# Opinion: OTA HD thru 662 vs TV



## kaman (Mar 22, 2007)

I would like to know what you folks think about the picture quality as well as signal strength when you compare running OTA HD through the 622 vs. running the OTA directly to the TV.

I realize the advantages of being able to use DVR, Guide, etc. But I was wondering if anyone has noticed a signal degradation or difference in PQ (different decoder than TV).

Given my hilly location, I can get an decent OTA signal most all of the time. Things will probably degrade a little when all the leaves grow in the forest behind me, which will put me right on the edge for acceptable signal strength. I'm still confident it will work. So signal strength is my main concern. And yes, I have an amplified OTA antenna, mounted outside, etc. Right now, I have it going straight to my TV.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

as for PQ, there will be no difference. Either it works, or not.

as for reception and signal quality, well there are potential issues with OTA reception under certain conditions with the 622 that don't seem to impact most TV tuners. like, for example, in Austin we have been having to jump through all kinds of hoops to get KTBC to work, and many cannot get it to work but are crossing our fingers that 4.01 fixes it. likewise others who had no problems with OTA reception have been having problems since 4.01 arrived. I really think OTA reception is iffy on the 622 and maybe it'll work, maybe it will be a pain, depends on your location, stations, code rev, other parameters.

but suffice to say, IF you can pick it up, the PQ will be the same with either method.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Mr.72 said:


> as for PQ, there will be no difference. Either it works, or not.


As for signal, it works or it doesn't work. As for PQ I would disagree. Due to the compression associated with the 622, the PQ should be a little better using OTA to the TV rather than tuning a local channel through Dish. The PQ through the 622, in my opinion, is very good.


----------



## lujan (Feb 10, 2004)

I agree with TulsaOK and disagree with Mr.72. I notice quite a bit of improvement in PQ while using the TV's internal digital tuner rather than the 622. I hardly ever use it though because I almost always watch the shows while or after they've been recorded on the 622 (to skip commercials).


----------



## kaman (Mar 22, 2007)

It seems plausible to me that the PQ could be different than TV, as the decoding software/hardware would be different (E* vs. Mistu TV). Also, after decoding in 622, the signal is analog at that point????which could degrade between 622 and TV.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

The PQ should be identical under the following conditions:

1) The 622 is connected via the HDMI interface.
2) The 622 output is set for the same HD standard(1080i or 720P) as the OTA signal.
3) The TV handles it's HDMI input the same as it's internal tuner.

The decoder in the 622 or TV should make little difference. The real magic in MPEG 2 happens in the encoder at the TV station.


----------



## Todd H (Aug 18, 2006)

The tuner in my television seems more sensitive than the 622. I can't get a lock on any OTA stations on my 622 but can on my SXRD.


----------



## kaman (Mar 22, 2007)

I guess there's only one way to find out...

The cool thing is I can hook my Mac up to the TV via firewire and record OTA digital signals. (TV won't pass through HDMI/Dish to firewire though )


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

TulsaOK said:


> As for signal, it works or it doesn't work. As for PQ I would disagree. Due to the compression associated with the 622, the PQ should be a little better using OTA to the TV rather than tuning a local channel through Dish. The PQ through the 622, in my opinion, is very good.


Either I misunderstood the original question, or you misunderstood the original question.

The question is not SAT locals vs. OTA locals. The question is, OTA locals, either received with the 622, or received with the TV. The answer to THAT question is, the PQ will not be any different (other than the caveat about output resolution matching the incoming stream).

Certainly OTA locals will look a lot better than the SAT locals.


----------



## kaman (Mar 22, 2007)

Yes. My original question concerned OTA HD only. So are you saying that the 622 OTA HD decoder is EXACTLY the same decoder technology as my TV? Same parts/software and everything?


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

same parts/software, maybe not.

same result, most likely so.

it's kind of like saying, if I open this jpeg file on one computer and view it, is it going to look better than if I open it on another computer with a different OS, video card, etc. it's going to look pretty much just the same unless something is broken.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

kaman said:


> Yes. My original question concerned OTA HD only. So are you saying that the 622 OTA HD decoder is EXACTLY the same decoder technology as my TV? Same parts/software and everything?


In theory they should be pretty close, with exceptions like a new ViP622 may have a more recent than an HDTV from 2 years ago... while a new HDTV you buy tomorrow may have a newer tuner than in the 622.

