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

Dish & Direct tv--Any signal or Picture difference?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,995 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland, Pa
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:13 AM

For most of us, this is really a moot discussion.

 

The only way for any of us to prove whether or not Dish or DirecTV looks better... would be to have both and have the same HDTV model side-by-side so that we could do a direct comparison of channels carried by both providers.

 

Based on everything said... IF you believe the metrics about 1440 instead of 1920... and I'm not saying I doubt those, I'm just saying *I* have no way to measure that and you will not find anyone from Dish who will tell you they are sending 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080...  but accepting that as a possible fact for a moment...  Nobody has suggested that Dish does anything to the SD or to the 720p broadcasts... so we are left with the 1080i channels as possibly being better on DirecTV.

 

Without a side-by-side comparison, I couldn't say.

 

What I can say...

 

 

 

2. I have been a Dish customer long enough that I do believe their HD was better than it is now.  I can't say *why* that is... or how much is my own imagination vs the 1440/1920 thing... but I do remember the picture being even better in the early HD days with Dish.

 

 

 

So...  I can't imagine DirecTV looking SO much better than Dish to be worth switching... when I'm happy with most of the rest of what I get with Dish.  IF I was a DirecTV customer, I would likely have the same answer... because I'm not prone to switch on a whim.  It is as much laziness and love for status quo as it is any sense of loyalty, though.

As for your Number 2 , Fact is Dish down rezzes its HD. My guess so they can cram more HD on their transponders!  Charlie always looking to save a buck while trying to keep up with Directv!

 

As for your last Paragraph.  I agree !


Blue Ridge Communticatons

Digital HD Basic Plus, Cinemax,Showtime/TMC,Starz /Encore
Tivo T6 (Roamio Plus) Master Bedroom,Samsung 5300 40 Inch

Tivo Mini Livingroom Vizio M602i-B3 60 Inch

Tivo Mini Bedroom 2  LG 26LE5300 26 Inch
Tivo Mini Bedroom 3  Element ELEFW328 32 Inch
Cisco HD ,Bedroom office 4  Magnavox 32 inch

Arris Touchstone DG1660

Dream 60 Mbps down 3 Mbps up.

 


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,352 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 23 June 2013 - 03:20 PM

Again, for the record...  I'm not saying I am challenging the metrics...  I'm just saying that my equipment doesn't show me that... and while it may be possible to buy equipment that would...  I don't have money to spend on that, and frankly it wouldn't help me any to be able to measure it...

 

All I can say is that Dish HD doesn't look as crisp as it used to... I just can't say why...  but it looks pretty nice to me... and since I can't do a side-by-side comparison with DirecTV without signing up...  I can't do a direct comparison... and I suspect most people can't do that either.... and even the most vigorous on this forum who do make such comparisons, I'm not seeing a "night and day" situation where anyone is raving A=awesome and B=crap...  so I'm not sure the metrics or comparisons even mean much to most of us except for as a fun conversation... certainly not worth uprooting and switching out equipment over.


  • Inkosaurus likes this

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#53 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,233 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 23 June 2013 - 03:55 PM

All I can say is that Dish HD doesn't look as crisp as it used to... I just can't say why...


You can tell us. We're friendly. :)

Personally I do not like the numbers games ... I prefer perception. Even though perception is variable - what looks good to me may look bad to you. But looking at the numbers ... seeing the number of DBS transponders with 9 and even 10 HD channels per transponder when we used to see 8 or less on the busiest transponders. DISH is using less bits per channel than they once did. And while these less bits come from improved compression techniques we are still getting further and further away from the "crisp" pictures of old.

I'm not going to say that DirecTV having only 5 or 6 HD channels per transponder makes them better simply on the numbers. I have not looked at the bit rates and error correcting on their transponders to see what sort of throughput they are getting. And poorly compressing a signal can happen even if you give it more bandwidth in the output stream. But as far as DISH goes ... I believe they have taken quality down a notch to add more channels.

Whether that notch is important is up to the customers. If the average customer doesn't notice the difference perhaps the current level is good enough. Perhaps if I update my HDTV I'll notice the difference. (I have an older HDTV that does fairly good on SD ... I understand some HD sets don't display upconvert as well as my set. Every set seems to be different.)

The videophile shouldn't be happy with any satellite or cable provider. They should be looking for something better.
  • Inkosaurus likes this
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#54 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,397 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:29 PM

You can tell us. We're friendly. :)

Personally I do not like the numbers games ... I prefer perception. Even though perception is variable - what looks good to me may look bad to you. But looking at the numbers ... seeing the number of DBS transponders with 9 and even 10 HD channels per transponder when we used to see 8 or less on the busiest transponders. DISH is using less bits per channel than they once did. And while these less bits come from improved compression techniques we are still getting further and further away from the "crisp" pictures of old.

