 1st HR21 died the night after our install, and was replaced the next day.) so for a few days I left both DVRs connected to the same tv, both via HDMI. Our results:

1) Picture quality on D* is far superior to Comcast (in our area at least)
2) Even SD content blows Comcast out of the water
3) Here, Comcast has "up to" 34 HD channels compared to up to 130 with D*
4) The D* HDDVR is far superior to the ancient DVRs used by Comcast

Many, many people in our area have been leaving Comcast in favor of D* It's unbelievable how many subs Comcast is losing. The day we returned our Comcast equipment, there were 5 other people in line doing the same thing. The Comcast associate was completely unfazed as if it had become quite common.

BTW, we have underground utilities, and everytime it rains, the cable would go out. The night before last we had torrential rains and wind gusts of 50MPH, and our picture on D* remained perfect the entire time  Funny that Comcast continually runs commercials stating that wind/rain cause problems with D*, but our experience is exactly opposite!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

johnp292 said:


> I thought there might be some technical information out there regarding the two technologies.


As there are numerous parameters that can be applied but not measured after the fact, there's no real way of comparing them.

The greatest impediment to direct comparison is the use of gamma tweaking to make the content more compressible. Reducing resolution (and thereby detail) can make a picture look "sharp" (harsh) but actually be less clear.

The "cocktail" of bandwidth reduction schemes used by the distributors is a closely guarded secret and I doubt anyone who knows what is being employed is going to cough it up.

In the end, we can't measure how well the signal survived without access to both the original and the copy.

It is also important to understand that some broadcasters use some pretty horrible source material while others have gone to great lengths to use high resolution digital mastering. GIGO applies here as well as anywhere. A distributor that uses a digital data feed to create their locals content is likely to have a distinct advantage over one that simply uses an antenna to pick up the channels.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

harsh said:


> It is also important to understand that some broadcasters use some pretty horrible source material while others have gone to great lengths to use high resolution digital mastering. GIGO applies here as well as anywhere. A distributor that uses a digital data feed to create their locals content is likely to have a distinct advantage over one that simply uses an antenna to pick up the channels.


Over-the-air is now a wireless digital data feed.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

It's kinda funny because I just got Charter cable, and it look great.... All I get is local channels and premiums though ($9.99 for locals, and they took off $15 off my 20 mBIT service and gave me the three premiums for $15 total, making them free!)

The simple thing about HD that makes it different is movement. Any decent bitrate can display a still hd picture, but movement is a far different story....


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

I just tried Charter to see if I can withstand switching to them because I have their internet and thought that their bundle might save some money. The very second they flipped the switch I was horrified. SD channels are beyond horrible (especially the channels that I am used to watching in HD with D*). The HD channels with Charter are _almos_t at D* quality but not quite. A 1 hour program in HD takes 4% of hard drive space (vs DirecTV's 1%). The GUI is horrible and fills only the 4:3 portion of the screen whether you're watching HD or not. I tried Charter a few years ago and I thought things would be better by now. But it seems that nothing has changed. No new HD or SD channel additions. Still no VOD in my area and most ports on the back of the DVR or not enabled in my area which means that I can not utilize my external hard drive (which was a deal killer with their tiny internal drive). This experience helped me to realize how much I love DirecTV.

On a side note, when I called D* today on a billing issue, they answered the phone "Thank you for calling AT&T/DirecTV. How can I help you?" AT&T/DirecTV? What's up with that?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

paulman182 said:


> Over-the-air is now a wireless digital data feed.


Yes, but there are error rates and substantial compression that can be avoided at some point upstream.


----------



## 408SJC (Sep 4, 2006)

Before D* offered FSNBA now Comcast Bay Area, I had Comcast just for the games in HD and in the south bay D* had a better picture. I gave my TV to my dad who had comcast, then ATT uverse and uverse had a better picture than comcast. Then he went from uverse to D*, because of my suggestions (he didn't like how uverse in his area could only record one hd channel at a time) and D* has a better picture quality than uverse. Each time he changed he had both connected at the same time, and D* by far had a better quality picture.


----------



## Prince Oz (Jan 15, 2009)

I can not comment on cable since I have not used cable in 16 years. But I do know that D* HD is Better than E* HD.


