1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DirecTV National HD Listing/Maps Discussion Thread (Technical - Not Anticipation)

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Sixto, May 29, 2012.

  1. Jul 4, 2012 #241 of 653
    Racer88

    Racer88 Icon

    802
    1
    Sep 12, 2006
    Starz Kids, Comedy, West, and Edge HD went black about 10 minutes ago...?

    EDIT: Add Max West, HBO2 West, and HBO West HD

    EDIT2: Audience HD, ESPN HD, USA HD, Bio HD, NatGeo HD, Travel HD, Animal Planet HD, Science HD, Cartoon Network East HD, Nick East HD, MTV HD, VH1 HD,

    Ok some of the first ones are coming back now...more new encoders coming online?
     
  2. Jul 4, 2012 #242 of 653
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    Yet you're the one posting worries and fears about PQ without screenshots.
     
  3. Jul 4, 2012 #243 of 653
    RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,414
    122
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    But isn't a difference between AT&T and DIRECTV is that AT&T's stream is maxed at that 5.7Mbps rate period. With DIRECTV it's muxing the 5 or 6 channels on a transponder, allocating bandwidth on the fly between those channels so a channel that needs a burst of bandwidth can get it from channels that aren't using it.
     
  4. Jul 4, 2012 #244 of 653
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    And without DirecTV.
     
  5. Jul 4, 2012 #245 of 653
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    I had U-Who and DirecTV side by side.
    Since I'm so close to the VRAD, by profile is 32.2/5.04, yet my modem reports the max downstream rate is 64 Mb/s. Whether U-Who will use this overhead to feed TV, I don't know. My internet is 12 Mb/s.
    I setup 3 HD recording and had a forth HD channel live on my other receiver. While these were going on, I tested my download rate by finding large files to download. I saw no speed reduction in downloading.
    FiOS is MPEG-2 correct? You can't compare bit-rates between MPEG-2 & MPEG-4, as it's apples and oranges.
    You can compare PQ, but it's subjective and effected by the scaling in the display. My Sony XBR can make a fairly crappy SD program look "fairly good".
    When I tried U-Who, I figured the PQ would suck so bad it would be the biggest complaint. Well it wasn't to my surprise. I did see skipping/dropping of frames, so it does have limitations.
    Where are you getting this? :confused: The average bit rate reduction from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 is close to half.
    MPEG-2 is fairly constant as it sends every bit needed for every frame. MPEG-4 only send the bits for what changes in the next frame. This means bit rates vary much more with MPEG-4, where they can be as low a only a couple of Mb/s, and then peak at 16+ Mb/s with DirecTV, as the frame content changes.
    UV Realtime allows monitoring of the router ports.
    I setup the same recorded show from U-Who and DirecTV, and sync'd them within a sec of each other. I then monitored my router port usage over about 10 mins to compare MPEG-4 to MPEG-4. U-Who's bit-rates were 66% of DirecTV's, with the main difference being around an 8 Mb/s limit on U-Who, where DirecTV was averaging 12 Mb/s. When DirecTV was below 8 Mb/s, U-Who's rate was much closer.
    That may be what you need to do, but the act of taking a screen shot has a variable that we don't know.
    Actual bit rates, monitored over time, of the same program, and the same type of encoding, seems more useful to me, which I've done.


    DirecTV PQ: I've also done comparison between OTA MPEG-2 and the DirecTV MPEG-4 of the same program. There is a slight difference, but it's so small that it might fall under "I want to think" there is a difference and so I think there is. It's that close.
     
  6. Jul 4, 2012 #246 of 653
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    You are forgetting one thing here. AT&T's bandwidth is fixed at 5.7 Mbps per channel, where DirecTV's bandwidth is variable. In a scene where two people are talking against a steady, non moving background - such as a talk show or something - less bandwidth is needed, whereas when sports is played you need the full bandwidth. A DirecTV transponder is 38 Mbps, which means with 6 channels, it can allocate about 6.3 Mbps per channel, BUT if a channel only uses 3-4 Mbps because of the current content being played, other channels can use the bandwidth for higher-action content. In a nutshell the full 38 Mbps transponder is compressed/encoded into space from earth, the satellite just relays the information. And within that 38 Mbps "channel", bandwidth is dynamically allocated to the needs of the channels.

    With U-Verse, if you are watching a low-bandwidth cartoon on 1 channel, a talk show on another, and dad is watching sports in the basement.... he'll STILL only get the 5.7 Mbps, even though the cartoon and the talkshow might only take 4 Mbps.

    DirecTV's technology is a lot more flexible. Knowing that you can't upgrade the satellite once it is launched, it only serves as a "channeling" device. You can upgrade the equipment on earth though and blanket the nation with better quality HD, or some new-fangled gimmick like 3D without a change needed to the satellite itself.

