Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
652 replies to this topic

#221 OFFLINE   georule

georule

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,590 posts
Joined: Mar 31, 2010

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:56 PM

Yes, 6th channel HD channel on a transponder, same as some of the recent additions, with the assumed new encoders.

No idea of timetable, but probably in July.

Edit: what he said. :)


So. . . the next question is, do we now have a scribble on the napkin standard for "how many per quarter"?

Except that coming July 2nd, they pretty much had to have spent the money last quarter, wouldn't you think? Well, maybe not, with 30 day invoicing. Business buying isn't necessarily consumer cash-and-carry.

Edited by georule, 02 July 2012 - 04:03 PM.

LR(non-CE): HR44, Mits 65C9; Office/FR (CE): HR22-100 + AM21, Mits 60737 + Mits 3DA1 3D adapter. Spare bedroom (non-CE), HR23. Genie WHDVR, wireless networking (yay!)

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#222 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,230 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 02 July 2012 - 04:14 PM

So. . . the next question is, do we now have a scribble on the napkin standard for "how many per quarter"?

Except that coming July 2nd, they pretty much had to have spent the money last quarter, wouldn't you think? Well, maybe not, with 30 day invoicing. Business buying isn't necessarily consumer cash-and-carry.


well maybe they are doing a slow roll out to test out the new system.

Also there likely alot of up coming sports channels and rsn's that are waiting for the channel to go live (that need slots saved for them)
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#223 OFFLINE   ejjames

ejjames

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 896 posts
Joined: Oct 02, 2006

Posted 03 July 2012 - 02:11 AM

Even with the addition of new encoders, does the move from 5 channels per transponder to 6 make anyone else nervous?
Former USSB uplink operator.

USSB from '95 to '99

DirecTv since '95

#224 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,938 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 03 July 2012 - 02:36 AM

Even with the addition of new encoders, does the move from 5 channels per transponder to 6 make anyone else nervous?

Not me. DirecTV is doing fine for capacity and at 6 per transponder they will have more than enough for every channel they want to carry plus channels they don't carry.

If DirecTV was in a bandwidth pinch were nothing new could be carried without going beyond 6 per transponder it might be something to be concerned about. But they are not at that point and are not expected to need more than 6 per transponder. The slippery slope of 5 becomes 6 becomes 7 becomes 8 is not something that is likely to happen at DirecTV.

#225 OFFLINE   charlie460

charlie460

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 391 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2009

Posted 03 July 2012 - 03:16 AM

Even with the addition of new encoders, does the move from 5 channels per transponder to 6 make anyone else nervous?


yes

#226 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,441 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 03 July 2012 - 04:34 AM

Even with the addition of new encoders, does the move from 5 channels per transponder to 6 make anyone else nervous?


Nope. The obviously didn't just go out and start compressing more to get to six, they waited Neil they found encoders that could keep the quality at the same level and accomplish all of this at the same time. I believe it's all good.

And as James said, by the time they run out of room now, they will have d14 in the air. Heck, they might have d14 and d15 in the air by then....

#227 OFFLINE   Sixto

Sixto

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,027 posts
Joined: Nov 17, 2005

Posted 03 July 2012 - 06:45 AM

It appears that new technology became available, and they're taking advantage of the new technology.

I've not seen anyone notice the difference yet.
DirecTV: Genie, H25, CCK, GenioGo, SWiM-16 & SWiM-8, DECA to Gigabit Switch with FiOS (75/35)
FiOS: Roamio Pro's (2), Roamio Plus, Mini's (4) with Ultimate HD (My Roamio Thoughts)

#228 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,230 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 03 July 2012 - 07:43 AM

Not me. DirecTV is doing fine for capacity and at 6 per transponder they will have more than enough for every channel they want to carry plus channels they don't carry.

If DirecTV was in a bandwidth pinch were nothing new could be carried without going beyond 6 per transponder it might be something to be concerned about. But they are not at that point and are not expected to need more than 6 per transponder. The slippery slope of 5 becomes 6 becomes 7 becomes 8 is not something that is likely to happen at DirecTV.


they can also in a bandwidth pinch trun off SD duplicates and move SD only stuff to MPEG 4.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#229 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,133 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 03 July 2012 - 07:51 AM

yes


Have you actually seen a difference in the channels they are currently doing this with?