Kind of like car radios... There are lots of bells & whistles to base your decision from... but the basics of the tuner are pretty much the same technology from one to another.


----------



## JSIsabella (Oct 20, 2006)

I am only guessing here, but it would make sense that a tuner built into a TV might be a bit higher quality, since that is the main reason it is there.

The 622 is a great unit, but the main design was to receive signals from Dish. OTA was something that is a nice extra. But it has been consistantly reported here that stations that can be locked in easily on the TV tuner may not lock in on the 622.

As far as picture quality, all I can say is that in my opinon, there is no difference in the picture displayed through the tuner in the TV and the OTA tuner in the 622.

Jim


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

The OTA picture quality is MUCH sharper going directly thru my TV tuner than my 622 OTA tuner. I use the side by side PIP feature that my TV has and I am hooked up HDMI to my TV from the 622 and by Coax to my antenna input 1 on TV via a splitter. We were watching Shark the other night and all 4 of us said that the sharper picture was the TV tuner. I strongly disagree that there is no difference. TV tuner is also more sensitive. I generally still use the 622 output due to channel guide unless there is a sporting event on.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ultimately it depends upon your TV... In my case, I have no tuner (no digital one anyway) in my TV so I cannot compare.


----------



## Will Munshower (Mar 4, 2007)

I use OTA both with the 622 and my TV. After seeing this thread yesterday, I decided to take a close look. For the life of me, I can't see a difference. And if there is one, it's probably because of the way I have the settings on the TV for each particular input. 

My opinion is that it's split right down the middle. Maybe an ISF certified engineer with years of experience can tell them apart. What really matters is that if YOU can see a difference, I suppose.

Regards...Will

P.S. We are talking about the differences in OTA PQ only, right? As I read again through the thread, I started to have doubts. Just for the record, I am speaking about OTA local reception only. Thanks.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

Will Munshower said:


> I use OTA both with the 622 and my TV. After seeing this thread yesterday, I decided to take a close look. For the life of me, I can't see a difference. And if there is one, it's probably because of the way I have the settings on the TV for each particular input.
> 
> My opinion is that it's split right down the middle. Maybe an ISF certified engineer with years of experience can tell them apart. What really matters is that if YOU can see a difference, I suppose.
> 
> ...


My settings fro HDMI and Antenna input 1 are both on Auto on my TV but the picture and especially the color thru my TV tuner is much more sharper and defined than going thru the 622 tuner to TV.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

having them both set to "auto" means they may very well be different. I wonder if you would see a difference if they were set to identical (manual) settings.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> as for PQ, there will be no difference. Either it works, or not.


Actually, that's not entirely true. I did a comparison of my Samsung's direct antenna picture vs 921->HDMI at 1080i->Samsung picture and noticed that in the 921 version of a football game I was comparing there was added blotchyness on the field. I compared pictures back and forth for a half hour and it stayed true. If you weren't comparing the native Samsung picture you'd not think there was anything particularly wrong with the picture, but the Samsung's direct was better with smoother gradiants.

I believe that the game was shot in 720p and then being upscaled to 1080i by the DVR and sent out. The conversion was obviously introducing some artifacts. I didn't bother changing the 921's output resolution because that's a hassle I just don't want to start thinking about for every channel. 

That said, the picture quality difference wasn't enough to give up all of the juicy DVR bonuses. Not even close.

(ps. though I now have both an 921 and a 622 in my living room, the 921 is now deactivated so doing side-by-side comparisons of picture quality I can't do... i suppose the 622 may have a better graphics chip which may make the quality as good as the Samsung's was... hard to tell. I do notice that gradiants are MUCH smoother, but I haven't been able to determine if that's a function of changing from HDMI to Component cabling or the systems themselves.)



> I really think OTA reception is iffy on the 622 and maybe it'll work, maybe it will be a pain, depends on your location, stations, code rev, other parameters.


For what it's worth, the 622 is a LOT better than the 921 was... I can pick up both boston and providence with the 622.


----------



## sthor (Oct 1, 2006)

OTA HD PQ is fantastic through the 622. My plasma has no tuner so I can't do an A-B test but I am more than happy with it. I would not consider viewing any TV without a DVR anyway.

Why not try it for yourself. The only thing you have to lose is the time it takes to hook up the OTA connecton on the 622 and run the OTA local channel setup.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

sthor said:


> OTA HD PQ is fantastic through the 622. My plasma has no tuner so I can't do an A-B test but I am more than happy with it. I would not consider viewing any TV without a DVR anyway.
> 
> Why not try it for yourself. The only thing you have to lose is the time it takes to hook up the OTA connecton on the 622 and run the OTA local channel setup.


