How good is the DirecTV HD Signal?

[wismile]

I'm curious about the changing quality of DirecTV's HD Signal. I've seen posts that refer to improved HD quality...or on the down side...HD-LITE. Where can I go to see the quality of the signal I'm watching at any given time?

[Stuart Sweet]

I think you'll get different answers depending on who you talk to, and it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison. Maybe if you go to a local store that sells both and might have the ability to show you them.

If you're asking in the abstract, how is the quality, I think that it's very good. In most cases, most people will be very pleased.

Bottom line is try to see for yourself, and make your own decision.

[wismile]

Thanks...but when someone refers to the fact that DirecTV improved the signal on a specific channel...are they just offering an opinion? or is there some way to quantify the quality of the signal.

[raoul5788]

Thanks...but when someone refers to the fact that DirecTV improved the signal on a specific channel...are they just offering an opinion? or is there some way to quantify the quality of the signal.

It can be quantified by reading the bitrate of the signal.

[wismile]

where can I find that bitrate information?

[4DThinker]

Your signal will depend on where you live, how many obstacles may block the sky view, the dish you use, your cable quality and cable lengths, the aim of your dish, your mutiswitch, grounding block, the competency of the installer, etc. For most people the signal gets through well enough. As for the quality of the content, the HD channels look HD on my HDTVs, and the SD channels also look great on all my TVs. Some OTA channels broadcast at 720p which is what I've always thought was HD-light. Most HD content I've seen from DirecTV appears to be 1080i. The compression used to get it to you is not obvious. Some segments of some HD shows look like upscaled SD, and I'm assuming ithey do because parts of the edited material were only available in SD format and the only choice was to upscale those clips so that the whole thing could be broadcast in 1080i. The same will be true for the same content sent to you over cable.

[Meklos]

I think the number I've seen tossed about is 1280x1080i (for D* HD-LITE) vs 1920x1080i (for "true" or spec broadcast 1080i). You also have to consider the fact that many of the new MPEG-4 DMAs are using first-generation MPEG-4 encoders, fed from an (already-compressed) MPEG-2 source... so you're going to get two 'generations' of artifacts.

I've personally seen problems here in the Nashville DMA with the MPEG-4 encoders, and others have reported in newer DMAs that the same problems either do not exist or do not happen as frequently. Problems like alternating white/black blocks in horizontal lines on certain frames, the so-called 'screen door' effect where larger, patterned blocks appear for a frame or two while the rest of the image is built-in and detailed up, and other image-related issues. I haven't seen any reports of sound-related issues on MPEG-4 channels, but there are a few notorious MPEG-2 national channels with sound issues.

[convem24]

I'm curious about the changing quality of DirecTV's HD Signal. I've seen posts that refer to improved HD quality...or on the down side...HD-LITE. Where can I go to see the quality of the signal I'm watching at any given time?

Again going to LamontCranston's comment it depends, sometimes Discovery HD looks fantastic while other channels like Espn look a little worn. My local HD channels (when there is something on in HD) look fantastic (I have Mpeg 4 local HD channels). This gives me hope that when the new nationwide HD channels goes live in the Fall the Mpeg4 compression will improve all the current existing Mpeg 2 national channels. Again Lamont is right to look at retail feed but retailer feeds are typically crap since it is some monkey has aligned the dish. Go to an independent dealer's showroom (their feeds typically look great). Good luck. I have great hope that the new HD satellite will improve the national feed quality since the locals are using the same technology. Good luck either way.:)

[Doug Brott]

Certainly YMMV, but for me I'd give the HD Quality :up: :up: :up:

[1948GG]

It can be quantified by reading the bitrate of the signal.

Absolutely Positively one of those internet fallacies that continues to be put forward day after day, week after week. There is NO repeat NO actual studies that shows ANY correlation of some 'bitrate' to actual 'perceived' picture (or audio) quality.

The entire wealth of over 30+ years of work by the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG), that developed the standards we view today, have shown that human visual acuity can be easily manipulated to the point that anyone can be 'fooled' into thinking that sample 'A' is worse (or better) than sample 'B', no matter what the 'specs'. The biggest problem today is the proliferation of downright poor display technologies (like LCD, Plasma, and DLP) that have much more influence in people's perception of the video quality than anything else.

