New customer disappointed with PQ

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by riverawynter, Aug 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. riverawynter

    riverawynter Cool Member

    Aug 10, 2006
    The reason why I signed up with E* was that I was disappointed with the picture quality of the SD channels on cable. So yesterday I got my E* installation done(ViP211). All I have to say is that I am disappointed with the picture quality. I still have my brighthouse(Central Florida, Melbourne) connection hooked up, so I can still compare it against E*. I was expecting "Digital" quality out of the locals and other channels(CNN, Bravo,...) and I just can't see any difference. Sometimes even some channels(SD) from cable would be better than in E*. Initially I thought it was the component cables. So I switch to HDMI. I barely could notice any improvement. HD channels are on par with cable but the rest are just the same(if not worse). Has anybody seen this? My display is a Samsung HLP4663wx.
  2. boba

    boba Hall Of Fame

    May 23, 2003
    You have a 30 day free trial in your contract, cancel if you don't like it.
  3. finniganps

    finniganps Hall Of Fame

    Jan 23, 2004
    I don't know what to say. I guess on the positive side, you can probably switch back to cable if Dish is still running their 30 day money back guarantee.

    Your situation is why I suggest that people who are considering satellite go to a local dealer to view the picture and switch channels to locals before getting Dish. If you don't get better PQ and the cost is similar, why switch to satellite.

    You might want to call Dish and ask if all your settings are correct.
  4. FavreJL04

    FavreJL04 Legend

    Feb 4, 2006
    I think what you are seeing is the overcompression of channels to accomodate more channels. I have DirecTV and experience this as well. I don't have HD, so I don't know what that looks like here, but some regular channels are pathetic watching the little squares move around the screen because the quality is that bad. Some of the more popular channels aren't as bad.
  5. finniganps

    finniganps Hall Of Fame

    Jan 23, 2004
    Wow, I guess I'm just lucky. My PQ has been consistant for 7 years and I am very happy with it. It is the same for all channels.
  6. Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    Jun 7, 2004
    Try connecting with S-Video cables for SD and changing inputs when you switch from HD to SD.

    HD conduits will always show all the "pimples" on SD broadcasts, they are just enlarging all the imperfections perfectly. S-Video has more "slack" it blends the picture better.
  7. dude2

    dude2 AllStar

    May 27, 2006
    Those of you who still have sd from dish, do you feel your pq is just as good as it was before dish started the hd and compression for it.
    I always thought the pq of most sd channels was good but now with hd they do not look that good.
    I have been blaming of the super sharp pq of hd spoiling me against watching sd.
  8. Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    Dec 16, 2003
    I've got good PQ as well and I'm in San Lorenzo, Ca. I've had about 6 rain fades during lighting/downpours since 1999.
  9. A_Pac

    A_Pac Cool Member

    Nov 2, 2003
    This is more than likely your problem, riverawynter.
  10. Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...
    If you are seeing little squares your dish needs to be tweaked and peaked with a
    birddog as that is not normal.:eek2:
  11. robert koerner

    robert koerner Icon

    Aug 20, 2005
    Unfortunately, digital does not by itself equate to fantastic picture quality.

    Read about Forward Error Correction, FEC.

    All cables aren't created equally. I bought BlueJean cable. You might find that good cable has to be "broken-in"--it has to have current running through it before it stabilizes.

    And, all TV displays aren't created equall.
  12. SummitAdvantageRetailer

    SummitAdvantageRetailer Godfather

    Feb 20, 2005
    Were you comparing HD locals or SD locals? SD locals are very compressed and sometimes look very grainy on a fast moving picture. But bear in mind that some cable companies do show good picture quality even on the analog boxes. The big problem with analog cable is that picture quality is not consistent and you're limited in capability of the analog cable set top box.
  13. sNEIRBO

    sNEIRBO Icon

    Jul 23, 2006
    My HD looks awesome, and I have at times been looking at some of the SD channels and thinking they look horrible. But I have also been blaming that on the super sharp PQ of the HD I prefer to watch.

    I will say this though - I was watching "The Colbert Report", "30 Days" and "The Sun Always Shines in Philadelphia" off of my ViP622 DVR the other night and I thought the PQ was incredible for non-HD broadcasts.

    As far as my locals go, I pull my locals in off of an OTA in HD (with the exception of Fox which comes in on the Dish HD Locals). So they always look very good.

    FYI - My 622 is hooked up to a 60" Sony Grand Wega via HDMI. Not trying to brag, I just don't know if the connection (HDMI), manufacturer (Sony), projection technology (Grand Wega) or size of my HDTV make a difference in my experience compared to other's experiences with E*.
  14. ehren

    ehren Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2003
    I actually watch SD with the black bars on my tv and the PQ is better than watching stretched.
  15. restart88

    restart88 Legend

    Jun 18, 2006
    FWIW I have an old console 23 or 24 inch TV from the pre-remote days. It is nearing its end of usefulness, of course, but that's another story.

