OTA - What's so great about it?

[JasonPenner]

I have been lurking on these forums for around 3-4 weeks now after getting a HR20. Listening and learning. And I think tonight I am going to take the plunge to the latest Release Candidate. But one thing that I have seen a lot of interest in with each Release Candidate is the OTA situation. And that brings me to my question(s)...

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?

2. Are there more channels broadcast locally over the air than D* broadcasts? I am in Houston, TX area. How can I find out what the OTA channels that I could get are?

3. Is the PQ better?

If I have missed something from previous questions or am in the wrong group please let me know. I just think that with the intense OTA performance reviews that come with each Release Candidate that you all would be ideal people to ask.

Thanks.

[leww37334]

I have been lurking on these forums for around 3-4 weeks now after getting a HR20. Listening and learning. And I think tonight I am going to take the plunge to the latest Release Candidate. But one thing that I have seen a lot of interest in with each Release Candidate is the OTA situation. And that brings me to my question(s)...

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?

2. Are there more channels broadcast locally over the air than D* broadcasts? I am in Houston, TX area. How can I find out what the OTA channels that I could get are?

3. Is the PQ better?

If I have missed something from previous questions or am in the wrong group please let me know. I just think that with the intense OTA performance reviews that come with each Release Candidate that you all would be ideal people to ask.

Thanks.

1. doesn't go out when it rains, additional channels and subchannels.

2. you could get mntv, pbs and cw OTA

3. debate rages on, I do not have HD LIL's and cannot comment

[jeffloby]

I have been lurking on these forums for around 3-4 weeks now after getting a HR20. Listening and learning. And I think tonight I am going to take the plunge to the latest Release Candidate. But one thing that I have seen a lot of interest in with each Release Candidate is the OTA situation. And that brings me to my question(s)...

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?

2. Are there more channels broadcast locally over the air than D* broadcasts? I am in Houston, TX area. How can I find out what the OTA channels that I could get are?

3. Is the PQ better?

If I have missed something from previous questions or am in the wrong group please let me know. I just think that with the intense OTA performance reviews that come with each Release Candidate that you all would be ideal people to ask.

Thanks.

1. locals that you might not be able to get with Directv
2. Maybe depends on area. www.antennaweb.org
3. Yes

[shaun-ohio]

pic quality is much better too

[ExUltimateTV]

pic quality is much better too

How does the HR20 do at recording OTA shows (assuming it has that capability)? Is the quality still better?

[hasan]

I have been lurking on these forums for around 3-4 weeks now after getting a HR20. Listening and learning. And I think tonight I am going to take the plunge to the latest Release Candidate. But one thing that I have seen a lot of interest in with each Release Candidate is the OTA situation. And that brings me to my question(s)...

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?

2. Are there more channels broadcast locally over the air than D* broadcasts? I am in Houston, TX area. How can I find out what the OTA channels that I could get are?

3. Is the PQ better?

If I have missed something from previous questions or am in the wrong group please let me know. I just think that with the intense OTA performance reviews that come with each Release Candidate that you all would be ideal people to ask.

Thanks.

Advantages of OTA-HD over your MPEG-4/HD-Locals:

1. PQ (Picture Quality). The Gold Standard of PQ is OTA-HD and is likely to
remain so for quite some time. Your MPEG-4/HD-Locals from D* are transcoded from
MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...there is loss. Available bandwidth on D* is limited, so all
HD on the satellites is bit-starved (further degradation). HD as delivered via
D* is at best HD-Lite compared to OTA-HD, in most cases.

2. Immunity from signal loss: OTA-HD (unless you are in a fringe area) is much
less vulnerable to signal loss from precipitation.

3. Sub Channels and PBS (I don't think PBS-HD is carried yet by D*). There is
wonderful programming on PBS, and the video quality is stunning.

The expense of adding OTA-HD to your current setup is minimal. A good antenna
for local OTA-HD is the U-75 from Radio Shack. It is only about 25 bucks. It has
a 40" long boom and a corner reflector, so it has a small footprint, but very
good gain.

