# My first impression of D* HD vs. E* HD



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Before the installation, I filled my E* HDDVR with selected HD recordings, intended to do a side by side comparison with D* HDs, before my E* receivers are returned. I focused on mainly HGTV and FOOD channels since that is the time I have for now.

I used my 50" Panasonic 1080p plasma, with both E* 622 and D* HR21 connected by HDMI cables. I then recorded the same shows on HR21, played them back on both receivers for as fair a comparison as possible (my 622 is already disconnected so only can do playbacks). Both HDMI settings on my TV are set at the same calibrated custom video mode.

I must say I was a little disappointed that the D* MPEG4 HD did not stand out clearly against E*'s counterpart. I heard all the braving about how much better D* HD looked after people switched from E*, maybe D*'s PQ has come down lately?

Both suffered visible artifacts/microblocking in fast motion. Though E* seemed to have less resolution so the picture is softer, and motion artifacts were more apparent than D*. D* picture also seemed to have a little more intense color. But none of the above would be very noticeable in a casual viewing condition since I was in an inspection mode. It is however very possible that on an LCD panel, the issues will be amplified simply because of the nature of the LCD. Unfortunately I do not have time to hook them up to my 32" LCD panel for testing.

My comparison actually validated my initial objective to switch from E* to D*, not for HD PQ, not even for the more HD channels, but simply that E* wanted over $500 for each additional HDDVR I wanted to add since they don't lease more than "four tuners" and D* has no such limitation and only charges one DVR fee per account.

So if you ask me unless there are specific HD channels you must have and E* does not offer, or you are like me need multiple HDDVR's, a switch may not be necessary. E* HDDVR is easier to use, with D* there were always a few more remote clicks to do the same things.

But then again with all the discounts D* is throwing at a new sub, that alone may justify a switch anyway.


----------



## booger (Nov 1, 2005)

Thanks for the info. I've been keeping an eye out for a post like this.

With so many on the fence of whether or not to switch from one provider to the next, this comes in handy.

Thanks again.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Thanks for the info and it does stand to reason that if E* is transmitting at lower rez. (we've heard that before) then they would have fewer motion artifacts for a given bandwidth because they would use less compression.


----------



## SWTESTER (Apr 7, 2004)

Thank you very much for the info. I would like more on your opinion of the D* HR21. Does it really take that many more keystrokes than the 622? Very interesting. I do believe Food is on a transponder with 7 MPEG4 channels on E*. I for now am waiting for E* to impress me by this fall.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

SWTESTER said:


> Thank you very much for the info. I would like more on your opinion of the D* HR21. Does it really take that many more keystrokes than the 622? Very interesting. I do believe Food is on a transponder with 7 MPEG4 channels on E*. I for now am waiting for E* to impress me by this fall.


In fact after having a little more time to actually play with the remote, it became even more apparent it takes more keystrokes than I felt initially to get things done, but then I am new to D* so there maybe short cuts I don't know about.

Interestingly when I asked my wife she said she was fine with the new routine. I was most worried about her having to adjust from being used to 622 for so long, I myself hardly play with DVRs much other than pulse and replay.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

HobbyTalk said:


> Thanks for the info and it does stand to reason that if E* is transmitting at lower rez. (we've heard that before) then they would have fewer motion artifacts for a given bandwidth because they would use less compression.


If the 7 per transponder is true maybe they have to do both to get by.

However everyone seems to sum it up for me better than I could, it is not worth the switch if you just want a much better PQ.


----------



## booger (Nov 1, 2005)

Is it true that the Direct DVR does not actually skip forward through programming but fast forwards instead.

Also, 
I've been told that if you connect an external eSata hard drive to the DVR, it becomes your hard drive and no longer uses the internal one. Is this true?

Finally,
Wouldn't a higher-resolution image look better overall than a lower resolutions one? So Dish's image looks better when there is a lot of motion?

Thanks!


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

I was unable to do a side by side picture comparison when I 1st started thinking about moving over. Took the family over to a buddy with D*, he as a HR21, and after playing with it, family voted to wait, as the HR21 interface is not nearly as good, or as intuitive as the 622/722. Lucky for me I only need 2 DVR's, now have the 722 in the front room, and 622 that I have had for almost 2yrs, moved to the backroom. Retention people gave me a good deal on the 722, I had no intentions of leaving, but talked up a good story and was very calm about it. Still on the Fence, but no real desire until football season, and just hoping E* has done more with the HD by then.


----------



## imhammed (May 10, 2004)

My parents and my sister in-law have D* HD PVR's And I hate using the remote. Maybe I'm just used to my 622 but I think the layout of the remote is fantastic, very easy to use with out looking at it. the D* remote layout doesn't seem logical.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

booger said:


> Is it true that the Direct DVR does not actually skip forward through programming but fast forwards instead.
> 
> Also,
> I've been told that if you connect an external eSata hard drive to the DVR, it becomes your hard drive and no longer uses the internal one. Is this true?
> ...


