I'm curious to know if the picture quality on Eastern Arc is better than the PQ on Western Arc. You figure that since EA only uses MPEG-4, the PQ would be better since it's not as starved for bandwidth like WA. I'm not planning on switching arcs (currently on WA), but again I'm just curious. Has anyone here had WA but (for whatever reason) had to switch EA, and if so, is the PQ a lot better on EA or is it about the same on both arcs?
EA vs WA Picture quality question
- Thread starter CK SatGuy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 6
- Views 2K
Well, EA SD might be a tad better, but as for HD, EA actually has a transponder that shares 10 HD channels, and several 9-channel HD transponders, whereas WA has only 3 transponders that have 9 HD channels, and no 10-channel transponders (yet.)
lol... Turns out it was your very own post that I got that info from...
http://www.satelliteguys.us/256211-hd-bitrate-under-5-mb-s-2.html#post2541763
lol... Turns out it was your very own post that I got that info from...
http://www.satelliteguys.us/256211-hd-bitrate-under-5-mb-s-2.html#post2541763
Last edited:
Oh yeah...... I thought I had posted something like that not too long ago. But, I thought is was Western Arc that had the one transponder with 10 HD channels. Oh Well, can't remember everything.
Eastern arc looks better on SD channels, due to being in Mpeg 4 and their is no difference on HD channels at all. They are always mpeg 4. I think some people think that western arc looks better due to the higher sat signal levels . Eastern arc has about 10 points lower on all sats compared to western arc , but there is no difference really in signal strengths . I get in the 60s on 72.7 sat, 45 - 55 on 77 sat ,and 45- 70 on 61.5 sat. The 77 sat will be replaced this August when the new sat is launched . Then the strengths should go up on that one too.
The SD may appear a little sharper due to the 544x480 resolution vs EA's 480x480. Certain WA HD channels may appear clearer than EA channels as well due to the 6 9-channel (and 1 10-channel) transponders on EA vs only 3 9-channel TPs (no 10-channel) on WA.
I suppose the SD may be subjective due to some people preferring the slightly higher res on WA and others preferring the MPEG4 on EA which has less compression artifacts. As for HD, well, for the most part that's true, with the exception being the TPs with 9 and 10 HD channels.
As for signal strength EA has "lower" values due to 8PSK FEC. Though sat 129 on WA is also 8PSK, and it's signal strengths are comparable to EA. For example, 72.7's minimum threshold is around 46-50 (depending on the TP) and 129 is around 47-50 in my area. All of the TPs that have HD on 110 are also 8PSK and will exhibit "lower" signal strengths that are comparable to EA. One example TP would be TP 07. Just as 129 has a single CONUS QPSK TP (TP 21) which would be comparable ("higher" strength) to most TPs on 110 and 119. For example, on almost all TPs on 129 I get 56-62 signal strength whereas on TP 21 I get 75-78, comparable to most of 110's TPs being 75-78.
Once 110/119 move over to 8PSK (when they get rid of legacy receivers) then the signal strengths on all sats on both EA and WA will be comparable. Regardless, they are still similar in strength regardless of the Point Dish indications. As long as you are above the minimum thresholds, you're good. Also, I'm sure you know this, but signal strength doesn't make any difference in PQ. You either have a picture, or you don't. There is a very fine line in-between in which it pixelates, though, but it's major pixelation, not subtle PQ differences.
I've had both arcs and still do on my house. My living room ,computer room , son's room are all on eastern arc. My master bedroom is on western arc. I could clearly see the difference in SD channels on my bedroom tv vs my living room tv using the same Toshiba hd tvs. As for signal strengths I do see that 8psk gives lower signal strength but still good signals. But some people think that stronger sat signals means better pq. I do NOT believe that ,but I have heard passionate arguments from some who do. But in all picture quality is a subjective issue and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I perfer picture without artifacts in the background. If I see this in my picture ,I tend to report it as a problem to dishquality department. That may be why I like DISH over all compared to DIRECTV- in regards to picture quality. I always thought that DIRECTV's SD quality looked like crap ,due to too sharp of a picture and the busy jagged artifacts in the backgrounds. I did give them a slight edge on their hd channels pq, even though there are less of them to watch. But you're probably right that I perfer eastern arc over western due to the artifacts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