Go to antennaweb.org, plug in your zip code and see what kind of antenna and
where it needs to be located in order to receive your locals via OTA-HD. You
might find you don't need an outside antenna, or you might be able to put the U-
75 in your attic. Some people do well (if within 15 to 20 miles of a good
transmitting site), with nothing more than a Sliver Sensor (do a google for it),
mounted a few feet from the TV itself.

OTA-HD recording quality is superb, as it should be.

[BuckeyeNut]

I have been lurking on these forums for around 3-4 weeks now after getting a HR20. Listening and learning. And I think tonight I am going to take the plunge to the latest Release Candidate. But one thing that I have seen a lot of interest in with each Release Candidate is the OTA situation. And that brings me to my question(s)...

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?

2. Are there more channels broadcast locally over the air than D* broadcasts? I am in Houston, TX area. How can I find out what the OTA channels that I could get are?

3. Is the PQ better?

If I have missed something from previous questions or am in the wrong group please let me know. I just think that with the intense OTA performance reviews that come with each Release Candidate that you all would be ideal people to ask.

Thanks.

By rights, PQ should better, however I don't see a differnce in PQ between my HD locals and OTA locals. The difference is very miniscule.:rolleyes:

[tonyd79]

You also get all the sub channels, which D* doesn't retransmit.

There is a down side to OTA. Depending on your location and environment, OTA may be difficult to pin down but worth it if you work at it.

[bonscott87]

Advantages of OTA-HD over your MPEG-4/HD-Locals:

1. PQ (Picture Quality). The Gold Standard of PQ is OTA-HD and is likely to
remain so for quite some time. Your MPEG-4/HD-Locals from D* are transcoded from
MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...there is loss. Available bandwidth on D* is limited, so all
HD on the satellites is bit-starved (further degradation). HD as delivered via
D* is at best HD-Lite compared to OTA-HD, in most cases.


Mostly right except that MPEG4 HD locals are *not* in "HD-Lite". In most markets there is very little difference in PQ between MPEG4 and OTA. The exceptions are the markets that haven't had their MPEG4 encoders updated yet.

[tyrap]

Some of us do not receive our local digital channels from Directv yet. OTA has been a life saver for us. The recordings have been great for me, the picture and the Dolby Digital 5.1 sound have played back perfect. Some people have a few bugs out there, but I feel those issues are being addressed. For me to be able to record my Directv programing, and OTA, is well worth the price of the HR20.

[psychobabbler]

I waited to buy an HR20-700 until they activated the OTA tuner. I don't get SD or HD locals through D*, so I [I]have[I] to have OTA or I don't have my locals. Unfortunately, my locals are not all broadcast HD, either, but without the OTA, I wouldn't get to watch any local channels. (Plus, the OTA tuner on the HR20 is better than the HDTivo.)

[21hawk]

I just chipped about 1\4 inch of ice off of my dish, before that I wasn't getting enough signal, but my OTA HD was completely unaffected. If I hadn't asked the installer to mount my new dish on a pole instead of the roof, I still wouldn't have a signal. Big plus for OTA, Oh, and DirecTV has delayed HD LiL's in my area from 4th Quarter 2006 to 4th Quarter 2007, so I wouldn't have local HD at all without OTA.

[BNUMM]

I have been lurking on these forums for around 3-4 weeks now after getting a HR20. Listening and learning. And I think tonight I am going to take the plunge to the latest Release Candidate. But one thing that I have seen a lot of interest in with each Release Candidate is the OTA situation. And that brings me to my question(s)...

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?

2. Are there more channels broadcast locally over the air than D* broadcasts? I am in Houston, TX area. How can I find out what the OTA channels that I could get are?

3. Is the PQ better?

If I have missed something from previous questions or am in the wrong group please let me know. I just think that with the intense OTA performance reviews that come with each Release Candidate that you all would be ideal people to ask.

Thanks.

The reason I like OTA is because I can receive locals from Chicago, Illinois; South Bend, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo, Michigan.