----------



## flynn337 (Feb 27, 2009)

408SJC said:


> Before D* offered FSNBA now Comcast Bay Area, I had Comcast just for the games in HD and in the south bay D* had a better picture. I gave my TV to my dad who had comcast, then ATT uverse and uverse had a better picture than comcast. Then he went from uverse to D*, because of my suggestions (he didn't like how uverse in his area could only record one hd channel at a time) and D* has a better picture quality than uverse. Each time he changed he had both connected at the same time, and D* by far had a better quality picture.


i'm in the same area, and for my eyes, and one of my friend's eyes, D* HD quality is much better than comcast overall, across all channels (including Comcast Bay Area, go sharks : ). it's so much so that i notice every time i watch (and it's been weeks since looking at comcast), even with my bottom-of-the-line-3-years-ago plasma.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

About a year ago (see my sig), I moved from Charter to D*. D*'s picture on both of my HDTV's is clearly superior, and and better on my 21" SD TV as well.


----------



## bnglbill (Nov 29, 2006)

I would love to see a side by side comparison of fios and Directv. I wonder how much of a difference could possibly be noticed.


----------



## Reggie3 (Feb 20, 2006)

I have D* and we have a great locals here in the Denver area who have been broadcasting in HD for years - their OTA pictures look slightly better than D* but it just may be my perception as both pictures look stunning to me anyway. I only watch OTA when I am doing software downloads on the DVR.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

No OTA or anything else to compare it with, but it seems to me that DirecTV's HD is showing slightly more digital artifacts in fast action scenes than when they first switched to MPEG4.

When the MPEG4 premiums were first lit up, I never noticed ANY pixilization, even in action scenes with flashing lights. Now I do, occasionally--it is still better than the MPEG2 channels were, but it doesn't seem as perfect as it did.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

bnglbill said:


> I would love to see a side by side comparison of fios and Directv. I wonder how much of a difference could possibly be noticed.


If you have an OTA-connected HR2x, just compare your DirecTV HD local to the OTA HD local. That's exactly what you'll get from FiOS, which delivers the same signal, unaltered.

I can receive OTA, and from 10' away on my 50" Fujitsu 720p plasma, I see no difference in MPEG-4 vs. OTA PQ when I run that same test. Only difference I see is during trick play, which is much smoother with the MPEG-2 OTA recording.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

bnglbill said:


> I would love to see a side by side comparison of fios and Directv. I wonder how much of a difference could possibly be noticed.


I can't speak to the HD side of things, but for SD at least, FiOS really is better. Very noticeably so. I had DirecTV for 5 years (I loved their service, and it was far and away a huge improvement over Comcast analog cable that I had prior to going to DirecTV), and when I got an HDTV, DirecTV wanted $300 for their HD DVR. I switched, but suspended my DirecTV account. Which allowed me to compare picture quality for SD between my old R15 DVR, and the feed I got from FiOS. Without question, the fios picture was sharper, with almost no compression artifacts. The colors were more vibrant, and the picture looked 'deeper' if that makes any sense. The SD PQ on my HDTV looked better... but so did the PQ on my SDTV.

I'm with you, though - I'd love to see a side-by-side of the HD PQ between FiOS and the DirecTV MPEG4 HD channels.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

If they ever showed pictures of that comparison here the whole site would cease to exist!


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Artwood said:


> If they ever showed pictures of that comparison here the whole site would cease to exist!


Not even close. Fios only serves a small portion of the country, so even if it were an order of magnitude better (which it isn't), the majority of American's could not even order it if they wanted to (myself included, although I don't want to).

DirecTV on the other hand serves every single square inch of the U.S. You can order and get DirecTV anyplace you want it. No cable company, phone company, or fiber company can even come close to matching that.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

johnp292 said:


> Yeah I know....if I could GET fios, I would have


Same here,and I work in HD at my job daily.

IMHO, I think DirecTV has a very good HD signal. Data rates are data rates, and you can have a high data rate but a bad codec and get a crappy picture. I think the MPEG4 that DirecTV uses is pretty good, and the updates I get on my DVR when they are available have done nothing more than improve the quality.

I guess the bottom line is, no matter what, or how, you get our HD, as long as you are happy with it and can enjoy the programming in HD, then that's the answer. I'm happy with the HD on DirecTV. My friend who gets cable likes what the cable gives him. The FIOS guy likes his FIOS. Each is getting a good HD signal. Apples to Apples...


----------



## mp11 (Apr 3, 2006)

Bluegrassman said:


> > The night before last we had torrential rains and wind gusts of 50MPH, and our picture on D* remained perfect the entire time  Funny that Comcast continually runs commercials stating that wind/rain cause problems with D*, but our experience is exactly opposite
> 
> 
> I think you should consider yourself blessed. I've had Directv for years, and in torrential rains the signal *always* goes out. Either you have a unique situation, or your idea of a torrential rain differs from mine.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

It occurred to me that networks like HBO that now convert their original programming to MPEG-4 (instead of the MPEG-2 broadcast standard), could, at least in theory, look better on DirecTV than on cable systems. Those systems currently use STB's that are MPEG-2 based.