    If you take a close look at the channels per transponder, you will see that they are carefully thought out. You won't see ESPN and ESPN2 on the same transponder for instance, but rather you will see it mixed with a news channel and a cartoon channel (and some others obviously)

    Even IF all 6 channels on the same transponder are all over sudden full of movement and action at the *exact* same time, there would still be 6.3 Mbps for each channel, and with new compression and encoding technologies it would *still* look a hell of a lot better then U-verse would at 600 Kbps less bandwidth.

    But it is the fact that variable bandwidth can be used that really makes the difference.

    I'm still wondering why you actually joined DBSTalk.... :D
     
  7. Jul 4, 2012 #247 of 653
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    I agree with this fro the most part, "but" the streaming from the DVR has been above 5.7 Mb/s. Maybe the DSL/fiber is limited to 5.7 Mb/s per channel, and the DVR buffers this to some degree, but the output can be a bit higher.
    Now this might also explain the dropped frames I was seeing, as there was "something" getting overloaded.
     
  8. Jul 4, 2012 #248 of 653
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,607
    143
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    To buy this I would like to see charts from UV (I can do Comcast, already did and saw statmux - variable bandwidth of all programs in one RF channel).
     
  9. Jul 4, 2012 #249 of 653
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    While I'm not sold on the 5.7 Mb/s, I have talked/looked into this with U-Who. Their target market is to be better than cable, but have little interest in matching PQ of SAT service.
    Since their an IP based service, they can't "mux" and do keep the bit-rates low, so they can provide service to customers farther away from the VRAD.
     
  10. Jul 4, 2012 #250 of 653
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    As if DIRECTV was the benchmark of HD compression success.

    DIRECTV is just now attempting to use double the bandwidth that DISH has been using for a while now. Does the PQ difference bear this out or is it mostly a matter of comparing numbers instead of visual perception?
     
  11. Jul 4, 2012 #251 of 653
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,607
    143
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    I think using QoS it would be easy to profile the user [fiber] channel if VRAD knew what exactly programs are playing at customer side. IPTV giving more to control such things, buffering at receiving side is the way to compensate low bandwidth allocation.
     
  12. Jul 4, 2012 #252 of 653
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    !rolling
    You've got to be kidding all of us.
    Why does Dish still reduce the 1080 resolution to 1440, "if" they have the bandwidth?
     
  13. Jul 4, 2012 #253 of 653
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    There may be several [many] way to improve this, "but" the fiber [or VRAD] isn't that smart. The fiber here connects to an Actel 48 port switch, where it's DSL to the customer.
    This is what they have to play with:

    Bitloading-2012-07-04-10-38-46.png

    If you're too far from the VRAD, you can't get the band on the far right.
    [far left down stream, middle up stream, far right the second down stream]
     
  14. Jul 4, 2012 #254 of 653
    charlie460

    charlie460 Godfather

    401
    5
    Sep 12, 2009
    lol... :sure:
     
  15. Jul 4, 2012 #255 of 653
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Sigh. :nono2:
     
  16. Jul 4, 2012 #256 of 653
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Nobody said DISH was swimming in bandwidth. DIRECTV is the carrier that is seeking to pack more in before expanding into the widely speculated unused bandwidth.

    So is it about the numbers or the picture?
     
  17. Jul 4, 2012 #257 of 653
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Twisting my words? I meant he is commenting on picture quality without seeing it.
     
  18. Jul 4, 2012 #258 of 653
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Are you comparing picture to picture?

    Discussing average bandwidth used is not a direct (or even indirect) measure of perceived picture quality.
     
  19. Jul 4, 2012 #259 of 653
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Now you are onto my point. No, he is not. He oes not have directv.

    This could be fun. One non-customer challenging another.
     
  20. Jul 4, 2012 #260 of 653
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,950
    1,012
    Nov 13, 2006
    No, they are saying that the Hi Definition version of Tcm will look better than the sd version of the channel, and there by will look great in comparison. They are correct about that, I don't know of a single show that doesn't look better on a Hi Definition channel than on a sd channel, regardless of if the show is in Hi Definition or not. DIRECTV compresses the heck out of their sd stuff any more.

    And I just can't ever take anything on YouTube for any kind of comparison, sorry.

    Also, many people have posted very wide ranging results about uverse depending on where they are, i don't care if it shouldn't make a difference or not. You don't know what's being done at the source in different places with those signals. Sat is the only source where all sources are treated identically everywhere.

    And when I said compare, I mean with the Hi Definition channels that have already been moved to 6 per. I have not seen one person say they can tell. Not one.
     

Share This Page