#230 OFFLINE   georule

georule

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,590 posts
Joined: Mar 31, 2010

Posted 03 July 2012 - 10:09 AM

Even with the addition of new encoders, does the move from 5 channels per transponder to 6 make anyone else nervous?


Not yet. If you haven't reviewed the encoder presentation linked upstream, go take a look at that (the mpeg 4 section is towards the end).

They've already got some high-profile channels on these 6-per TPs, and no one has raised any PQ flags yet.

Given the nature of this very competitive business, if they were giving up quality to do this, competitors would be feeding their online surrogates with talking points and screenies showing it, or at least pointing out where to look.
LR(non-CE): HR44, Mits 65C9; Office/FR (CE): HR22-100 + AM21, Mits 60737 + Mits 3DA1 3D adapter. Spare bedroom (non-CE), HR23. Genie WHDVR, wireless networking (yay!)

#231 OFFLINE   charlie460

charlie460

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 391 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2009

Posted 03 July 2012 - 02:36 PM

Have you actually seen a difference in the channels they are currently doing this with?


No, but I worry about them getting too happy with this and trying to squeeze even more channels on one TP. Or cutting resolution to 1440 like Dish.

#232 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,441 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 03 July 2012 - 02:40 PM

No, but I worry about them getting too happy with this and trying to squeeze even more channels on one TP. Or cutting resolution to 1440 like Dish.


Why would they even consider that when they have so many transponders still with only five channels.

I doubt this would happen, as the quality of their encoders and picture quality seems to be a particular point of pride by DIRECTV and some of the powers that be there.

#233 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,641 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 03 July 2012 - 04:57 PM

No, but I worry about them getting too happy with this and trying to squeeze even more channels on one TP. Or cutting resolution to 1440 like Dish.


I see it as the opposite. They waited until they could maintain the quality to add a sixth channel. Plus they now have plenty of space. Especially since 3D has not quite caught on.

Also hopeful because they have started to retire old (very old) boxes. Future looks pretty good right now.

It all comes down to money and other contract items.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#234 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,929 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 03 July 2012 - 06:07 PM

..
Also hopeful because they have started to retire old (very old) boxes. Future looks pretty good right now.
...

Technically, the retired boxes using additional bandwidth (for MPG) barely allow to reuse it for one SD channel per tpn on Ku sats (101/110/119).

#235 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,641 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 03 July 2012 - 06:10 PM

Technically, the retired boxes using additional bandwidth (for MPG) barely allow to reuse it for one SD channel per tpn on Ku sats (101/110/119).


I know but they had to start somewhere.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#236 ONLINE   cypherx

cypherx

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,865 posts
  • LocationPA - Berks County
Joined: Aug 27, 2010

Posted 03 July 2012 - 06:51 PM

There's nothing to worry about in terms of quality. They could of done this long ago but the fact that they waited until technology got better proves they aren't acting "blindly".

- > Link to my setup thread< -

My  DirecTV HD WISHLIST:  NickJR, Nicktoons, Revolt.TV, FXM, We, Oxygen, The Hub, Fuse, GSN, Sprout, GAC, Esquire, MTV2, BBC World News, Sundance, Up, Music Choice Play HD (formerly SWRV), Al Jazeera America, Military Channel, NASA

My DirecTV SD WISHLIST: MTV Hits, MTV Jams, Music Choice, Youtoo TV

 

---

HR44-500
HR24-200

 


#237 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,230 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 03 July 2012 - 10:42 PM

Technically, the retired boxes using additional bandwidth (for MPG) barely allow to reuse it for one SD channel per tpn on Ku sats (101/110/119).


well that can fit the up coming RSN's and other sports channels.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#238 OFFLINE   Xizer

Xizer

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 16 posts
Joined: Apr 02, 2012

Posted 04 July 2012 - 03:06 AM

Nope. The obviously didn't just go out and start compressing more to get to six, they waited Neil they found encoders that could keep the quality at the same level and accomplish all of this at the same time. I believe it's all good.


I don't buy it.

DirecTV is in dangerous territory now - AT&T U-verse territory.

For those unfortunate enough to have seen U-verse TV's "HD" channels in action - you will be scarred for life by how bad they look.

AT&T runs their H.264 encoders at 6 Mbps. This is the same bitrate that DirecTV is doing now with their new 6-per-TP scheme. DirecTV's picture quality was never anything to write home about at 8 Mbps. It was decent compared to many providers but utter crap compared to Blu-rays and free-to-air satellite feeds/wildfeeds/backhauls.