Anyone who's worked in this field, or been a member of the MPEG working group, would find the base statement ('it can be quantified by reading the bitrate') as being laughable at best, and extremely misleading at worse. I've quoted the following before, and would direct those again to re-read it; since the s/w on this forum won't allow url's to be posted, you'll have to actual work a bit to go to the article, which in my opinion ought to be posted in a 'sticky' at the top of the forum:

TV Technology Magazine
"TV Is Pictures and Sound; 'Taint Numbers and Specs"
by Mario Orazio, The Masked Engineer, June 27, 2007

[SirDave]

Maybe bitrate isn't the only answer, but there is a difference.

Example: Super Bowl '07.
I'll assume the network broadcasting OTA is getting essentially the same signal as Directv. Same source so the type of camera is moot.
15 people looking at 56" DLP via the HDTivo from Directv.
Both OTA and Satellite are receiving MPEG2, right?
Each and every person in the room agreed the OTA picture was better. Almost 3-dimensional vs not. More detail in the picture. More 'life-like'.
Nobody was being 'fooled'. The picture was dramatically different.

Is that due to compression bitrates? Maybe. It's a given that on MPEG2, Directv is bankwidth-challenged. Does bandwidth directly relate to the amount of information delivered to the box, i.e. bitrate?

I have the luxury of living near NYC and I can compare OTA to Directv. The new MPEG4 streams are better than the old MPEG2. Much better. Not enough to 'bug' me anymore, but still not as good as OTA. Plain and simple.

I just hope that the addition of more HD channels doesn't result in bandwith starvation from the new satellites and more compression to individual channels.
Only time will tell.

You don't have an easy way available to analyze what Directv is doing in the delivery of the satellite signal. It's not delivered as a facility in their receivers.
I don't believe we'll ever know exactly what causes the difference in the picture.
I do believe, however, you as a consumer can have a subjective viewpoint to the quality of the picture you're viewing and that viewpoint is valid.

[cawgijoe]

I've had HD now for about five years. I have a Sony KV-34XBR800 TV which is being fed by a Directv HR20 DVR currently and I also have a roof-top mounted Winegard UHF/VHF antenna. I'm in the Washington, DC area. I can easily compare the local OTA broadcast stations to the same feed from Directv. The local news is being broadcast in 1080i HD on WUSA channel 9 daily. I can tell you that the difference in quality between the OTA picture and what Directv is sending is minimal. There is a slight difference in overall "sharpness", but it is extremely small.

At least from what I can see in my area with my equipment, I would have to completely disagree with the idea that there is a huge difference between the same Directv HD signal and OTA.

For me it's simply untrue and I don't see it.

[LI-SVT]

Best Buy and PC Richards locally use D* to drive their displayed HD TVs. You could go there to see it it with your own eyes. Of course that is not answering your question directly, but may be helpful in your conclusion.

[Rockermann]

I've had HD now for about five years. I have a Sony KV-34XBR800 TV ... For me it's simply untrue and I don't see it.

It's going to be really tough to see a difference on a 34" set. Larger displays tend to show more 'shortcomings'.

That being said, I've always been pretty happy with D*'s HD channels. I get all my locals off-air and most of the Sat HD stations stack up. There are differences, but they're minor for the most part. This is based on viewing via a 65" Mitsubishi Diamond Series CRT RPTV and now via my AX100U projector on a 118" screen.

That being said II, there are some folks out that that would NEVER see a difference. Some people are more attuned to picking up visual aspects than others. Some out there have a hard time telling the difference between HD and SD.