[Milominderbinder2]

Here are 27 reasons to want OTA in Houston:

2.1 NBC
2.2 NBC
2.3 NBC
8.1 PBS
8.2 PBS
11.1 CBS
11.2 CBS
13.1 ABC
13.2 ABC
13.3 ABC
14.1 Independent
14.2 Independent
14.3 Independent
14.4 Independent
20.1 MyNetworkTV
26.1 Fox
39.1 CW
39.2 CW
45.1 Univision
47.1 TELEMUNDO
49.1 i
49.2 i
49.3 i
51.1 Independent
55.1 Independent
57.1 Azteca
67.1 Telefutura


Here are a couple more:
1. It can be pretty cheap.
2. OTA may still work even if heavy clouds to the south block the satelite.
3. Some local HD is amazing quality, better than D*'s compressed signals.
4. You might have some fun with it.

The HR20 FAQ (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=76617) has the links and more information.

The HDTV Magazine HD Local Channel Listing and Map (http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/programming/broadcast.php)link shows that you could receive 27 HD channels.

The Antennaweb.org (http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Address.aspx) link will tell you what size antenna you would need. Depending on your location it might only require a small antenna that might be only $30.

Also check out the links for AVSForum HDTV FAQ (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6647470&&#post6647470), TV Antenna FAQs (http://www.solidsignal.com/antennas/antenna_faqs.asp), and Choosing an Antenna (http://www.solidsignal.com/antennas/choose_antenna.asp)

- Craig

[cdc101]

I have been lurking on these forums for around 3-4 weeks now after getting a HR20. Listening and learning. And I think tonight I am going to take the plunge to the latest Release Candidate. But one thing that I have seen a lot of interest in with each Release Candidate is the OTA situation. And that brings me to my question(s)...

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?

2. Are there more channels broadcast locally over the air than D* broadcasts? I am in Houston, TX area. How can I find out what the OTA channels that I could get are?

3. Is the PQ better?

If I have missed something from previous questions or am in the wrong group please let me know. I just think that with the intense OTA performance reviews that come with each Release Candidate that you all would be ideal people to ask.

Thanks.

Great question...I've been wondering the same thing too...also in the Houston area.

Anyone have suggestion of a decent --> good antenna to pic up the OTA channels?

Also, will the guide automatically pick up these channels?

[4DThinker]

1. Why are so many people wanting to use OTA instead of D* Local Broadcasts?
Thanks.
In my case the locals DirecTV offers for my area are NOT in high definition. With my antenna I can get them freely in high definition. As other have stated, when rain or snow cuts off your SAT signal, the OTA channels will still be there.

[Knon2000]

For people that are not able to disconcert the difference between HD lite and OTA HD, I honestly think it may be because of screen size. I have one of my HR20's connected to a Sam-sung 27". It actually looks really good, even using the SD source channels. HD looks fabulous as well.
On another, it is a 55" RCA DLP, it has fabulous OTA HD, but DTV's HD channels look really good as well, however, the SD channels look okay at best.
On the good TV, a 73" MIT's DLP, OTA looks fantastic, even though it is not 1080P, only I, but the DTV HD channels definitely look less then fabulous, however, still very good, however, the SD channels are simply awful, pixelation is horrendous. I hate when I was forced to watch NFL ST on it if it was a SD broadcast, since the game action was disturbingly pixelated.
I know it wasn't the receiver, since I actually swapped them out to see if that was the case. BTW, all three receivers are connected now with HMDI, so they are all getting the best possible picture from the receiver.
I will say that on a smaller set, the PQ is not noticeably different between OTA and DTV HD, however, on the larger sets, it is noticeable, and on the big one, it is obvious.

[bwaldron]

For people that are not able to disconcert the difference between HD lite and OTA HD, I honestly think it may be because of screen size.

Certainly screen size, resolution and viewing distance will have an impact.

Also, in some markets one or more of the OTA channels may be using up significant bandwidth with subchannels, reducing quality significantly.

Then again, I've had people tell me that D* SD channels look "fantastic" on their large HDTVs, so I guess some people just don't notice picture flaws. Lucky them :)

[richlife]

By rights, PQ should better, however I don't see a differnce in PQ between my HD locals and OTA locals. The difference is very miniscule.:rolleyes:

I restrained myself until I saw this post. The difference in PQ can be extraordinary with OTA. If you don't see a big difference, you need to consider your equipment, your configuration, your connectivity and getting your eyes examined. I will go out of my way to watch or record a show OTA rather than through D*. D* isn't horrible and has way MORE programming, but OTA is often far more beautiful to watch. (In last weeks NFL playoffs I found myself more than once feeling giddy when I looked up off my computer display to the tv and almost "fell" into the statdium -- that hasn't happened with D*.)

In addition, my Setup - Info & Test tells me I've connected to 58 OTA channels. There's a lot available out there (although admittedly some of it is crap).

[BuckeyeNut]

I restrained myself until I saw this post. The difference in PQ can be extraordinary with OTA. If you don't see a big difference, you need to consider your equipment, your configuration, your connectivity and getting your eyes examined. I will go out of my way to watch or record a show OTA rather than through D*. D* isn't horrible and has way MORE programming, but OTA is often far more beautiful to watch. (In last weeks NFL playoffs I found myself more than once feeling giddy when I looked up off my computer display to the tv and almost "fell" into the statdium -- that hasn't happened with D*.)

In addition, my Setup - Info & Test tells me I've connected to 58 OTA channels. There's a lot available out there (although admittedly some of it is crap).

LMAO, my equipment, my configuration, my connectivity, as well as my eyes are all fine I can assure you.
I'm glad you notice an extraordinary difference.
What an overstated term.
In some folks, these things are more in their head as in what they want to believe more than the reality of the matter, but I'm happy the difference for you is extraordinary.

[4DThinker]

Here's a theory. Perhaps "how good" the SD channels from DirecTV look is a function of your signal strength. Yes, it's all digital. Yes, in theory with digital you get all or nothing. But I have a program DVD-Shrink that will recompress the digital info on a 2-layer DVD so that it will fit on a single layer. It can accomplish this using variable amounts of recompression, depending on how large the original movie was or how much of the "extras" you want to include on the single side copy.

DirecTV gets me content when I have 100% signal from the sats. It also gets me content when I have 68% or 75%. Perhaps when the signal is "less than" 100% you get your content compressed more so that the whole thing still comes over in the reduced bandwidth. The result, if the added compression was enough, would be more artifacts (lower quality) in the image you see.

So if you think the PQ of the SD channels you're getting from DirecTV is poor, check your signal strength. I live in the dead center of the country, and my signal strengths are high (>90%). My PQ is also high.

It's just a theory. Could be.

[Lynskyn]

Great question...I've been wondering the same thing too...also in the Houston area.

Anyone have suggestion of a decent --> good antenna to pic up the OTA channels?

Also, will the guide automatically pick up these channels?

It varies depending on what part of Houston you are in. I use a Winegard "Ghost Killer" (7210) in the Spring Valley area near I-10 and Voss and get all locals fine.
Check antennaweb.org for a recommended antenna for your address.

[Knon2000]

With DTV, it is a function of all or nothing. The stream is compressed the same for you as it is for me. There is variable compression, but that is depending on the source material, not the signal strength. This variable compression is what gives it the HD-lite that is being discussed here. This also really comes into play with SD broadcast, because a little extra compression can lead to a big PQ change, especially on large screen, close up viewing.

[hasan]

With DTV, it is a function of all or nothing. The stream is compressed the same for you as it is for me. There is variable compression, but that is depending on the source material, not the signal strength. This variable compression is what gives it the HD-lite that is being discussed here. This also really comes into play with SD broadcast, because a little extra compression can lead to a big PQ change, especially on large screen, close up viewing.

There is NO WAY that D* allocates the same bandwidth to an HD signal that OTA-HD does (typically). It's been measured, so let's not lose the sight of that. D* doesn't have the bandwidth available yet...they might get it this year, if the launches/commissioning go well, AND they don't fill all the newly available bandwidth with new channels, then we SHOULD see improved HD from D*. If not, we'll be right back where we started (bit-starved), but with a lot more channels.

I'm waiting to see if MPEG-4/HD-Locals are decent. Reports have been HIGHLY VARIABLE, from terrible > mediocre > barely any difference. There are a variety of causes...we aren't talking theory here...we are talking "HD" as delivered by D*.