I compared and believe my OTA tuner on my TV is better PQ wise than 622 receiver. Is it worth giving up the 622 features? NO CHANCE IN well you get the picture.


----------



## kaman (Mar 22, 2007)

For the record, (I'm the one who started this thread) I am just talking about OTA HD only. 

Well, I hooked up the OTA to the 622 tonite during the first Final Four Game for a good comparison with fast-motion HD. Maybe it is just the power of suggestion, but I can tell a slight difference in PQ, with the edge going to the TV. It seems that I can sometimes see more of the "pixilation effect" (my term), when you can see the small squares during fast movement. With that being said, the PQ of 622 is still very good. I would calculate using my highly technical and accurate testing instrumentation, my eyeballs, that the TV PQ is better by about 4.5%. 

I agree with smackman, it isn't nearly enough give up 622 features, in my case.

So far, the signal strength seems to be hanging in there.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I would expect the quality of OTA from the Dish receiver vs your HDTV to fare similar to comparing your HDTV to another manufacturer. Different HDTVs (even with like technology LCD vs LCD or Plasma vs Plasma) from different companies show different quality results too.

Very possible your HDTV could be noticably better than through the Dish receiver. If I had a tuner in my HDTV I would definately compare and have it hooked up for multi-viewing fun... but since I don't, I can't.

At the time I bought my HDTV it was something like $300-$500 more to get the HDTV tuner built-in... and since I knew I was going to be putting about that much into my Dish 6000u receiver for HD from satellite I couldn't justify paying that money twice.

Now that the tuners are built-in and essentially no savings to get an HDTV model without anymore... I would certainly buy and use next time I have to upgrade a TV.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

I'm sitting here watching "The Rookie" in OTA HD. New Sammy 61" DLP and I run it with HDMI. PQ via the set's tuner is noticeably better than the 622. But hell, it's great either way!!

John


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

JM Anthony said:


> I'm sitting here watching "The Rookie" in OTA HD. New Sammy 61" DLP and I run it with HDMI. PQ via the set's tuner is noticeably better than the 622. But hell, it's great either way!!
> 
> John


This is exactly the way I see it with my setup. I was watching the final 4 yesterday with split screen and the TV set tuner is more of a sharper picture. I started watching the game on my TV tuner and I wanted to rewind and watch a great play. I swapped back to the 622 tuner and left it there. The 622 features are the bomb.


----------



## racermurray (Mar 21, 2007)

Interestingly enough my 622 picture quality outperforms my SONY Bravia 40S2400.
Just did a comparison watching NBC news HD from my OTA.
My 622 is set at 1080i and is connected with an HDMI.
All color,contrast etc. being the same.
Slight difference but the 622 picture is a little crisper.

Murray


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

The PQ depends upon how you connect the 622 to the TV. If you use component, then you are depending upon the quality of the 622's D/A converters, then most likely going through the TV's A/D converters to get back to digital internally. If you use HDMI, you skip the analog conversions.

The MPEG2 decoding itself will give the same result in either box, but there's also a lot of post-processing that's done (scaling, noise filtering, motion artifact elimination, etc). How that ends up looking depends upon which box does a better job. If you have a high-end TV, it probably will. If you use component output, you're using the 622's processing. Use HDMI, and you use your TV's processing.

Best bet is to try it and see. I used to watch OTA using my TV's tuner back when I had D*'s HR10-250, because its OTA sucked big time. Now, I use the 622's OTA, and connect via HDMI. It looks great.


----------



## hokie-dk (Feb 4, 2006)

I really can't see a difference in the HD picture quality, but I am able to capture more stations using the 622 tuner.


----------



## bmcleod (May 13, 2006)

So I don't see how you can "A/B" the TV OTA Tuner and the 622 OTA Tuner without splitting the signal coming from the antenna which reduces the signal strength, doesn't that change the test conditions?

