# Satellite vs. OTA HD Quality



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

It's not often one gets a demonstration of the difference between uncompressed, OTA high-definition broadcast quality, versus the compressed version we get from DBS (and yes, cable).

Tonight, with the three-network simulcast of the NFL's NYG/NE game, we see such a demonstration. The picture and audio quality from the OTA CBS/NBC affiliates leaves NFL-HD in the dust... and NFL Network is the source feed.

(I'd talk about the difference between the Austin CBS and NBC locals, but that's not for this forum/thread.)

Compare and contrast... it makes the game even that much more fun.


----------



## mauijiminar (Oct 11, 2007)

U are crazy, OTA does not look better than the NFL network. Now the OTA is in 5.1 vs. 2.0 on NFL Network.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

mauijiminar said:


> U are crazy, OTA does not look better than the NFL network. Now the OTA is in 5.1 vs. 2.0 on NFL Network.


I should step back and say it differently:

The OTA _HD broadcast _of NFL Network from the CBS/NBC locals looks better than the HD NFL Network _feed _through Dish.

mauijiminar: Are your locals broadcasting in HD there in AR?


----------



## Dicx (Sep 17, 2007)

I am comparing through Clear QAM and I would agree that the colors are better from the QAM but I think the DISH feed (722, HDMI) is crisper. The colors are washed out, but they always have been over HDMI until that mysterious firmware upgrade comes.

It is an interesting experiment though flipping back and forth between the 2 channels.


----------



## racermurray (Mar 21, 2007)

Buffalo CBS 1080i and NBC 1080i locals via antenna feeding a VIP622 do not look as good as NFL channel on my SONY 40"LCD.
VIP622 is set at 1080i , using HDMI cable.

Murray


----------



## Schizm (Jul 31, 2007)

In my area (Gainesville, FL) the CBS OTA broadcast looks just as well as the NFL network. I do have my 622 set to 720p (my TV's native). The audio on the NFL Network is much better than my local CBS'. Usually the OTA signals are better on both counts.

I haven't even tried NBC b/c I use the Distant Networks for NBC (thanks D* lawsuit  ). Their quality always abominable for both audio and video..


----------



## Knon2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

racermurray said:


> Buffalo CBS 1080i and NBC 1080i locals via antenna feeding a VIP622 do not look as good as NFL channel on my SONY 40"LCD.
> VIP622 is set at 1080i , using HDMI cable.
> 
> Murray


I am only able to compare the signals from a Direct TV HR20 and OTA, but I must admit, the OTA looks considerably better on the OTA Channels. I have 4 available within range of me.
No comparison on a 73" Mits


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

Knon2000 said:


> I am only able to compare the signals from a Direct TV HR20 and OTA, but I must admit, the OTA looks considerably better on the OTA Channels. I have 4 available within range of me.
> No comparison on a 73" Mits


One thing that stands out for me on my CBS OTA is that the NFL Network seems to know how to balance the Dolby 5.1 audio better than what CBS has offered during this year's SEC/NFL regular season football coverage.

_BTW: Thanks for sharing your observations from your woefully inadequate DirecTV HR20_.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

bartendress said:


> I should step back and say it differently:
> 
> The OTA _HD broadcast _of NFL Network from the CBS/NBC locals looks better than the HD NFL Network _feed _through Dish.
> 
> mauijiminar: Are your locals broadcasting in HD there in AR?


I'm watching the NFL HD feed from Dish. It looks better than the OTA HD from our local CBS station (in HD). I can't get my local NBC HD OTA since I don't want to put up a 500 foot antenna.

Yes, even Arkansas has all the networks in HD.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

bartendress said:


> _BTW: Thanks for sharing your observations from your woefully inadequate DirecTV HR20_.


FYI, maybe your opinion of the NFL network vs. OTA is due to issue with E* since the majority of people voting in poll http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=114136 are giving NFL network on D* the lead on PQ.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

razorbackfan said:


> Yes, even Arkansas has all the networks in HD.