It is rare that any HD (mpeg-2 for me) that I see on Sat is equal to the PQ OTA-HD, and differences are easy to discern to the "discriminating eye". I have seen HD on Discovery HD Theater that is outright stunning and I couldn't find significant flaws in it, but part of that is the material. The book is still out on MPEG-4/HD-Locals....but as long as D*:

1. Has to transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (no free lunch, always has extra loss)

and/or

2. Bandwidth continues to be bit starved (why TNT-HD is turned off Sunday pm)

OTA-HD will be superior in nearly all cases, except where the MPEG-4 has been optimized successfully across the board....and that appears to be the exception rather than the rule. At this point, the best that Sat can do is very close to what a properly operating/operated OTA station can do. At worst...well...we've seen that.

You can't do better than the "source", and the source for MPEG-4/HD-Locals is OTA...yes...D* takes local OTA , transcodes it to MPEG-4 and sends it down from the Sat. Add in bit starvation....and ya gets what ya gets.:)

Bottom line is this: if you can't see the difference, be happy. If you can, watch/record OTA when you have a choice. (IF and ONLY IF, you have enough additional drive space, as MPEG-4 is more efficient than MPEG-2).

This isn't a debate, it's a little bit of science and a LOT of viewer perception and preference.

[BuckeyeNut]

The greatest advantage in having OTA for me is when it is storming severely out and I lose my sat signal, my OTA locals still come in so I'm not completely TV deprived during this time, and I can see the local weather storm info as well.:)

[SusanT62]

I've been reading about this and have a question about the installation process.

Do we just put up an antenna and connect the cable from the antenna to the receiver?

We are awaiting installation of the HR-20 and new dish. It is scheduled for late February. I just want to make sure that we don't need the installer to do something specific like run another cable from the dish. Thanks for all your help!

[Cobra]

My picture quality is a lot better with the ota channels, plus I receive more channels then I would with Dtv locals

[4DThinker]

SusanT62,

Yes, if you want HDTV OverTheAir channels from your area, then you'll need an antenna (mine is in my large attic) and a cable from it to your TV.

[jorossian]

Susan

Just put up an antenna and connect the cable from the antenna to the receiver. Then run Antenna setup from the menu. If possible I'd suggest you already have you're antenna properly pointed and recieving a strong signal (using your TV's internal tuner) before hooking up to the HR20 and running antenna setup. It's not necessary, but I found it much easier to aim and adjust using the TV's tuner rather than the HR-20's.

[bonscott87]

There is NO WAY that D* allocates the same bandwidth to an HD signal that OTA-HD does (typically). It's been measured, so let's not lose the sight of that. D* doesn't have the bandwidth available yet...they might get it this year, if the launches/commissioning go well, AND they don't fill all the newly available bandwidth with new channels, then we SHOULD see improved HD from D*. If not, we'll be right back where we started (bit-starved), but with a lot more channels.

I'm waiting to see if MPEG-4/HD-Locals are decent. Reports have been HIGHLY VARIABLE, from terrible > mediocre > barely any difference. There are a variety of causes...we aren't talking theory here...we are talking "HD" as delivered by D*.

It is rare that any HD (mpeg-2 for me) that I see on Sat is equal to the PQ OTA-HD, and differences are easy to discern to the "discriminating eye". I have seen HD on Discovery HD Theater that is outright stunning and I couldn't find significant flaws in it, but part of that is the material. The book is still out on MPEG-4/HD-Locals....but as long as D*:

1. Has to transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (no free lunch, always has extra loss)

and/or

2. Bandwidth continues to be bit starved (why TNT-HD is turned off Sunday pm)

OTA-HD will be superior in nearly all cases, except where the MPEG-4 has been optimized successfully across the board....and that appears to be the exception rather than the rule. At this point, the best that Sat can do is very close to what a properly operating/operated OTA station can do. At worst...well...we've seen that.

You can't do better than the "source", and the source for MPEG-4/HD-Locals is OTA...yes...D* takes local OTA , transcodes it to MPEG-4 and sends it down from the Sat. Add in bit starvation....and ya gets what ya gets.:)

Bottom line is this: if you can't see the difference, be happy. If you can, watch/record OTA when you have a choice. (IF and ONLY IF, you have enough additional drive space, as MPEG-4 is more efficient than MPEG-2).

This isn't a debate, it's a little bit of science and a LOT of viewer perception and preference.