I'm not going to say that DirecTV having only 5 or 6 HD channels per transponder makes them better simply on the numbers. I have not looked at the bit rates and error correcting on their transponders to see what sort of throughput they are getting. And poorly compressing a signal can happen even if you give it more bandwidth in the output stream. But as far as DISH goes ... I believe they have taken quality down a notch to add more channels.

Whether that notch is important is up to the customers. If the average customer doesn't notice the difference perhaps the current level is good enough. Perhaps if I update my HDTV I'll notice the difference. (I have an older HDTV that does fairly good on SD ... I understand some HD sets don't display upconvert as well as my set. Every set seems to be different.)

The videophile shouldn't be happy with any satellite or cable provider. They should be looking for something better.


Yeah, the resolution pixels is part of the equation, but there's more to it than just that that can affect picture quality.

i have a machine with some scenery recorded on it that was used to display Hi Definition for tvs at the store I worked at a decade ago that has better picture quality than pretty much anything I can see over the air or via sat or cable today. And its mpeg2. Its all in how much care they take to make it look good in the first place.

Im sad to hear people saying dishes quality has dropped, but I wonder if its still the lingering affects of the sat that failed a few years ago and maybe it will get better when they get another couple satelites up...

#55 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,233 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:40 PM

Im sad to hear people saying dishes quality has dropped, but I wonder if its still the lingering affects of the sat that failed a few years ago and maybe it will get better when they get another couple satelites up...


That satellite is out of service ... most of DISH's satellites are new (61.5 in 2013, 77 in 2012, 119 in 2010, 129 in 2009, 72.7 in 2009, 110 in 2008 - spot 110 in 2006).
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#56 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:09 AM

The videophile shouldn't be happy with any satellite or cable provider. They should be looking for something better.

 

Well, there's a bit of a conundrum here.  If you want to watch something that is on ESPN, your choices are cable or one of the small-dish providers.  ESPN is no longer available on BUD.  Short of opening your own satellite or cable company and putting a satellite farm in your yard, I don't see the typical videophile as having much choice in the matter.



#57 OFFLINE   Inkosaurus

Inkosaurus

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 678 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2011

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:08 AM

Well, there's a bit of a conundrum here.  If you want to watch something that is on ESPN, your choices are cable or one of the small-dish providers.  ESPN is no longer available on BUD.  Short of opening your own satellite or cable company and putting a satellite farm in your yard, I don't see the typical videophile as having much choice in the matter.

 

 

And even then the quality would still not be any higher then 1080i lol.



#58 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,397 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:08 PM

That satellite is out of service ... most of DISH's satellites are new (61.5 in 2013, 77 in 2012, 119 in 2010, 129 in 2009, 72.7 in 2009, 110 in 2008 - spot 110 in 2006).


yes I know, my point is they have yet to launch a new sat to replace the one they lost during launch, and I wonder if when that does happen if it will make a difference.

#59 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,397 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:16 PM

And even then the quality would still not be any higher then 1080i lol.


The FCC screwed up in approving the atsc standard. They made it far to complicated with far to many options. It should have been 1080p only for Hi Definition, and 480p only for standard. Then make them both either 24fps or 30fps. id lean towards Both having to be 30fps and be done with it. Nothing else. And then give everyone only enough space for one 1080p Hi Definition channel over the air, so they have to go all Hi Definition, or all sd, but not both and bit starve and screw up some Hi Definition broadcasts by squeezing in more channels than they should. Plus it would have been cheaper for everyone if they had done that.

#60 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,233 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:06 PM

yes I know, my point is they have yet to launch a new sat to replace the one they lost during launch, and I wonder if when that does happen if it will make a difference.

 

That one has already been replaced.


Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#61 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,880 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:16 PM

Who determines what is reasonable? Reasonable for you may be a 32" television viewed from 10'. If you go to ISF or one of the other companies that have done the research, you will find that if you are at recommended viewing distances, the signal will look different at 1080 than 480.


That's stating the obvious and not my point. I said in my original post there is a difference it's seeing it that counts. I provided a well regarded link that has charts and text that explains it. Most people do not sit at the recommended distance they sit further away. When you do that the difference of 720p to 1080p vanishes. Any talk that you can still see some difference is incorrect including any motion difference. (You CAN see motion differences between interlaced and progressive - a different discussion)

 

When I said reasonable in my subsequent post I meant being 100' isn't required to where the difference no longer exists, but even at a reasonable distance, distances most are watching from.

Since you mention ISF, resolution isn't even in the top three things that makes a picture better to the human eye.

 

I know people don't like facts getting in the way of opinion, but Smartphones were brought up in the discussion as being able to see better resolution. Well the same applies, hold it just a little away and any improvement of 1080 over 720 goes away. In fact even at normal viewing distances it's very iffy that you can see a difference. Here's another link about it. Often in smaller screens it's the technology that improved rather than it just being resolution.