[oldavman]

My locals (St. Louis area) all look good whether via OTA or via satellite. Very sharp. Very rarely see any artifacts. The national HD channels, especially Discovery HD Theater, HDNet, and ESPN-HD all look good with the exception of TNT-HD which the up-conversion suffers. I saw a slight improvement when I switched from my HR10-250 Tivo unit (OTA HD channels) to the HR20.
Just a note- wouldn't switching displays make a difference in perceived picture quality. When I switched from a 30" CRT HD set to a Hitachi 42" plasma I noticed that I had lost that black level and color purity that I enjoyed on my 30" CRT. The resolution may not have changed, but, I now prefer watching everything on my BenQ projector and 8' screen. Not only for the screen size, but I think my picture quality is better through the BenQ projector than the plasma screen.

_______________________________
Hitachi model 42HDF39 42" plasma screen
HR20-100 via HDMI, native off
AT-9 dish,
Zinwell WB68 multiswitch
BenQ PE7700 projector
Carada screen
HR20-700 via HDMI, native off

[Stuart Sweet]

Best case scenario would definitely be to find a local high-end, unaffiliated electronics store and talk to them.

[wismile]

Thanks everyone!

I guess the answer is there is...no easy answer and other than knowing what the resolution is...there isn't an actual number that reflects the quality of the image.

I had always found my local OTA broadcasts using the HR10-250 to be of higher image quality than the satellite version and assumed D* is compressing the signal to save bandwidth. I haven't done a comparison recently...so I will check out the new MPEG4 locals.

[MikeR]

Anyone who's worked in this field, or been a member of the MPEG working group, would find the base statement ('it can be quantified by reading the bitrate') as being laughable at best, and extremely misleading at worse. I've quoted the following before, and would direct those again to re-read it; since the s/w on this forum won't allow url's to be posted, you'll have to actual work a bit to go to the article, which in my opinion ought to be posted in a 'sticky' at the top of the forum:

TV Technology Magazine
"TV Is Pictures and Sound; 'Taint Numbers and Specs"
by Mario Orazio, The Masked Engineer, June 27, 2007


http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0081/t.6903.html

[skyboysea]

Absolutely Positively one of those internet fallacies that continues to be put forward day after day, week after week. There is NO repeat NO actual studies that shows ANY correlation of some 'bitrate' to actual 'perceived' picture (or audio) quality.
I am not absolutely expert in the field but I have to agree with you. In the four year I had my DTivo I have often compared the files size of saved shows trying to see if there is a correlation between size and quality and my conclusion is that there is none. A few times I had the chance to compare the same show recorded on two different channels and see that the sometimes much bigger files, and I am talking of 30% or more difference, had a worse quality than the smaller file.
I think there is so much going into transmitting the image that bitrate is just a component a nd probably not the most important.

[paulman182]

And, as someone said, the size of the display and one's distance from it, make a huge difference in the quality one perceives.

It almost makes comparisons moot, unless we are all looking at the same set from the same distance.

[LameLefty]

I've personally seen problems here in the Nashville DMA with the MPEG-4 encoders, and others have reported in newer DMAs that the same problems either do not exist or do not happen as frequently. Problems like alternating white/black blocks in horizontal lines on certain frames, the so-called 'screen door' effect where larger, patterned blocks appear for a frame or two while the rest of the image is built-in and detailed up, and other image-related issues. I haven't seen any reports of sound-related issues on MPEG-4 channels, but there are a few notorious MPEG-2 national channels with sound issues.

Meklos - what are you 99 signal strengths? I have seen very, very few problems with MPEG4 locals out of Nashville since spring, probably. CBS was (and still is) the worst but even they have improved, especially since my dish was re-peaked.

[raoul5788]

where can I find that bitrate information?

I think the hd tivo shows it.

[raoul5788]

Absolutely Positively one of those internet fallacies that continues to be put forward day after day, week after week. There is NO repeat NO actual studies that shows ANY correlation of some 'bitrate' to actual 'perceived' picture (or audio) quality.

The entire wealth of over 30+ years of work by the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG), that developed the standards we view today, have shown that human visual acuity can be easily manipulated to the point that anyone can be 'fooled' into thinking that sample 'A' is worse (or better) than sample 'B', no matter what the 'specs'. The biggest problem today is the proliferation of downright poor display technologies (like LCD, Plasma, and DLP) that have much more influence in people's perception of the video quality than anything else.