You are totally correct for the MPEG2 HD channels on the KU system (101/110/119).
But the HD locals in MPEG4 are on the new KA sats (Spaceway 1 and 2) and do not have bandwidth constraints. They aren't sending out MPEG4 as "HD-lite". So long as your market as the newer MPEG4 encoders there is very little difference between MPEG4 HD and the same channel OTA. Yes, there is some because it can't be avoided, but it's very close.

[Que]

pic quality is much better too


Nothing can beat the PQ of OTA. Most HD from D* is HD-lite. Some people say it looks "AS" good as OTA but, it can beat it. IMHO TNTHD should not be on the air. I mean come on. That it just bad.... There are a few channels that look ok. (Called to get 3 month free of HD again. Just to check it out)

I'll stick with OTA.

[veryoldschool]

PQ has so much to do with what the viewer sees.
OTA HD is still "top dog".
The new MPEG-4 comes very close [so much so that I haven't bothered to compare A/B].
D* MPEG-2 comes next,
And [for me] Cable comes in at the bottom. :)

[bwaldron]

The greatest advantage in having OTA for me is when it is storming severely out and I lose my sat signal, my OTA locals still come in so I'm not completely TV deprived during this time, and I can see the local weather storm info as well.:)

Yes, that's a big plus down here during rainy season as well.

[Knon2000]

In my opinion, the ONLY negative to OTA is the severe lack of programming compared to DTV. This is the main reason people have DTV to begin with. If and when they actually get the extra HD content on, I am sure people will be satisfied with the PQ on them, simply because they will have additional channels to be satisfied with.
As was said previously, this debate could rage on forever, however, I am on the side of DTV cannot possibly compete with PQ of OTA. That does not mean that I am not satisfied with the PQ though. I am more than happy with the PQ when I am watching football, or watching a movie on Showtime. I would like it to be better for sure, but I will not harp on it.
The only thing I was pointing out is that the PQ is not the equal of OTA. Now, the SD content on DTV is a different story. Our locals are simply terrible in SD on DTV, as I am sure is the case with other SD locals too.

As far as the new LIL's, I cannot verify since I simply do not have HD locals from DTV, so I am simply stating a theory in that regard. I assume that they will not be as bit-starved however (at least for the first year or 2), so that would definitely be a good thing.

[hdtvfan0001]

They aren't sending out MPEG4 as "HD-lite". So long as your market as the newer MPEG4 encoders there is very little difference between MPEG4 HD and the same channel OTA.
That's the case for sure here - I switch back and forth for testing regularly after firmward updates, and otherr than the 6 second delay on D*TV's local channel signal, they look & sound virtually the same (I get 9 channels OTA here).

[PoitNarf]

But the HD locals in MPEG4 are on the new KA sats (Spaceway 1 and 2) and do not have bandwidth constraints. They aren't sending out MPEG4 as "HD-lite". So long as your market as the newer MPEG4 encoders there is very little difference between MPEG4 HD and the same channel OTA. Yes, there is some because it can't be avoided, but it's very close.

100% agree. An improvement in PQ that my eyes cannot detect is not worth the extra HD space required to record OTA as opposed to D* MPEG4.

[Knon2000]

100% agree. An improvement in PQ that my eyes cannot detect is not worth the extra HD space required to record OTA as opposed to D* MPEG4.

That is my feeling as well. If it is good quality PQ, there is no reason to waste space, whether it be for space in the hard drive or bandwith from the Sat.
I truly hope that the future is this bright when it comes to the new sats, since I am sure the bandwith will be very good. If and when these channels come on line, I am sure that I will be happy with them.
Again, I agree that a good picture is acceptable for myself, as I am sure it is for most. This is simply not the case with some channels that are being sent down right now though.

[SusanT62]

Does Directv install the ota antenna? If so, does anyone know how much they charge for the equipment/installation? I just talked to a rep. from Mastec who is doing our installation and she said Directv sells the equipment and as long as it is on the work order, they will install it. I talked to a rep. at Directv and they told me to buy my own antenna and call Mastec for their installation price which the Mastec rep. said they didn't do unless it is on the work order from Directv. So who is right -- Mastec or Directv????

[Tom Robertson]

(From a posting I did in the General Directv forum.)