 

http://bgr.com/2012/...ra-displaymate/


Edited by tampa8, 24 June 2013 - 06:18 PM.


#62 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:28 AM

The FCC screwed up in approving the atsc standard. They made it far to complicated with far to many options. It should have been 1080p only for Hi Definition, and 480p only for standard. Then make them both either 24fps or 30fps. id lean towards Both having to be 30fps and be done with it. Nothing else. And then give everyone only enough space for one 1080p Hi Definition channel over the air, so they have to go all Hi Definition, or all sd, but not both and bit starve and screw up some Hi Definition broadcasts by squeezing in more channels than they should. Plus it would have been cheaper for everyone if they had done that.

 

There isn't enough bandwidth to do 1080p properly with the 6Mhz channels the FCC had to work with.  1080i at 30fps should use 18Mpbs in MPEG2 to provide a sharp, detailed picture.  That happens to be the exact payload of a 6Mhz channel.  But the FCC decided not to require broadcasters to have only a single channel in that 6Mhz stream to help offset the tremendous costs involved in transitioning to digital.  Stations had to purchase new antennas, new encoders, even new towers in many cases.  And for those moving from VHF to UHF, their power bills jumped pretty high, too.  They had to offset the cost somehow, and multicasting/datacasting was seen as a way to keep broadcast stations viable.  It's a compromise, and I can't see it as being a horrible one.  After all, it's just television.



#63 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:35 AM

When I said reasonable in my subsequent post I meant being 100' isn't required to where the difference no longer exists, but even at a reasonable distance, distances most are watching from.

Since you mention ISF, resolution isn't even in the top three things that makes a picture better to the human eye.

 

One man's reasonable is another man's too small.  It didn't take me very long to figure out sitting closer to the television had the same effect as buying a bigger one and viewing at the same difference.

 

People don't change their habits over time.  Most people still sit at a distance where NTSC looks sharp.  But they buy 80" televisions, and then sit 15' away from them.  Makes no sense.

 

Of course, there's plenty that makes a picture look better.  In fact, if you want a sharper picture, the best bang for your buck is to upgrade your audio system.  Studies have proven that the picture is perceived as being better if the sound is better.



#64 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,733 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:09 AM

I'm curious where/how you two come to the conclusion that most people sit very far away from their screens....?


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#65 OFFLINE   paja

paja

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 421 posts
Joined: Oct 22, 2006

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:24 PM

I'm curious where/how you two come to the conclusion that most people sit very far away from their screens....?

My thought exactly



#66 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,347 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:13 PM

I'm curious where/how you two come to the conclusion that most people sit very far away from their screens....?

 

 

My thought exactly

As of 2011, Dimensions Guide estimates that the average living room is a 16-by-16-foot square.

 
 
I guess tampa assumes "most" people are sitting 15-16 feet away?????

If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#67 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,995 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland, Pa
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:57 PM

 

As of 2011, Dimensions Guide estimates that the average living room is a 16-by-16-foot square.

 
 
I guess tampa assumes "most" people are sitting 15-16 feet away?????

 

I can tell you I sit about 8-12 feet away from out 55 "  depending on what couch I'm sitting on.  I would bet most people sit about 6-10 feet away from their TVs


Blue Ridge Communticatons

Digital HD Basic Plus, Cinemax,Showtime/TMC,Starz /Encore
Tivo T6 (Roamio Plus) Master Bedroom,Samsung 5300 40 Inch

Tivo Mini Livingroom Vizio M602i-B3 60 Inch

Tivo Mini Bedroom 2  LG 26LE5300 26 Inch
Tivo Mini Bedroom 3  Element ELEFW328 32 Inch
Cisco HD ,Bedroom office 4  Magnavox 32 inch

Arris Touchstone DG1660

Dream 60 Mbps down 3 Mbps up.

 


#68 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,397 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:01 PM

There isn't enough bandwidth to do 1080p properly with the 6Mhz channels the FCC had to work with. 1080i at 30fps should use 18Mpbs in MPEG2 to provide a sharp, detailed picture. That happens to be the exact payload of a 6Mhz channel. But the FCC decided not to require broadcasters to have only a single channel in that 6Mhz stream to help offset the tremendous costs involved in transitioning to digital. Stations had to purchase new antennas, new encoders, even new towers in many cases. And for those moving from VHF to UHF, their power bills jumped pretty high, too. They had to offset the cost somehow, and multicasting/datacasting was seen as a way to keep broadcast stations viable. It's a compromise, and I can't see it as being a horrible one. After all, it's just television.


I didn't say get rid of Multicasting I said get rid if this Hi Definition as multi casting at the same time. And who says they couldn't change the channel bandwidth while they were at it?