Since the ATSC standard is MPEG-2 based, all OTA HD broadcast channels need to create an MPEG-2 feed of their programming, which needs to be transcoded to MPEG-4 for DirecTV HD receivers. Networks that are cable or sat only, however, can follow the HBO example and originate MPEG-4 streams. That would mean no transcoding for DirecTV, but transcoding for cableco's instead. /steve


----------



## billyinlasvegas (Feb 12, 2009)

I just recently switched to D* from COX Cable, so I have cable still fresh in my mind.

I find that D* HD not only looks better but has more channels, the only downside to me is that SD channels looked a little better on Cable but not much.

As far as signal problems I live in the desert so there's no rain issues; but in the last few wind storms I have had zero problems, not even the dreaded Brrrriiippp.


----------



## baloo75 (Jun 12, 2003)

I switched from Comcast (Portland Or. area) to D* about a week ago. HD is slightly better on D*, mostly in the area of sharpness colorwise I would rate them about the same. The SD on Comcast was better, D* SD is more washed out and dull (more compressed). As some know Portland is one of the areas that Comcast is making a stand, going all digital increasing the number of HD channels, etc. The programming will be pretty equivalent to D* in a couple of weeks with Comcast but for me the reason I switched was the STB and price (Mainly because of the AAA discount and 1 year new subscriber discount with D*). The STB, no comparison the D* HD DVR is LIGHT YEARS ahead of Comcast's.

I'm very happy I switched, was I expecting more from D* PQ? Not sure. I fully expected the SD channels to be worse with D* (I had D* 4 years ago and knew what to expect) the HD on Comcast wasn't all the bad so PQ wasn't a reason for switching for me.


----------



## btarheel646 (Feb 25, 2009)

Yeah, same experience as me, the standard channels on cable look a little better, but the HD channels look better on Direct. Comparing to timewarner by the way. And it's possible that the cable boxes just do a better job of processing the standard signal then the direct boxes, but I don't know.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

btarheel646 said:


> Yeah, same experience as me, the standard channels on cable look a little better, but the HD channels look better on Direct. Comparing to timewarner by the way. And it's possible that the cable boxes just do a better job of processing the standard signal then the direct boxes, but I don't know.


FWIW. It's not very scientific, and not a FiOS to DirecTV comparison, but click the "spoiler" link below to see this SD/HD comparison I made back in December, using an HR20-700 connected to a Sony 27" Wega CRT via component video cables.

I shot them using a Canon Powershot and then screen-grabbed them side-by-side on my desktop PC, for direct comparison purposes. You can barely see the "h" for "hd" bug on the right hand corner of the first comparison, but the image on the left is ABCF SD and the one on the right is ABCF HD. Both photos are unmanipulated, except for cropping and identical scaling. /steve



Spoiler


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

Changed from cable (Atlantic Broadband) to Directv. HD is a little better with cable with less motion artifacts. SD is much better with cable, no question. My cable company was a small one with much less HD channels and perhaps a much less compressed signal. I am paying almost half what I was paying with 4 times more HD channels, not a bad deal.


----------



## DBSooner (Sep 23, 2008)

Directv here where I live no question. HD cable here is very compressed and makes watching sports a nightmare.


----------



## whitepelican (May 9, 2007)

I have always thought that my OTA HD and DirecTV HD looked identical. But I also have an HTPC setup with a tuner card that can grab Time Warner Cable clear-QAM signals and OTA. They both look identical to me as well, and when I compare file sizes of OTA vs. cable, they are always nearly identical as well. This tells me that Time Warner here in Northeast Wisconsin is transmitting it's HD signals exactly as they receive them from the stations.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

I second that. I have the same opinion and the other plus is the amount of HD channels available. I think charter is around 20-30 so its not even a consideration for me anymore to go to charter.


smiddy said:


> DirecTV High Definition is better than Charter Cable High Definition in my neck of the woods too. There is really no comparison if I do a side by side comparison and swap TVs for each system, DirecTV's Picture Quality is by far superior.


----------



## dreamyip (Feb 26, 2006)

Another thing need to keep in mind is - your eyes vision... Did you sleep well last night before watching a program? Did you put on a new pair of contact lens before watching a program. Did your doctor do a good lasik surgery on your eyes?