I found this thread because I am thinking of switching back to my TV's OTA Tuner. I don't think PQ is the only issue; someone above mentioned Shark, I was watching it the other night throught the 622 OTA, most of the show was OK with occational "jumps", but just at climax of the show I got the dreaded green pixelation and missed the rest. I used my TV's HD tuner for over 3 years before getting the 622 and rarely had dropouts so sinificant. I hate to loose the TV guide features and recording OTA but at least I could watch the whole show. I wish it was easy to switch back and forth.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

bmcleod said:


> So I don't see how you can "A/B" the TV OTA Tuner and the 622 OTA Tuner without splitting the signal coming from the antenna which reduces the signal strength, doesn't that change the test conditions?
> 
> I found this thread because I am thinking of switching back to my TV's OTA Tuner. I don't think PQ is the only issue; someone above mentioned Shark, I was watching it the other night throught the 622 OTA, most of the show was OK with occational "jumps", but just at climax of the show I got the dreaded green pixelation and missed the rest. I used my TV's HD tuner for over 3 years before getting the 622 and rarely had dropouts so sinificant. I hate to loose the TV guide features and recording OTA but at least I could watch the whole show. I wish it was easy to switch back and forth.


A coax 2 way splitter will cause a 3 db loss maximum of signal. It is very unlikely that this minimal loss would cause issues. Remember, this is digital, You either have it or you don't. Unles you are on the ragged edge with signal a 2 way splitter would have no effect on PQ.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Probably worth mentioning to keep in mind... Since the ViP622 is a DVR... and allows the pausing of "live" TV and so forth... Technically speaking, when viewing OTA (or anything else for that matter) through the ViP622, you are actually watching a slightly delayed recording.

Your TV, on the other hand, is displaying the info as it receives it when you directly connect your antenna to your HDTV digital tuner... so while picture quality should be close to the same for a given resolution... there could be issues in the ViP receiver caused by that slight delay of watching the buffer rather than live TV. Things like the audio skips or skipping frames are introduced by the DVR nature of the ViP622 that would not be seen in your TV.

A ViP211, for that reason, could perhaps be a more valid unit to compare to HDTV built-in tuners.


----------



## bmcleod (May 13, 2006)

smackman said:


> A coax 2 way splitter will cause a 3 db loss maximum of signal. It is very unlikely that this minimal loss would cause issues. Remember, this is digital, You either have it or you don't. Unles you are on the ragged edge with signal a 2 way splitter would have no effect on PQ.


So we are talking about pretty subtle differences here and as I mentioned it's not just PQ but a complete loss of useable signal, but I'm willing to give a spliter a try and see if when I lose it on the 622 the Mits tuner is any better.



HDMe said:


> Probably worth mentioning to keep in mind... Since the ViP622 is a DVR... and allows the pausing of "live" TV and so forth... Technically speaking, when viewing OTA (or anything else for that matter) through the ViP622, you are actually watching a slightly delayed recording.


Yeah, this certainly seems to have the potential of affecting the picture as much or more than different tuners.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Probably worth mentioning to keep in mind... Since the ViP622 is a DVR... and allows the pausing of "live" TV and so forth... Technically speaking, when viewing OTA (or anything else for that matter) through the ViP622, you are actually watching a slightly delayed recording.
> A ViP211, for that reason, could perhaps be a more valid unit to compare to HDTV built-in tuners.


When using side by side PIP on my TV, the picture on the 622 with live programming is not delayed compared to the TV Tuner. They are in sync totally when viewing live programming such as The Masters. The colors such as the green of the grass or the blue sky is much more vivid with the TV tuner. Once again I use HDMI from my 622 receiver to TV. Sharper colors is the biggest difference but I will take the 622 features anytime. I have no trouble with pixelation from OTA signal on TV but sometimes for no reason the 622 OTA tuner will pixelate for no reason unless it is signal overdrive. I love my 622 with 3.66. The workarounds are no problem for the features you have.


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

smackman said:


> A coax 2 way splitter will cause a 3 db loss maximum of signal. It is very unlikely that this minimal loss would cause issues...


Not necessarily. A 3db loss is 1/2 the original power. The db scale is logarithmic. This makes sense for a splitter - the signal is divided into 2 signals, each with half the power of the original. Additionally, splitters aren't perfectly efficient, so the total loss is going to be more. If you're in a fringe area, you will certainly see the effect of using a splitter.

However, as was pointed out, the signal is digital; if you don't get dropouts or pixellation using the splitter, then the image will be the same quality as the non-split original.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

wje said:


> Not necessarily. A 3db loss is 1/2 the original power. The db scale is logarithmic. This makes sense for a splitter - the signal is divided into 2 signals, each with half the power of the original. Additionally, splitters aren't perfectly efficient, so the total loss is going to be more. If you're in a fringe area, you will certainly see the effect of using a splitter.
> 
> However, as was pointed out, the signal is digital; if you don't get dropouts or pixellation using the splitter, then the image will be the same quality as the non-split original.