HD is all about bitrate transmitted (tho MPEG4 does compress HD better then MPEG2) If the picture in a video stream is very static in nature, 1920x1080i can be compressed down to nearly nothing without affecting picture quality. It would be lossless.

But take a football game, my favorite test case. There is almost nothing static about the video stream during the game. The entire 19mbs of a broadcast channel is not enough to fully bring the picture stream to the TV, alas.

I recently tested OTA in SLC against MPEG2 DNS and MPEG4 CBS during the Colts/Patriots Game. Previously I had tested OTA, MPEG2 DNS and Comcasts 256QAM of my local channel. While somewhat questionable to merge the test data, I feel the results would not change much by re-running all the tests again. (I will try during the SB.)

Overall winner by a good, wide margin everytime was OTA. Very pleasently the H20, the HR10, and the HR20 al. gave beautiful results, as good as I could tell with each other and against my Sammy DLP. Some pixelation in the grass and crowd during fast pans. During more static moments (just before the snap), everything was awesome. (Did you know that between the hash marks and two 5 yard lines there are 11,002,001 blades of grass. You can count them at the snap... )

Noticeably poorer was the MPEG2 DNS, MPEG4, and Comcast 256QAM. Much more pixelation and at slower pan rates too. For instance as the teams lined up for the snap. At the snap, things looked almost, but not quite as good as OTA. At this point, I do not wish to try and rate the small differences between the 3. I found out what I wanted to know: OTA is clearly the best--at least here in SLC, to my eye, on my TV.

Is there a use for MPEG4 HD? I very much think so. Given its reduced disk space usage, I can see recording most sitcoms and many other dramas that do not push the HD bandwidth edge very often. I seem to be happy enough with the compromise.

Cheers all,
Tom

[DawgLink]

OTA gets me locals in HD

Enough said

[wistex]

Sorry if this has been answered but perhaps my case is a little unique.

One of my friends has switched from D* to DISH. He has agreed to massively discount his HR20 and OTA antenna and sell them to me. He also has the 5lnb dish if I want it. He purchased all of this on his own so he doesn't need to give it back to D*.

What does D* need to do in order for me to have HD with OTA? Currently, I have the R15 in my living room with two cables coming down from the satellite dish on my roof. Will there need to be a third cable from the OTA to the HR20? I'm not sure but I think it could be very difficult to get another cable into the cable space in my closet and up to the attic. I already have 5 tuners hooked up in the house going through there.

Bottom line, will the technician install the 5lnb, the HR20, and the OTA if I already have all the major components? What about just the OTA and the HR20?

thanks!

[jmhga44]

I just remounted an off-air antenna yesterday and hooked it up directly to my TV (Samsung LNS-3251D). I split the coax coming from the antenna between the TV and my Denon A/V receiver so it can get the local FM stations. I had questioned the tech about splitting the off-air antenna signal 3 ways (one for the Denon, one directly to the TV and one to the HR20-700) and he mentioned that it would be best to split the line only 2 ways from the antenna which is what I am doing right now. Reading this thread makes me think that maybe I can split the antenna 3 ways so that I can record off-air channels on the HR20-700. Anyone have suggestions? If it can be split 3 ways what kind of splitter would I need to use so that the antenna signal remains strong? :confused:

[Texxen]

(This is not necessarily for jmhga44)

You need to check into diplexers if you have the dish and OTA antenna close. You can run one cable down to your receiver then split it again (to the Dish and antenna inputs).
One of the best antennas I've heard about is the Channel Master 4228 ($49.95)
I have mine 6" off the ground and the towers are approximately 8 miles away and
the weakest signal of six channels is at 87. Two of the stations are at 100. Fox/Austin local is another problem......

[rcoleman111]

Mostly right except that MPEG4 HD locals are *not* in "HD-Lite". In most markets there is very little difference in PQ between MPEG4 and OTA.

Thanks for debunking the "HD-Lite" nonsense, bonscott. Since I upgraded to HD back in December, I've been impressed with the picture quality on the locals.

I'm thinking about adding an OTA antenna, but not because I think the PQ would be better. The networks' practice of scheduling programs to start a minute or two early or end late causes conflicts with my DVR recordings and it would be nice to have a third tuner to work with.