Anyone who's worked in this field, or been a member of the MPEG working group, would find the base statement ('it can be quantified by reading the bitrate') as being laughable at best, and extremely misleading at worse. I've quoted the following before, and would direct those again to re-read it; since the s/w on this forum won't allow url's to be posted, you'll have to actual work a bit to go to the article, which in my opinion ought to be posted in a 'sticky' at the top of the forum:

TV Technology Magazine
"TV Is Pictures and Sound; 'Taint Numbers and Specs"
by Mario Orazio, The Masked Engineer, June 27, 2007

I am going by my own experience with ota signals. When a station uses the entire bitrate available the picture is usually excellent. When there is more than one subchannel, therefore lowering the bitrate, the picture quality suffers noticeably.

[1948GG]

I do believe, however, you as a consumer can have a subjective viewpoint to the quality of the picture you're viewing and that viewpoint is valid.

Well, no. You're mixing too many things up, and then using 'data' from way too long ago (and not identifying it properly as well). I'll have to 'assume' you were A/B'ing the Ku/Mpeg2 signal (not identified as such) vs. the OTA, not the Ka/Mpeg4 signals, but that isn't specified.

But 'subjective' is the proper term. In the first place, those Ku/Mpeg2 (12 yr. old encoder technology) were never 'meant' for local viewing, but for 'white' areas around the country (no OTA signals), it was pressure put on DirecTV to allow people in the NY/LA areas to receive them.

Now that Ka/Mpeg4 locals have been available for well over a year in those two cities, they should be the standard by which things are judged. And, luckily, thanks to the Spaceway sats, many folks have the opportunity to 'subjectively' look at the OTA vs. satellite delivered locals. And, to look at the difference (if any) between Ka/Mpeg4 RSN's when those are 'simulcast' on the Ku/Mpeg2 HD channels with ExInnSuperFan.

My take, doing many double-blind selections (thanks to a programable remote 'selecting' the signal source) that:

OTA vs. Ka/Mpeg4 Locals: virtually indistinguishable, 9.8+/10
(if one watches long enough, OTA dropouts are a dead giveaway due to low OTA RF power and 40 miles from the transmitters)
RSN Ka/Mpeg4 vs. RSN Ku/Mpeg2: quite a quality drop, 7/10 on the Ku/Kmpeg2
vs. the Ka/Mpeg4 at 10/10

But again, that's me. But the process is pretty clean.

[Meklos]

Meklos - what are you 99 signal strengths? I have seen very, very few problems with MPEG4 locals out of Nashville since spring, probably. CBS was (and still is) the worst but even they have improved, especially since my dish was re-peaked.

Will look tonight, but my suggestion is to record the next episode of CSI (any of them, but Miami shows it pretty clearly) and watch it very carefully. You can even see the breakups during the intro of the show. Every time they use the flash on the crime scenes and they do the fullscreen white sudden high contrast shift, the images block horizontally and tear.

I've even seen interlacing errors where part of the previous frame is blockwise interlaced with the current frame. Looks very strange, but is clearly interlaced, since you can frame-by-frame it and see parts of the previous image in the odd (or even) areas of the image field, and go to the next frame to see the remainder of the 'invading' frame.

Like I said, I had intended to record shows with SLs and be able to do a real OTA vs MPEG4 comparison on a per-show basis, but alas even that was bugged the last time I tried it. I also don't mind just setting aside disk space to record both the OTA and the sat version of the same show, just to keep the wife happy on her shows. It's no mistake that her shows are on the top of the prioritizer on that unit. :D

[Milominderbinder2]

Picture quality varies with the channel and program. Planet Earth on Discovery HD Theater was simply breathtaking.

HDNet and HDNet movies are often just stunning, every bit as good as my best local PBS OTA feed.

I think the differences have more to do with the channel and the program than anything else.

And as to the 2007 Superbowl...

It was the most beautiful picture ever for those first 14 seconds when Hester ran back the opening kick-off.

Then it became one of the ugliest programs ever broadcast.

- Craig

[LameLefty]

Then it became one of the ugliest programs ever broadcast.