If your signal is already weak that is dropping out or pixellation is present, common sense would tell you not to use a splitter. As far as the linearity of the signal goes, I was taught a long time ago to figure 3 db loss as a standard but this was on analog signals.


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

Yes, 3db loss is the standard measurement point, although it's not a minor amount. Bandwidth specs of an amp, for example, usually goes something like "20Hz-20Khz +/- 3db". These are the half-power points. Sounds better than "your amp will deliver half-power at 20Hz and 20Khz", doesn't it?

To further complicate matters, RF amps for off-air signals frequently have their sensitivity specified in microvolts; voltage, not power. In that case, 3db of power loss is equivalent to a reduced signal _voltage_, given a constant input impedance, of 0.707. Isn't that exciting?

Anyway, even in a fringe area, a splitter can be used, but you might also need an inline amp. (I'm in the boonies. I have two high-gain antennas, one for Boston and one for NH stations, each with a preamp, feeding a combiner and another high-gain amp to drive 60 feet of coax to get to my 622!)


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

you cannot really compare PQ with side-by-side PIP mostly because #1 the TV is processing the signal and #2 the resolution is 1/4 in side-by-site PIP! There's no improvement HD vs. SD with side-by-side PIP.

Now if you have color saturation issues etc. those are all calibration issues. It's entirely possible the signal processing in the 622 is different from that in the TV and therefore would require calibration for each signal input. If the color levels are different, and you prefer more saturated (what I am interpreting from "sharper") color, then whichever input has more saturated color is going to get the nod.

Either way side-by-side PIP won't do the trick. You'd have to switch between the two and keep a careful memory. If you could calibrate both inputs so that they match with a calibration signal, then I would be intrigued to see the results of a blind test.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

In my small world I would never use your way of calculating a loss because its not necessary. I aplaud your knowledge and honestly understand "most" of what you are saying because I am a Electronic Technician on the Industrial side of the technical world. I would say this though; probably over 90% of the people reading your comments have no idea what the Hell you are talking about so I keep it simple for simple minds like myself. You are probably 100% correct but what you are saying is highly technical to most readers. Anyway, have a nice day.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

-3dB for audio and -3dB for RF are entirely different things. In audio, it matters because really, from a frequency response point of view, -3dB is about the minimum difference most people can hear. So if it was 20Hz-20kHz +/- 1dB vs. 3 dB you would not likely hear the difference if it was indeed flat in the range only - a couple of dB at either end. However, for an audio amplifier, the normal specification is +/- 1dB and it's throughout the band. +/- 1dB is considered flat.

Anyway, your -3dB is a more common loudspeaker specification but still it only applies to audio. The reason we use dB for audio or even light levels is because we don't perceive it linearly. A half-power sound does not SOUND half as loud, so it only sounds a little bit quieter so 3 dB makes a lot more sense than saying it's 50%.

The more important thing about using a splitter is the effect on antenna loading and frequency response. But since even dB is too technical for smackman I guess I should avoid talking about such nonsense as RF frequency response in this forum.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

The more important thing about using a splitter is the effect on antenna loading and frequency response. But since even dB is *too technical for smackma*n I guess I should avoid talking about such nonsense as RF frequency response in this forum.[/QUOTE]

Since you insist calling me out by name I suggest you reread mypost concerning technical. Here is what I said:
_
In my small world I would never use your way of calculating a loss because its not necessary. I aplaud your knowledge and honestly understand "most" of what you are saying because I am a Electronic Technician on the Industrial side of the technical world. I would say this though; probably over 90% of the people reading your comments have no idea what the Hell you are talking about so I keep it simple for simple minds like myself. You are probably 100% correct but what you are saying is highly technical to most readers. Anyway, have a nice day._

Talk about Rf frequency, resonant frequency or whatever your heart desires. If I started talking about DCS, PLC, TDC, etc. it would mean little to most on this web but these abbreviations do entertain the use of rf, db, impeadance, cross talking,C,C+, visual basics etc. etc. You will not go over my head and look forward to your extreme knowledge of RF Frequency.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

really the best summary for this forum is like this: If it works, then great. If not, bummer for you. There's a lot more to a "splitter" than just 3dB of signal loss. But this is way OT for this topic.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

I agree.


----------