----------



## speedy5662 (Mar 31, 2009)

mdavej said:


> Getting OT here, but I see compression artifacts (posterizing, mosquito noise, blockiness, blurryness, reduced color depth) all over the place, like a really low quality JPG. A nice, crisp 480x480 image should look pretty good, almost as good as a commercial DVD, which on D* it clearly does not. I can download certain SD movies on demand from D* and they DO look as good as a DVD, so I know a good SD picture is possible. Years ago, D*'s SD was beautiful. Can anyone who's seen D*'s SD on a 60" screen honestly say it looks good?
> 
> Anyway, rather than gripe about D*'s lousy SD, which I've ended up doing, I was just trying point out that in my area, cable HD looks nearly as bad as D* SD, which is bad.
> 
> Did I mention cable HD and D* SD are both terrible?


so let's compare fire vs. water or apples to peas...SD is going to look bad no matter what type of provider you have, on an HDTV. I know that on DTV, if I "pillar box" an SD channel the picture is almost as sharp as HD full screen. Watch a standard DVD from a standard DVD (no upconversion) and you will see the same poor quality as your claiming about TV providers.

In topic though, I live in a Cox market and my roomie noticed in 30 secs. The difference of our pathetic cable vs DTV. She could have cared less until she saw it for herself.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

speedy5662 said:


> so let's compare fire vs. water or apples to peas...SD is going to look bad no matter what type of provider you have, on an HDTV. I know that on DTV, if I "pillar box" an SD channel the picture is almost as sharp as HD full screen. Watch a standard DVD from a standard DVD (no upconversion) and you will see the same poor quality as your claiming about TV providers.


I made the comment that cable HD in my area looks as bad as D* SD, that's all. A jab at cable HD and D* SD in one sentence. It's a valid comparison because the OP can tune in a D* SD channel to preview what cable HD might look like, without having cable. I don't know what kind of TV you have, but D* SD is nowhere near as good as standard DVD on my TV, which is certainly a valid comparison, since at least the number of lines is supposed to be the same. Cable SD and E* SD are pretty good by comparison. Uverse and FIOS blow D* SD away. I admit D* SD looks fine on a small screen, but is nearly unwatchable on a big screen. I certainly don't expect SD to equal HD by any means, but if they would just ease up on the compression, it would look ok.

So, in summary, cable HD and D* SD suck. Both would benefit immensely from less compression. SD on many other systems is better than D* SD.


----------



## computersecguy (Aug 11, 2007)

I just switched to Bresnan from D*. I will echo the statements that D* has the better picture quality and more HD channels. I think that most of Bresnan's channels are still MPEG2, but it seems that the receivers are capable of MPEG4. Hopefully in the future they will start rolling to MPEG4, which should bring their pq close to D*. The only reason I switched is that I get nearly the same package, with an HD DVR, and Internet for less than I was spending with D*.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Nobody does SD worse than DirecTV.


----------



## ajc68 (Jan 23, 2008)

Artwood said:


> Nobody does SD worse than DirecTV.


...especially with sports! Any time a game on the NBA League Pass is only available in SD I cringe because I know it's going to be almost unwatchable. It literally makes my eyes hurt as I'm trying to watch on either a 40" or 46" LCD TV.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

LOL this forum is sooo touchy when it comes to certain questions.

I love the post about Bandwidth does not matter, it's how it looks to you  The other one about you can't compare mpeg2 to mpeg4 

To the orginal poster I would just say, that your in the wrong place to find an objective answer to your question, you are much better off posting this on AVS. 

That Bandwidth comment kind of reminds me of an argument I once had with a guy who said Directv 1080P was as good as BluRay, it was the old 1080P is 1080P argument. 

I had to carry out my BluRay deck and hook it up to his TV to collect my $20 Bet. I left him there mumbling "I don't understand, they are both 1080P, whats Bandwidth have to do with it?"


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

10 years ago D* SD quality was noticeably better than cable or analog OTA. Today, the SD seems to run from pretty average to not that great.

On the other hand, D* HD quality on HBO, SHO, etc. is very, very good. Good enough I wound not bother with a blue-ray player for my 42" LCD.

HD quality on my MPEG-4 local channels does seem noticeably poorer than OTA. The NCAA finals on MPEG-4 were really poor. Lots of pixelation and blurring. I am sticking with my HR10-250 and OTA for locals until D* fixes this.

I recently watched cable at a friends house in Northern California and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the HD picture on local sports. Whatever the technical reasons, it appears D* has some real competition on its hands in the area of PQ now.