From my living room, it was beautiful from that point on. :)

[EaglePC]

went from a 79.00 HDMI downgrade to a 12.99 HDMI lot better,
figure that one out

[PRMan]

Absolutely Positively one of those internet fallacies that continues to be put forward day after day, week after week. There is NO repeat NO actual studies that shows ANY correlation of some 'bitrate' to actual 'perceived' picture (or audio) quality.

The entire wealth of over 30+ years of work by the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG), that developed the standards we view today, have shown that human visual acuity can be easily manipulated to the point that anyone can be 'fooled' into thinking that sample 'A' is worse (or better) than sample 'B', no matter what the 'specs'. The biggest problem today is the proliferation of downright poor display technologies (like LCD, Plasma, and DLP) that have much more influence in people's perception of the video quality than anything else.

Anyone who's worked in this field, or been a member of the MPEG working group, would find the base statement ('it can be quantified by reading the bitrate') as being laughable at best, and extremely misleading at worse. I've quoted the following before, and would direct those again to re-read it; since the s/w on this forum won't allow url's to be posted, you'll have to actual work a bit to go to the article, which in my opinion ought to be posted in a 'sticky' at the top of the forum:

TV Technology Magazine
"TV Is Pictures and Sound; 'Taint Numbers and Specs"
by Mario Orazio, The Masked Engineer, June 27, 2007

Bullcrap.

This is no fallacy.

Back in the day when HD on D* first started, the picture was consistently through-the-window 3D gorgeous. I still have a recording of LOTR: ROTK on my HDTiVo where you have to back up because you realize you have been looking at the fibers on people's costumes instead of paying attention to the story. That's how it was in the old days when D* first started. Discovery, HDNet and the PPV channel were pure perfection, as good as top tier HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

Then, I started noticing that several shows, particularly on HDNet Movies, were just OK instead of stunning. They were better than SD, but in reality almost no better than upconverting the same DVD through my Roku Photobridge. Somebody posted that you could check the resolution by pressing Select-Play-Select-9-Select and lo and behold, it was suddenly 1280x1088. Notice that I noticed the difference first and went online to see why.

At first, the resolution jumped up and down a bit so that you didn't know what it would be, even on a given channel. I used to play a game where I amazed my wife and kids by going 99% on telling the difference. Only missed once on a movie of poor filmed quality.

Steve Martin (not that Steve Martin) of widescreenreview had hacked his HDTiVo and posted bitrates. The bitrates compared with my experience absolutely told the story. When I noticed a program of better-than-average quality, I would hop over to his site and would see that the bitrate had been particularly high for that show.

I came to realize (after comparing with upconverted DVDs) that not only was D* reducing the resolution, but also blurring and color-reducing. All items that reduce the bitrate requirements, but leave the picture looking flat and, well, HD-Lite. HD-Lite to the point where a blind comparison of X-Men to my friends resulted in all of them preferring the upconverted DVD to the "HD" picture.

I hope the MPEG4 channels are better, but as my local TWC affiliate has worse-looking HD than D* lately, I'm taking a chance on staying with D* and the HR20. I have heard that they are improved over the MPEG2 channels, and I can only hope that is the case.

Don't let the so-called "experts" who didn't live through it ramble on with their bogus qualifications and fallacious arguments. Those of us that lived through it can tell you otherwise, and we still have the old shows on our TiVos to prove it.

[Canis Lupus]

I totally believe that you believe what you see is, in fact, true. I also believe that if one compared data rates, compression (or non-compression) etc between signals or files, it could be shown to be better or worse to those who could see the differences.

I think your respondent was saying there's no correlation between actual quality and perceived quality.

So I guess this means the case studies show most people don't see the difference.
If, in fact, D* is dumbing down the PQ to a "baseline perception standard", that would surprise me not at all, as the ability to send a bunch of true HD signals from a satellite down to a lil' old dish and box would likely either overload bandwidth or simply cost too much for D* and the consumer to make it viable.

Being in the TV biz, I see all the fallacies, compression squeezes, bad film dumps etc. that you see. Obviously you have a trained eye, but unfortunately it's not "perceived" that way by the majority of consumers.