I didn't mean to portray that implication, and once I finished the post I thought, "Oh. THAT's not going to go over very well." LOL


----------



## Knon2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

bartendress said:


> One thing that stands out for me on my CBS OTA is that the NFL Network seems to know how to balance the Dolby 5.1 audio better than what CBS has offered during this year's SEC/NFL regular season football coverage.
> 
> _BTW: Thanks for sharing your observations from your woefully inadequate DirecTV HR20_.


The audio must be a local thing, since I cannot complain at all about the OTA channels I get, with the exception of one of the Fox's.
Yeah, you aren't kidding about the HR20, at least the one from a year ago. I can honestly say that I am really happy with the strides that it has taken, especially with the latest CE cycle.
Anyway, I was just commenting on my results, not really wanting to get into a war of providers


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

RAD said:


> FYI, maybe your opinion of the NFL network vs. OTA is due to issue with E* since the majority of people voting in poll http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=114136 are giving NFL network on D* the lead on PQ.


My snarky comment about the HR20 was in jest... thank goodness it's not raining, huh?

But perhaps you are right and someone should post a poll.

Personally... I'm surprised I'm taking this much time away from what has turned out to be an OUTSTANDING football game.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

bartendress said:


> It's not often one gets a demonstration of the difference between uncompressed, OTA high-definition broadcast quality, versus the compressed version we get from DBS (and yes, cable).
> 
> Tonight, with the three-network simulcast of the NFL's NYG/NE game, we see such a demonstration. The picture and audio quality from the OTA CBS/NBC affiliates leaves NFL-HD in the dust... and NFL Network is the source feed.
> 
> ...


in my area the locals including HD look better ota than from E*


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

bartendress said:


> It's not often one gets a demonstration of the difference between uncompressed, OTA high-definition broadcast quality, versus the compressed version we get from DBS (and yes, cable).
> 
> Tonight, with the three-network simulcast of the NFL's NYG/NE game, we see such a demonstration. The picture and audio quality from the OTA CBS/NBC affiliates leaves NFL-HD in the dust... and NFL Network is the source feed.
> 
> ...


I'm very tired of seeing this misstatement OTA is compressed, it is MPEG 2 compression. Satellite is using either MPEG 2 or MPEG 4. The 2 are just different w/o compression there is NO DIGITAL. The caps Lock used in this is not yelling it is there to make specific points. As far as one looking better than the other it will depend on the transmitting bandwidth used in both cases. Many OTA stations are going to compromise the bandwidth just as badly as cable or satellite. It will be station by station. This is why there is going to be disagreement on this subject.


----------



## Ressurrector (Jan 1, 2008)

I just think you must keep in mind the whole compression thing. Its been part of the dish signal since I have known bout dish satelite. Sure raw feeds are better 

Its like watching a Xvid or a DVD copy of a movie....One has some grain the other doesn't But then again DVD format can't fit 5 or 6 full length movies on one dvd-r either. I think its all a compromise really. Like you can live in a metropoliton area and get free OTA HDTV signals..Thats great if you live in such an area but in rural areas where you can't even get DTV OTA let alone HDTV OTA I guess what choices do you have really?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Ressurrector said:


> I just think you must keep in mind the whole compression thing. Its been part of the dish signal since I have known bout dish satelite. Sure raw feeds are better
> 
> Its like watching a Xvid or a DVD copy of a movie....One has some grain the other doesn't But then again DVD format can't fit 5 or 6 full length movies on one dvd-r either. I think its all a compromise really. Like you can live in a metropoliton area and get free OTA HDTV signals..Thats great if you live in such an area but in rural areas where you can't even get DTV OTA let alone HDTV OTA I guess what choices do you have really?


I think the point is that even OTA isnt the raw feed. It is compressed also. Where I live(and its as rural as you can get, i just have a really good antenna) I can get OTA signals from 3 or 4 diff places, many of them look no diff than MPEG 4 locals off of D*. Many factors cause this.


----------