They basically said let's fit the new system into the same constraints as the old system as much as possible instead if throwing it all out the window and starting over. They could probably do 1080p in mpeg 4 today for over the air and be fine.

#69 OFFLINE   Orion9

Orion9

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 245 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2011

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:14 PM

People don't change their habits over time.  Most people still sit at a distance where NTSC looks sharp. But they buy 80" televisions, and then sit 15' away from them. Makes no sense.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about that, but maybe I don't understand what you are saying... We used to have an NTSC set that was appropriate to the viewing distance. The viewing distance is pretty well fixed by the room design unless you do things that seem quite strange from a furniture/foot traffic/appearance standpoint. When we got HD, we calculated the screen size based on the new resolution for the same(ish) viewing distance. So, the screen got a lot bigger and the distance increased slightly due to the thinner screen. Does that make sense?

One of the big questions, of course, was whether to make this calculation for 1080, 720, or gasp, to even consider a size that wouldn't leave our DVD collection looking awful.

We went more mid-range because we hate spending a lot of money on the best display only to find ourselves complaining about the source material.

Edited by Orion9, 25 June 2013 - 02:15 PM.


#70 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:25 AM

I didn't say get rid of Multicasting I said get rid if this Hi Definition as multi casting at the same time. And who says they couldn't change the channel bandwidth while they were at it?

They basically said let's fit the new system into the same constraints as the old system as much as possible instead if throwing it all out the window and starting over. They could probably do 1080p in mpeg 4 today for over the air and be fine.

 

Did you pay attention during the transition to digital?  The FCC had nightmares trying to even provide a second digital channel to all the stations in some markets, and there was lots of interference and overlap.  Now that each station only has one channel again, there isn't any room for more bandwidth.  To do what you proposed the FCC would not only have had to provide a second channel, but a whole second broadcast spectrum separate from the first.  Flash-cut was never an option.

 

It's true that they could go MPEG4 today, and they can do that for their secondary channels.  But absent a large installed base of tuners, such a move would bankrupt the industry.  Such is always the danger of adopting a standard in the digital age - a better standard is always just around the corner.  I don't see the government doing a second round of tuner box giveaways...



#71 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:28 AM

One of the big questions, of course, was whether to make this calculation for 1080, 720, or gasp, to even consider a size that wouldn't leave our DVD collection looking awful.

 

Even at 1080i recommended distances, my DVD collection doesn't look awful, with perhaps the exception of non-widescreen enhanced titles.



#72 OFFLINE   Rduce

Rduce

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 337 posts
Joined: May 15, 2008

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:35 AM

I personally cannot see any difference in either. I have Dish and a friend has Direct. He says he can see a slightly better look in HD on Direct, but says Dish's SD look much better. Of course we do not have the same TV sets and like I said, I cannot see any difference.



#73 OFFLINE   Orion9

Orion9

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 245 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2011

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:27 AM

Even at 1080i recommended distances, my DVD collection doesn't look awful, with perhaps the exception of non-widescreen enhanced titles.


With a somewhat smaller screen size, we've kept ours to maybe "poor" or "substandard", but usually better than awful. If they look too bad, we shrink them to use only part of the screen. We're definitely not buying any more DVDs.

#74 OFFLINE   Grandude

Grandude

    RichardParker II

  • Registered
  • 896 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2004

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:16 AM

I can tell you I sit about 8-12 feet away from out 55 "  depending on what couch I'm sitting on.  I would bet most people sit about 6-10 feet away from their TVs

I sit 11 feet away from my 52" and 2.5 feet away from my 24" and 26" TV/PC monitors.  The apparent picture size is approximately the same but usually watch one of the PC TVs unless there are two programs, football or races, that I want to watch.

 

I'm a victim of room dimensions and would sit a lot closer to the 52" if practical.


  • damondlt likes this

Brian...reporting from the left coast
 2 Hoppers,1 Joey, 1 VIP211K active receivers
 I still believe in magic
!


#75 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,995 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland, Pa
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:50 AM

I'm a victim of room dimensions and would sit a lot closer to the 52" if practical.

Me too our living room is 18x22 we have one couch about 12 feet away while the other is about 8 and we have a 55". I think it works well enough though, I doubt I would ever buy a bigger tv.

Blue Ridge Communticatons

Digital HD Basic Plus, Cinemax,Showtime/TMC,Starz /Encore
Tivo T6 (Roamio Plus) Master Bedroom,Samsung 5300 40 Inch

Tivo Mini Livingroom Vizio M602i-B3 60 Inch

Tivo Mini Bedroom 2  LG 26LE5300 26 Inch
Tivo Mini Bedroom 3  Element ELEFW328 32 Inch
Cisco HD ,Bedroom office 4  Magnavox 32 inch

Arris Touchstone DG1660

Dream 60 Mbps down 3 Mbps up.

 





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