----------



## hummer1823 (Apr 6, 2009)

I dont know... I think the the SD on D* is better than my comcast i just switched from. HD PQ is just as good or a little better than CC. i think the local HD on D* are just fine too. 

One thing thats for sure is D* has more blurps than CC. That kinda sucks.

Some day everyone will switch to FiOS and then that will suck too.


----------



## TrixStar (Apr 8, 2009)

DirecTV definitely looks better than Comcast did.


----------



## rcodey (May 28, 2007)

I'm in Northern New Jersey with Comcast, Directv and FIOS. I've checked back and forth with my eyes on the same channels and I would rate the HD quality as 1)FIOS 2)Directv and 3)Comcast.


----------



## thestaton (Aug 14, 2008)

FIOS > D* > Cable.


----------



## thestaton (Aug 14, 2008)

Artwood said:


> Nobody does SD worse than DirecTV.


Im still trying to figure this out. Is it because SD is just not made to be viewed on a LCD / Plasma, or is D* really just that pathetic. I have nothing to compare it to.


----------



## hokie93 (Aug 21, 2007)

I can easily tell the difference between OTA and Directv. The pixilation on movement is not the problem but the Directv channel has less contrast. On the OTA the colors are more vibrant, but on the bluring side their is no difference in my opinion.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

thestaton said:


> Im still trying to figure this out. Is it because SD is just not made to be viewed on a LCD / Plasma, or is D* really just that pathetic. I have nothing to compare it to.


DVD's are SD and look pretty good on LCD/Plasma. D* SD is pathetic. The frustrating part is that it doesn't have to be. D* could make it better if they wanted. It used to be much better. Cable at least has a reasonable excuse since many systems are simply out of bandwidth.


----------



## Wildgift (Nov 19, 2006)

Unquestionably, the HD on DTV is much better and the SD considerably worse. Yet, the HUGE increase in HD channels (well, helllloooo there, Comedy Central HD), along with the fantastic HR22 (as opposed to the miserable motorola DCH 3416) makes DTV the obvious choice and a major upgrade.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

mdavej said:


> DVD's are SD and look pretty good on LCD/Plasma. D* SD is pathetic. The frustrating part is that it doesn't have to be. D* could make it better if they wanted. It used to be much better. Cable at least has a reasonable excuse since many systems are simply out of bandwidth.


The biggest problem isn't with compression but with incorrect VIDEO LEVELS (black, white, chroma, luminance, ect) these can be easily corrected with little time and effort, they have NO excuse for this issue on quite a number of channels)

See my thread here. 
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=157062


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Why not just show all SD channels at full resolution and eliminate however many of them you have to to get to that point.

It's not like the world is going to lay down and die if you get rid of a bunch of SD channels!

The few left would at least be not painful to watch.

Exactly how much money does DirecTV make from all the pay channel crap?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Artwood said:


> Exactly how much money does DirecTV make from all the pay channel crap?


DIRECTV didn't offer specific numbers in their latest reporting; only that PPV and premium movie revenues didn't meet their expectations.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Artwood said:


> Why not just show all SD channels at full resolution and eliminate however many of them you have to to get to that point.
> 
> It's not like the world is going to lay down and die if you get rid of a bunch of SD channels!
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that probably 75% of the DirecTV receivers currently in use are MPEG2/SD only. Those customers would be VERY upset if a bunch of their channels were arbitrarily eliminated, and you would be too.

While DirecTV is reporting that about 60% of their customers have HD service, meaning at least one HD receiver, few customers are ALL HD; most still have several SD boxes in use. That's a LOT of recievers for 18 million customers!


----------



## djrobx (Jan 27, 2009)

There's no good answer to the OPs question because it varies from place to place.

When Comcast had our cable system, the HD choices were limited, but the PQ was outstanding. It was simply a remux of the OTA feed with no additional compression added. The PQ was slightly better than DirecTV. Time Warner took over and after a long wait, added 20 new HD channels. When they did this, the HD PQ went to hell. It became way worse than DirecTV or U-verse.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

BattleZone said:


> Keep in mind that probably 75% of the DirecTV receivers currently in use are MPEG2/SD only. Those customers would be VERY upset if a bunch of their channels were arbitrarily eliminated, and you would be too.
> 
> While DirecTV is reporting that about 60% of their customers have HD service, meaning at least one HD receiver, few customers are ALL HD; most still have several SD boxes in use. That's a LOT of recievers for 18 million customers!