Yes if you connect an eSata drive that does over ride your internal hard drive and any passes you might have set up.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Have you checked out this thread http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=72648 for tricks and tips? And what things are you trying to do with the remote that are taking more keystrokes, maybe we can help???


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

booger said:


> Is it true that the Direct DVR does not actually skip forward through programming but fast forwards instead.


On the HD DVR's there is a backdoor way to change it to a 30 second skip vs. the 30 second slip which is the default.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

booger said:


> Is it true that the Direct DVR does not actually skip forward through programming but fast forwards instead.


Originally this was true. The latest national release has the option for a 30 second slip (original functionality) or a 30 second skip (like Tivo).

The 30 second slip is interesting as you get a glimps of the commercials, but don't have to sit through them. They fly by in 1-2 seconds per 30 second slip.



booger said:


> I've been told that if you connect an external eSata hard drive to the DVR, it becomes your hard drive and no longer uses the internal one. Is this true?


Yup, that's true. The internal hdd still spins, so you have to open up the dvr and physically unplug it in order to shut it off.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> On the HD DVR's there is a backdoor way to change it to a 30 second skip vs. the 30 second slip which is the default.


Believe it or not the only thing I like about the D* remote so far is this 30-sec slip when I can actually see contents fast slip by, vs. skipping which you don't get to know what was skipped.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Believe it or not the only thing I like about the D* remote so far is this 30-sec slip when I can actually see contents fast slip by, vs. skipping which you don't get to know what was skipped.


I agree, I changed to the skip when it came out, a day later i swapped back.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Just compared two more MEPG4 channels.

DiscoveryHD: I compared a same episode of "Thirty Jobs", the impression was the same I got from the HGTVHD and FOOGHD tests. E* was slightly more down-rezzed and showed more over-compression related motion artifacts/microblocking, but not enough to notice during a casual viewing.

CinemaxHD on E* vs. MAXHD West on D*: I compared a same episode of "Coed Confidential", they were identical, no over-compression artifacts, no sign of down-rez on either service. "Coed Confidential" is unique in that it is a 1080i video based show, unlike most movies on the premium channels that are film based. It is my experience that video based material is more demanding than film based, which was why I picked this show for comparison. Ok I see the glee in you but this is my story and I am sticking to it

I will have two more shows to compare in a few days, one on HistoryHD, another a film based 1080i movie on StartzHD.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

I agree with jacmyoung. I have now had D* up and running for 15 days.

The number one reason to switch from E* to D* or any other provider is to get HD programming not on E*. And that all depends on your viewing habits. 

The D* HD PQ is very good, but I could not say that it is better than E*. I will
reserve judgment on which is better. The E* DVRs are better. The E* software
is quicker. 

However, for my taste, D* has much better HD programming. Just getting
MSG HD and FSNY HD is a huge difference for a sub from the NJ, NY, CT, PA region.
Where I live, E* offers four HD Phila locals and no HD RSNs, plus no map down
for local channels (stuck in the 6300s). D* provides six HD Phila locals and three
HD RSNs (MSG, FSNY and SNY). E* provides SNY HD in sports pack for $5.
D* provides YES HD in sports pack for $12. 

Also, NBA LP and NHL CI on D* are much better than E* because D* has more 
HD games. On a few nights last week, D* had five or six NBA LP games in HD
and E* had one or none. D* having NESN HD, CSNNE HD, YES HD, FSNBA HD, MSG
HD and FSNY HD makes a huge difference. Also, D* is providing HD games that
I suppose E* could provide, but E* is not, e.g. not all Altitude HD, CSNMA HD or
CSN Chicago HD games are on E*, but they are on D*. 

And then D* has MLB EI and a D* press release said that it would all be in HD
this year. And since NBA LP and NHL CI have been in HD on D*, I believe D* will
live up to its press release. 

There are other differences in programming that I am sure E* will catch up with,
e.g., USA HD, Sci Fi Hd, CNN HD, etc.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

I have E* and D* on right now on side by side 1080P plasma TVs watching the
Lakers/Wizards on NBATV HD. Both hooked up HDMI. I cannot tell the difference
in PQ. Both look the same. The audio on D* is slightly delayed. The audio on
E* is ahead of D* and is louder. I have to turn the volume down on the E* feed.


----------



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

Hound said:


> I agree with jacmyoung. I have now had D* up and running for 15 days.
> 
> The number one reason to switch from E* to D* or any other provider is to get HD programming not on E*. And that all depends on your viewing habits.
> 
> ...


It's lucky that E* has better equipment then D* or many subsribers would probably jump ship. It's ridiculous that E* has fallen this far behind concerning sports and all other programming. I guess when they heard D* was launching a new satellite, they took it as an empty threat? Well, its up there and D* is the hands-down HD leader no matter how you slice it.

One thing that really has to piss a NY-area E* subscriber off is that MSG and FSNY HD have been uplinked for a year but for some odd reason E* can't hammer out these deals when D* can do it with ease. I'm guessing this has something to do with the way the ownership is laid out because there has to be one major bottleneck which prohibits E* from getting these deals done.

If D* would put a dish on my damn chimney, I'd switch over in a heart beat but they refuse, so I can't be a customer.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

DBS Commando said:


> I guess when they heard D* was launching a new satellite, they took it as an empty threat?


If you would have read some of the other threads you would have seen that the delay in launches was not E*s fault. If the launches would not have been delayed then E* woud have had new sats up before D*.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

DBS Commando said:


> ...If D* would put a dish on my damn chimney, I'd switch over in a heart beat but they refuse, so I can't be a customer.


The D* "Slimline" dish is bigger and heavier than the E* Dish1000, so much so when I asked to put the slimline in place of my Dish1000, there were several issues and I am still trying to get someone to come back to resolve.

D* has a legit reason not want it on your chimney.

As far as D* HDDVR, after a short video tutorial, I am getting used to it already, I'd say at this moment some of the things people think better on E* HDDVR should not be your over-riding concern either, unless you really want the external archive feature.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> As far as D* HDDVR, after a short video tutorial, I am getting used to it already, I'd say at this moment some of the things people think better on E* HDDVR should not be your over-riding concern either, unless you really want the external archive feature.


Which has been my point for a while now. The boxes are very much alike, they just do some things a little differently. All in all, anyone with an open mind would be comfortable with either given the time to learn how to use it.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> If you would have read some of the other threads you would have seen that the delay in launches was not E*s fault. If the launches would not have been delayed then E* woud have had new sats up before D*.


Not their fault?

Am I the only loyal long term E* customer who truly was shocked that E* didn't have a "plan B" at this critical time and faults Charlie & Company big time for that????

But what's a 12-month delay when they have spent so much money on a really good marketing and pr staff.:lol:


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Plan B? You think sat. launches just grow on trees and anyone can do it at the drop of a hat? They have to be planned months, if not years ahead of time and you have to pay to be put on a schedule to launch, money that would be forfitted if you pull out of a launch. You just don't get and drop sat launches willy-nilly.


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanks for the great posts -- I am still firmly confused about jumping, but my hardware may force my hand. Our 721 is acting out and its remote has become psychotic. If I have to buy new, going to D* will actually cost less than buying a new DVR. 

Glad to read that someone's wife was OK leaving the 622 for the HR21. The wife factor has to be considered carefully.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Just completed my last comparison using HistoryHD and StarzHD.

On HistoryHD, unfortunately I could not record one identical show on both services in the time allowed, but I did compare quite a few HD shows recorded on both and I came to the conclusion that HistoryHD is 720p (correct me if I am wrong). Meaning the resolution is visibly lacking compared to a 1080i show. The upside of a 720p show is it uses much less bandwidth, so no sign of compression artifacts, both services looked equal.

The movie I compared on E* StarzHD and D* StrazWHD was "Pursuit of Happyness", a 1080i HD movie transfer we typically see on an HD premium movie channel, meaning the signature film material with some level of grainy look, but still maintaining decent resolution. Again I could not detect any compression artifacts in fast motion, no softness one compared to the other, both services were identical.

That concludes my tests.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Thank you for taking the time to do this and sharing your personal opinion. It is very helpful.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Just completed my last comparison using HistoryHD and StarzHD.
> 
> On HistoryHD, unfortunately I could not record one identical show on both services in the time allowed, but I did compare quite a few HD shows recorded on both and I came to the conclusion that HistoryHD is 720p (correct me if I am wrong). Meaning the resolution is visibly lacking compared to a 1080i show. The upside of a 720p show is it uses much less bandwidth, so no sign of compression artifacts, both services looked equal.


No really a 720p broadcast does not use "much less bandwidth". It does use some amount less bandwidth. It is also a subjective matter as to whether a 720p broadcast is "visibly lacking". Certainly a 1080i sourced NBA basketball game is absolutely visibly lacking when compared to a 720p game, due to the inadequate frame rate of 1080i format for most sports.

Sounds to me like for the most part, you are describing the choices that the providers have made with respect to compression on each channel. I kind of figure Food Network and that kind of thing are going to be as compressed as possible to save bandwidth for channels that are more demanding and more popular, in particular the premium movie channels. As you pointed out, the channels that you would expect to be priority for bandwidth look the same.


----------

