Tech Chat Recap - November 14th, 2005

[Tom Bombadil]

Anyone hear any more news about D*'s experience with MPEG4? E* would have to have access to the same technology as D*. If E* is only seeing a 20% gain, it is hard to imagine that D* is doing any better. But I haven't heard anything about D* having problems.

 

[BrettTRay]

If they are only doing the HD channels in 8psk then how much space will they actually save since the most HD channels you are going to get on one transponders is 3, I'm confused. If they decide to put all channels if 8psk then they will have to replace the 501, 508, 510, 721, 301 and others right? If thats the case then they will have to replace all of those receivers and then turn around and replace the replacements with MPEG 4 receivers when it comes time. Another thing is if they are releasing the 411/211 now, and they will only see a 20% increase in bandwidth savings with the current encoders, will they have to replace those receivers when they become more efficent or just the encoders?? Alot of questions. Alot of people confused.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

They would not have to replace the replacement receivers if the replacements are both 8PSK-Turbo and MPEG4 compatible, as the 411, 211, and 962 will be.

However if they went with MPEG4 for all channels, then they would have to replace all of the present SD receivers, including the 322, 522, 625, etc. However that could wait until E* was ready to convert all of the SD channels to MPEG4. So far they have announced no intentions to do this.

I'd like to see them convert all channels to 8PSK-turbo as that would free up a good amount of bandwidth. But that's easy for me to say and expensive for E* to do.

Right now it is being debated if there are any bandwidth gains to be had from the HD channels with 8PSK-turbo. Some have submitted that all of the present HD channels are already in that format, so there is nothing to be gained. Others have said that the present HD channels are in 8PSK and that another 20%-30% could be gained by implementing the "turbo" mode. I'm not going to guess at something I don't know. I hope there are some gains that can be realized and that E* is not simply playing a game with us to obscure their disappointing results with MPEG4.

 

[Spike]

If we are not going to go to MPEG-4, does that mean we are stuck without full 1080i or 720p?

The reason I ask the question is because HD from an antenna provides better quality than even Dish Network's HD.

And the second part of the question then is, Will Directv surpass Dish Network in the quality of the picture, as their HD goes MPEG-4??

 

[M Sparks]

HD from an antenna provides better quality than even Dish Network's HD.

Obviously OTA HD will almost always surpass DBS, there just isn't the need to compress it as much.

However, some of us will never see OTA HD (without moving). I know that has nothing to do with what you asked, but I like to bring it up as often as possible, since so many people around here like to pretend us rural dwellers don't exist.

Er, in any case, MPEG-4 doesn't have much to do with it. MPEG-4 would make it theoretically possible to improve picture quality. But what they really want to use it for is to add MORE HD without making it any worse.

 

[Spike]

However, some of us will never see OTA HD (without moving).

I also live in a rural area! And it is very frustrating. I don't even qualify for CBS-HD with Dish Network.

 

[Stargazer]

Dish would have to replace their receivers eventually if anyone wants to see the satellite content in HD whether it be MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. If they have to replace all of the customer's receivers then it will be MPEG-4.

 

[Foxbat]

The reason I ask the question is because HD from an antenna provides better quality than even Dish Network's HD.

IMHO, I have to disagree with that remark. Three of our local ATSC stations split up their 19Mb spectrum with multiple bitstreams. The restriction in the available bits during HD broadcasts causes many digital artifacts, far worse than most anything that Dish or DirecTV has done to their HD bandwidth.

True 1080p HD will need to wait until HD-DVD or Blu-Ray comes along.

 

[rocatman]

Anyone hear any more news about D*'s experience with MPEG4? E* would have to have access to the same technology as D*. If E* is only seeing a 20% gain, it is hard to imagine that D* is doing any better. But I haven't heard anything about D* having problems.

I believe DirecTV was not using 8PSK even for HD so DirecTV would have a greater percentage gain than Dish using MPEG-4 with 8PSK. The other difference is that all of DirecTV's use of MPEG-4 currently is on their Spaceway satellite using Ka band so a direct comparison to Dish using DBS Ku band maybe comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Spike]

FoxBat,

The antenna based HD I once watched was Great!!! Far better than I saw on VOOM, when they were a sat company. And far better from what I'm seeing on Dish today (though it is pretty good). And it was by FAR exceptionally better than what I saw on Directv over the last months I was with them, especially right before I dumped them and went with Dish's better picture quality!!

Each of us has our likes. And each of us has to watch from an antenna exactly what is broadcast by the local networks, which, by the way, means I get Zip HD via antenna now. Frankly I miss it!

Thanks for your post

 

[Tom Bombadil]

What Foxbat was saying is that OTA HD can be excellent, or it can be sub-par. It depends upon what any particular station decides to do with the bandwidth they have been allocated. If they use the full 19MB to rebroadcast a network program that in turn was also given the full 19MB and recorded using top notch HD cameras, then the resulting image is spectacular.

But not everything is well recorded and the station does not have to allocate their full bandwidth to a single HD channel. If they chop it up and then compress the HD program, the picture will degradate.

Likewise for E* and D (and cable). D* has been bad about compressing down to 10-12MB, there are even instances of them dropping to 8MB. E* has generally been better, the numbers I've seen run in the 12-16MB range. Thus one of the reasons to sub to E* is that you do get better HD quality, at least for the moment.

Over the long run, I think it is highly likely that we will be seeing a lot of 10MB or so "HD" from both E* and D*. The pressure will be on to carry all of the HD channels and they will need far fewer transponders if they use the lower bitrates. Just like they have always overcompressed SD, when it is possible for them to broadcast nearly all of the SD channels in near DVD quality. They know that Joe Sixpack Consumer will be VERY happy with 10MB HD, because most consumers are satisfied with overcompressed SD now.

So just like to get decent 480i now, you have buy a DVD, you will need to buy HD-DVD or Blueray-DVD to get top quality HD.

 

[John Kotches]

rocatman says:

I believe DirecTV was not using 8PSK even for HD so DirecTV would have a greater percentage gain than Dish using MPEG-4 with 8PSK. The other difference is that all of DirecTV's use of MPEG-4 currently is on their Spaceway satellite using Ka band so a direct comparison to Dish using DBS Ku band maybe comparing apples to oranges.

Let's be clear here. DirecTV will be seeing the same gains from the MPEG-4 encoders that Dish will see, ~20%. Coupled with a switch to 8PSK transponders the aggregate gain would be on the order of about 40-45%.

So, Charlie can actually leapfrog when the realtime encoders do hit 40% as they can swap out the plant for MPEG-4 when the time is right while DirecTV has to lag to replace their infrastructure with either a hardware or software infrastructure.

It's a seesaw battle between these two like it usually is in the technology industry. The fact that E* hedged their bets with Rainbow-1 a kickass move in case the MPEG-4 encoders couldn't deliver the gains they were hoping for. Guess what, they didn't and the bet paid off. Plus, it was a hell of a lot cheaper than buying and waiting for a new satellite to be built, tested, launched, tested, moved into placed, tested and placed into production.

Cheers,

 

[BobaBird]

301s have the hardware for 8psk. i noticed it wasn't listed on that chart. that is incorrect. they do have 8psk tuners

Evidence? This has been touched on many times in the 2 years since the 311 was introduced. If the 301 had it someone would have spoken up.

6. Remember, this chip is nothing new. It was first introduced in the 8psk module for the 6000. All HD content was converted over maybe 2 years ago? JohnH or Tony would know.

3 channels converted on 2/18/04, with the Demo channel being the last on 4/14/04. See http://ekb.dbstalk.com/107.