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

#241 OFFLINE   Racer88

Racer88

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 800 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 05:00 AM

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?

Edited by Racer88, 04 July 2012 - 05:21 AM.


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

#242 OFFLINE   LameLefty

LameLefty

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,043 posts
Joined: Sep 28, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 06:56 AM

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.


Yet you're the one posting worries and fears about PQ without screenshots.

"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
Directv since 1997
Will Work for Beer


#243 OFFLINE   RAD

RAD

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,929 posts
  • LocationDripping Springs, TX
Joined: Aug 05, 2002

Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:09 AM

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.

See post My Setup for configuration info.


#244 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,282 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:09 AM

Yet you're the one posting worries and fears about PQ without screenshots.


And without DirecTV.
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

#245 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,644 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 09:17 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edited by veryoldschool, 04 July 2012 - 09:30 AM.

A.K.A VOS

#246 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 04 July 2012 - 10:41 AM

I don't buy it.

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


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
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#247 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,644 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 10:49 AM

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.

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.
A.K.A VOS

#248 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,745 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 04 July 2012 - 10:56 AM

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.

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).

#249 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,644 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:03 AM

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).

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.
A.K.A VOS

#250 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,375 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:09 AM

And without DirecTV.

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?

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#251 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,745 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:12 AM

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.

#252 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,644 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:21 AM

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?

!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?
A.K.A VOS

#253 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,644 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:24 AM

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.

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]

Edited by veryoldschool, 04 July 2012 - 11:40 AM.

A.K.A VOS

#254 OFFLINE   charlie460

charlie460

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 381 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2009

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:57 AM

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?


lol... :sure:

#255 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,032 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 12:39 PM

I don't buy it.

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


Sigh. :nono2:
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#256 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,375 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 04 July 2012 - 12:41 PM

Why does Dish still reduce the 1080 resolution to 1440, "if" they have the bandwidth?

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?

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#257 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,282 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 12:47 PM

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?


Twisting my words? I meant he is commenting on picture quality without seeing it.
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

#258 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,375 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 04 July 2012 - 12:48 PM

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

Are you comparing picture to picture?

Discussing average bandwidth used is not a direct (or even indirect) measure of perceived picture quality.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#259 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,282 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 12:54 PM

Are you comparing picture to picture?

Discussing average bandwidth used is not a direct (or even indirect) measure of perceived picture quality.


Now you are onto my point. No, he is not. He oes not have directv.

This could be fun. One non-customer challenging another.
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

#260 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,780 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 July 2012 - 02:56 PM

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.


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.




spam firewall