Why is DirecTV trying to match that previous subpar quality at a lower bitrate instead of improving upon it and trying to get closer to Blu-ray/FTA satellite quality video? :confused: If these magic new encoders are so much better they should be using them at 8 Mbps...

Here's a screenshot comparison of AT&T U-verse versus YouTube:

http://screenshotcom...omparison/63008
http://screenshotcom...omparison/63009
http://screenshotcom...omparison/63010

I don't know - maybe I'm unreasonable for wanting an expensive paid monthly service like DirecTV to be able to match the quality of what's being put out for free over the air via FTA satellite or ATSC antenna...

#239 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,441 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 04:08 AM

I don't buy it.

DirecTV is in dangerous territory now - AT&T U-verse territory.

For those unfortunate enough to have seen U-verse TV's "HD" channels in action - you will be scarred for life by how bad they look.

AT&T runs their H.264 encoders at 6 Mbps. This is the same bitrate that DirecTV is doing now with their new 6-per-TP scheme. DirecTV's picture quality was never anything to write home about at 8 Mbps. It was decent compared to many providers but utter crap compared to Blu-rays and free-to-air satellite feeds/wildfeeds/backhauls.

Why is DirecTV trying to match that previous subpar quality at a lower bitrate instead of improving upon it and trying to get closer to Blu-ray/FTA satellite quality video? :confused: If these magic new encoders are so much better they should be using them at 8 Mbps...

Here's a screenshot comparison of AT&T U-verse versus YouTube:

http://screenshotcom...omparison/63008
http://screenshotcom...omparison/63009
http://screenshotcom...omparison/63010

I don't know - maybe I'm unreasonable for wanting an expensive paid monthly service like DirecTV to be able to match the quality of what's being put out for free over the air via FTA satellite or ATSC antenna...


Did you just offer up posts on you tube for pic quality? :lol:

And you think AT&T gets all the way up to 6?

And there is no one out there now that comes close to blu ray, and I doubt there will be for at least ten years or more, so I don't even bother with that kind of comparison. And fta isn't a competitor in that either. Dish, DIRECTV, and cable companies and over the air are all fair comparisons.

And evidently you haven't sen any of the over the air Hi Definition channels in my market. DIRECTV has as good a pq as any of them do for the same channels, and some cable channels are even better n dtv. All my freaking channels seem to think if they aren't showing an additional three to ten (yes ten on a couple non network stations) sub channels they aren't doing a good enough job.

You don't have to buy it, but they haven't lost any pq on the channels they have already gone to six per transponders with. At least not that anyone here has ever been able to see.

#240 OFFLINE   Xizer

Xizer

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 16 posts
Joined: Apr 02, 2012

Posted 04 July 2012 - 04:42 AM

Did you just offer up posts on you tube for pic quality? :lol:

And you think AT&T gets all the way up to 6?


Measured at the U-verse gateway, AT&T's HD streams for video are approx. 5.7 Mbps. This makes sense as on the 32/5 U-verse profile (this is the one assigned to you on AT&T's fastest Internet speed offering, 24/3 Mbps) - one's Internet connection speed drops to 20 Mbps when viewing two HD channels at once - 14 Mbps when viewing 3 HD channels - and just 8 Mbps when viewing four HD channels. So yes, Internet speed loss on U-verse when viewing 2 or more HD channels definitely correlates with the 6 Mbps of bandwidth per HD channel as well.

The point of the comparison was to illustrate how bad AT&T U-verse looks at that bitrate - that a recording from Verizon FiOS of the same channel uploaded to YouTube still looks better than AT&T even after YouTube molests it. It's that bad.

As for whether or not DirecTV looks any worse with the 25% bitrate drop, I'd take opinions without some screenshots to back it up with a grain of salt. In the other thread about DirecTV HD channels the majority opinion is that the new channel they're adding, TCM HD - "looks great." This is despite the fact that it is the only high definition channel that has never aired a single minute of native high definition content. Most people are clueless when it comes to picture quality.

Really the only way to know scientifically is for a thorough identical frame screenshot comparison to be done like the AT&T vs. YouTube comparison above: screenshots need to be taken of a program before it gets dropped down to 6 Mbps and then a repeat of the program after the channel is dropped down.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...