In all honesty, if you have Directv HD, you'd know the SD quality sucks ass.

I have an sd receiver in my kitchen, and in all honesty, I'd love better quality and less channels. Directvs putrid sd+2003 lcd=BARF


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

The only way your going to tell whit any kind of certainty is to put two exact tv's that are set exactly the same way side by side and get several opinions.Any way else is just speculation.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There is no way to numerically score the PQ of a particular provider because each has their own top-secret recipe for reducing bandwidth. Much of the recipe involves using proc amps on the source material and in many cases also involves some judicious (or not so judicious) scaling.


----------



## Aztec Pilot (Oct 11, 2007)

I am not sure that the SD sucks. Many HDTV's which I am assuming your 2003 LCD is, do a poor job at displaying SD programing. All flat screens may fall in to this, but I only have experience with LCD's and Plasma of the HD variety. Though I acknowledge choosing quantity over quality many times. I would rather watch SD on an old TV. It looks better.

If I misunderstood your setup, then disregard

But comparing to OTA SD and D*SD, I find no difference.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Anyone who thinks that DirecTV SD is good is blind.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Artwood said:


> Anyone who thinks that DirecTV SD is good is blind.


Well i should have stopped when i needed glasses because i feel SD is fine,We still watch a lot of stations like Tru and History Int,have ota and it compares very nicely. Have no problem whit SD.Some tv's do SD better than others.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Aztec Pilot said:


> But comparing to OTA SD and D*HD, I find no difference.


Then something is not setup corrrectly or you're watching HD OTA.

I can understand some people saying that SD is ok for them. However saying there's no difference is a different thing. Unless you're colorblind, friend is and he can't tell HD from SD, you should see a difference from any SD to HD no matter what carrier if you watch the same show.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

I am so fed up with Direct TV's AUDIO problems, I am not even concerned with the video at this point. If they don't resolve this SOON, I will be headed to FIOS.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Then something is not setup corrrectly or you're watching HD OTA.
> 
> I can understand some people saying that SD is ok for them. However saying there's no difference is a different thing. Unless you're colorblind, friend is and he can't tell HD from SD, you should see a difference from any SD to HD no matter what carrier if you watch the same show.


I'll repeat a post I made a page or two ago. Yes, there is a discernable difference in quality, but nowhere near the degradation for DirecTV SD that many in this thread would have you believe is the case. E.g., while the type in the lower right corner is clearly better on the HD show, the face and hair in the second set of pictures look almost identical. Just my .02. /steve



Steve said:


> FWIW. It's not very scientific, and not a FiOS to DirecTV comparison, but click the "spoiler" link below to see this SD/HD comparison I made back in December, using an HR20-700 connected to a Sony 27" Wega CRT via component video cables.
> 
> I shot them using a Canon Powershot and then screen-grabbed them side-by-side on my desktop PC, for direct comparison purposes. You can barely see the "h" for "hd" bug on the right hand corner of the first comparison, but the image on the left is ABCF SD and the one on the right is ABCF HD. Both photos are unmanipulated, except for cropping and identical scaling. /steve
> 
> ...


----------



## Aztec Pilot (Oct 11, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Then something is not setup corrrectly or you're watching HD OTA.


I corrected my post. I intended to say that on any of my sets, I can not see a difference in SD from any source available to me.


----------



## zeagus (Jun 13, 2007)

I found this helpful for comparing Comcast and FIOS (I have D*, of course which falls in between, but closer to FIOS than Cable):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

zeagus said:


> I found this helpful for comparing Comcast and FIOS (I have D*, of course which falls in between, but closer to FIOS than Cable):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271


Wow... now I see why some call it _Comcrap_! /steve


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

I do not have the best eyes but I have seen both and dealt with both

I have seen great HD on both, terrible HD on both

I have never really thought one COMPLETELY beat out another

I still enjoy my DirecTV HD


----------



## djrobx (Jan 27, 2009)

Cable used to be superior here. When Comcast had the system, they passed along an unmodified (just remuxed) version of what was on OTA. Time Warner took over, and after a long period of time, decided they needed to add some more HD channels to be competitive. Problem: They severely over-compressed the existing HD channels to make room for the new ones. The result was a god awful picture. From all my reading many other cable systems are trashing their HD quality in similar ways. 

The DirecTV MPEG-4 HD picture is generally excellent. Except HBO and Cinemax for some reason. I see a lot of MPEG-2 style artifacts on them that I don't see on other channels. 

Overall very satisfied with DirecTV picture quality.


----------