    Direct TV looks great, Dish a little less, and cable via Tivo only fair at best. Much darker and a bit grainy. In comparison, DBS on the Tivo looks about as good as directly from the receivers. OTOH Direct TV Tivo looks the best of all. Of course. :)

    Now mom has the old UTV unit for Direct TV. I bought her a new 32 inch flat screen SD TV. Some channels look fantastic! Others not so much but still better than cable or even OTA.

    I think with the bigger & better TVs every flaw gets magnified - especially the HDTV units. When you tune to one channel and it looks fantastic and the next one looks like crap it gets kinda depressing and many people take their fancy new HDTVs back to the store.

    Geez, I remember when I thought I was in hog heaven just to get a picture without snow or fade out. :D

    So for the short term I guess everyone has to decide to either go with lesser quality as a constant so the flaws don't stand out as much or learn to live with the peaks & valleys of today's PQ no matter which media source you choose. It's no longer enough to find the best price plan, but you have to consider how happy you will be with their picture on your particular set. So cable can look better because it's a constant lesser quality on SD channels and for some DBS will give you the best and worst images.

    Don't you wish it was as easy as just over compressing the barker channels? :D
  16. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    Dec 17, 2003

    I think your observation is accurate. However, you have to consider other factors in this-
    Your cable may or may not offer more channels than E* In my case E* offers more choices, and more HD, about double than my cable (Comcast) does. Plus, the cost is less with E*. The DVR featureset is better than what cable here offers.

    I'm with you on the PQ for all the SD channels- Cable appears much sharper than the E* SD channels which I see as "soft" But E* HD channels are all quite satisfactory and on par with my monitor's ability to resolve and comparable to my local HD channels direct OFF air. I don't have E* HD locals yet. FYI- D* is similar and I consider them soft too. But D* HD channels are all inferior to both E* and Cable. In effect D* HD channels have become the poorest HD PQ (soft) and loaded with macroblocking of all the program sources I have.
    So, if you were to consider D* I think you'd be wasting your time. Obviously, I don't have Britehouse cable so I can't comment on what you see there. I can only say that my cable is pretty good PQ but costs more and offers less and has worse equipment than E*
    I have D*, E* and Cable here. Since I work in the business, I have to have all the programming I'm permitted to by law to monitor my products when I can.
  17. grooves12

    grooves12 Godfather

    Oct 27, 2005
    I think part of it is Dish is using cheap decoders in the new HD hardware... I have a DVB HTPC, and the picture quality using the Nvidia PureVideo decoders outputting through component from a GeForce 6200 looks a lot better than the same channels Dish is putting out. A LOT BETTER.
  18. restart88

    restart88 Legend

    Jun 18, 2006
    When you mention cheap decoders in the new HDTV boxes I'm wondering if a factor may be that they are just cheap on MPEG II? Perhaps they were designed to work best on MPEG IV? Just guessing here.

    You mentioned the GeForce 6200 in a HTPC. I have been working on troubleshooting some software issues on a Dell e310 MCE PC and installed that card in PCI and have had nothing but trouble finding decoders to work, even using the updated Pure Video. I finally found a Cyberlink decoder that worked so I could at least play DVDs. Other than the decoder issue it seems like a good card for what it is. But hey, I only paid $27. :)
  19. RASCAL01

    RASCAL01 Godfather

    Aug 1, 2006
    My brother in law has 2 of these tv's and the PQ is horrible. He has E* and so do I but I have a Samsung 30 inch hd widescreen and the PQ is awsome. So I think that it has something to do with your set. I have been reading a lot of posts and it seems that it is the sets that can not produce high quality PQ. I think a lot of these sets are older models.
  20. BarryO

    BarryO Legend

    Dec 16, 2003
    I guess that begs the question: what do you think "digital quality" means?

    If you believe the marketing hype, "digital quality" is fantastic. But advertising copy is approved by MBA's who are trained to decieve, not engineers. In other words, it's a mostly meaningless term.

    Yes, with "digital quality" you won't get analog impairments. You won't get picture degradation due to low Signal-to-Noise-Ratio (SNR), which results in "snow". You see this on cable as well as OTA. You won't get "ghosts", which is the effect that multipath has on analog signals. This is a BIG problem on analog OTA. You won't see herringbones and other distortions from long chains of analog amplifiers, like you can see on analog cable.

    Instead, you get digital impairments. These are due to overcompression on digital cable and DBS channels, in the attempt to squeeze in as many channels as possible. Among these are:

    --reduced resolution. The horizontal resolution is down-sampled to 640 pixels, from 720.

    --reduced color sampling - leads to "posterization" effects" and blurring.

    --compression artifacts - throw away information, and you get "digital distortion" like "mosquito noise", and macroblocking.

    Bottom line, "digital quality" could look fantastic, if the providers wanted it to. Instead, they want to sqeeze as many channels as possible. Tthe PQ on on a typical SD DBS or digital cable is far, far worse than a pristine analog original. The DBS and digital cable companies push things up to the point where they get negative reactions in focus groups from "typical" viewers on "typical" TV's. If you are more picky than a "typical" viewer (apparenlty that's not saying much), and you have a better TV, then you're going to see a bad picture.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall