Direct tv verses dish hd
- Thread starter johnny58259
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 35
- Views 8K
3HaloODST said:
Yes it does. I can see a noticable difference from my old 722K.
Sent from my iPad 2 using Forum Runner
I have to wonder though, is it placebo effect or what? As I stated before, there's only so much that can be done with the same amount of data... I really wonder if there was an actual difference in 722K PQ and 722 PQ like some people said there was?
3HaloODST said:
As Scott said, the MPEG4 decoder and processor can make a difference In the picture quality.
Sent from my iPad 2 using Forum Runner
Last edited:
They have that CSI cleaner-upper module in the Hopper eh?
When someone posts some results of a 722 and Hopper comparison I might believe it. If this stood true we would have people saying the HD looks better on the newer DirecTV boxes as well.
He didn't say "HUGE?" He said "it is possible that the PQ could be better." Not trying to argue or anything, but I really am curious as to how much of a difference it makes. I'll see in 2 weeks, but I'm not getting my hopes up (granted PQ looks great on my 722K anyway.)
digiblur said:
Did Direct put an upgraded decoder and processor in the new boxes? If not, that might be why.
Sent from my iPad 2 using Forum Runner
1 hopper to replace all that? that would be a good deal
most of my recording conflicts are non network, so it wouldnt help for me
1 question though
would use of the joey and hopper happen during prime time at the same time for live tv or just recordings?
Live TV isn't a real issue around my home. The Masters Sunday was the most recent live event that I watched live and I cannot even remember what might have been before that. My son also doesn't watch live TV as his work schedule just isn't conducive.
I watch mostly scripted shows from the broadcast networks and cable type channels. PTAT fits me very well, and would result in virtually no scheduling conflicts since the cable scripted shows (and non-scripted for that matter) are repeated so often. If it wasn't for the broadcast channels, I would see almost zero conflicts on 1st showing on cable type channels.
I do know that those that are into sports, and just have to see it in real time would find a single Hopper to not be a good idea. I watch some sports, mostly boxing and golf, and seldom worry about watching it live. Golf especially, 'cause when what I want to watch is live, I'm generally on the golf course myself!!
"LOS/SS don't affect picture quality. The signal either works or it doesn't." <- you do know, that this is not true, right?
What's not true about that? I guess you could have momentary pixelization, but Digital Signal strength anything above the threshold of receiving the signal won't make the picture any better. You might lose the signal more with less of a signal, but more signal does not add to the picture quality. Analog does.
i have an indoor antenna. as i move it around i can see a distinct difference in PQ. When it's softest, just before it goes pixelated, i notice that the signal is weakest. when it is sharpest, the signal is strongest. i believe that what i am seeing is many, one or two bit losses that cause the decoder to 'guess' at the missing data, and therefore makes it softer.
this was also seen when testing the DTVPal.
this was also seen when testing the DTVPal.
Never seen such with any digital reception. I have antennas that I can move around as well. It's either clear, or blocky and the sound starts skipping. Same goes for digital satellite. Are you sure that you're not tuned into some low-power analog station?
I agree. Digital doesn't go 'soft'. That is impossible. The encoding would have to support different quality levels based on bitrate, which it DOES NOT. This is all in your head. It either works or it pixelates/goes black.
I'm not try to be mean in my response, but this is a misconception that needs to end. I work in the broadcast industry, by the way. Streams can be made to have adaptive quality.
Stations with subchannels do change in quality constantly, as a very nice (and expensive) encoder decides which bits go to the main vs. the sub. If you notice a quality change in an HD TV broadcast, THAT is what you are seeing.
I'm not try to be mean in my response, but this is a misconception that needs to end. I work in the broadcast industry, by the way. Streams can be made to have adaptive quality.
Stations with subchannels do change in quality constantly, as a very nice (and expensive) encoder decides which bits go to the main vs. the sub. If you notice a quality change in an HD TV broadcast, THAT is what you are seeing.
Correct. It's digital, it works or it doesn't. It doesn't make the picture soft due to the errors. Once the signal quality goes beyond what it can correct using the FEC(kind of like parity bits on a RAID drive or PAR files), the picture will go out completely or parts of the frame will be missing. Or as some people call it pixelation. It's not going to just make it soft...errors are errors. They don't discriminate to only affect the edges. It makes stuff come up missing, wrong color, etc.
Think of it this way. If you didn't have really good signal strength would that make your guide information have words misspelled? Nope. It's either there or it isn't.
