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

Opinion: OTA HD thru 662 vs TV

Discussion in 'ViP612/622/722/722K DVR Support Forum' started by kaman, Mar 30, 2007.

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

    smackman Godfather

    430
    1
    Sep 18, 2006
    I compared and believe my OTA tuner on my TV is better PQ wise than 622 receiver. Is it worth giving up the 622 features? NO CHANCE IN well you get the picture.
     
  2. kaman

    kaman Cool Member

    11
    0
    Mar 22, 2007
    For the record, (I'm the one who started this thread) I am just talking about OTA HD only.

    Well, I hooked up the OTA to the 622 tonite during the first Final Four Game for a good comparison with fast-motion HD. Maybe it is just the power of suggestion, but I can tell a slight difference in PQ, with the edge going to the TV. It seems that I can sometimes see more of the "pixilation effect" (my term), when you can see the small squares during fast movement. With that being said, the PQ of 622 is still very good. I would calculate using my highly technical and accurate testing instrumentation, my eyeballs, that the TV PQ is better by about 4.5%.

    I agree with smackman, it isn't nearly enough give up 622 features, in my case.

    So far, the signal strength seems to be hanging in there.
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I would expect the quality of OTA from the Dish receiver vs your HDTV to fare similar to comparing your HDTV to another manufacturer. Different HDTVs (even with like technology LCD vs LCD or Plasma vs Plasma) from different companies show different quality results too.

    Very possible your HDTV could be noticably better than through the Dish receiver. If I had a tuner in my HDTV I would definately compare and have it hooked up for multi-viewing fun... but since I don't, I can't.

    At the time I bought my HDTV it was something like $300-$500 more to get the HDTV tuner built-in... and since I knew I was going to be putting about that much into my Dish 6000u receiver for HD from satellite I couldn't justify paying that money twice.

    Now that the tuners are built-in and essentially no savings to get an HDTV model without anymore... I would certainly buy and use next time I have to upgrade a TV.
     
  4. JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    I'm sitting here watching "The Rookie" in OTA HD. New Sammy 61" DLP and I run it with HDMI. PQ via the set's tuner is noticeably better than the 622. But hell, it's great either way!!

    John
     
  5. smackman

    smackman Godfather

    430
    1
    Sep 18, 2006
    This is exactly the way I see it with my setup. I was watching the final 4 yesterday with split screen and the TV set tuner is more of a sharper picture. I started watching the game on my TV tuner and I wanted to rewind and watch a great play. I swapped back to the 622 tuner and left it there. The 622 features are the bomb.
     
  6. racermurray

    racermurray AllStar

    50
    0
    Mar 20, 2007
    Interestingly enough my 622 picture quality outperforms my SONY Bravia 40S2400.
    Just did a comparison watching NBC news HD from my OTA.
    My 622 is set at 1080i and is connected with an HDMI.
    All color,contrast etc. being the same.
    Slight difference but the 622 picture is a little crisper.

    Murray
     
  7. wje

    wje Godfather

    471
    0
    Mar 8, 2006
    New England
    The PQ depends upon how you connect the 622 to the TV. If you use component, then you are depending upon the quality of the 622's D/A converters, then most likely going through the TV's A/D converters to get back to digital internally. If you use HDMI, you skip the analog conversions.

    The MPEG2 decoding itself will give the same result in either box, but there's also a lot of post-processing that's done (scaling, noise filtering, motion artifact elimination, etc). How that ends up looking depends upon which box does a better job. If you have a high-end TV, it probably will. If you use component output, you're using the 622's processing. Use HDMI, and you use your TV's processing.

    Best bet is to try it and see. I used to watch OTA using my TV's tuner back when I had D*'s HR10-250, because its OTA sucked big time. Now, I use the 622's OTA, and connect via HDMI. It looks great.
     
  8. hokie-dk

    hokie-dk AllStar

    60
    0
    Feb 4, 2006
    I really can't see a difference in the HD picture quality, but I am able to capture more stations using the 622 tuner.
     
  9. bmcleod

    bmcleod Mentor

    48
    0
    May 13, 2006
    California...
    So I don't see how you can "A/B" the TV OTA Tuner and the 622 OTA Tuner without splitting the signal coming from the antenna which reduces the signal strength, doesn't that change the test conditions?

    I found this thread because I am thinking of switching back to my TV's OTA Tuner. I don't think PQ is the only issue; someone above mentioned Shark, I was watching it the other night throught the 622 OTA, most of the show was OK with occational "jumps", but just at climax of the show I got the dreaded green pixelation and missed the rest. I used my TV's HD tuner for over 3 years before getting the 622 and rarely had dropouts so sinificant. I hate to loose the TV guide features and recording OTA but at least I could watch the whole show. I wish it was easy to switch back and forth.
     
  10. smackman

    smackman Godfather

    430
    1
    Sep 18, 2006
    A coax 2 way splitter will cause a 3 db loss maximum of signal. It is very unlikely that this minimal loss would cause issues. Remember, this is digital, You either have it or you don't. Unles you are on the ragged edge with signal a 2 way splitter would have no effect on PQ.
     
  11. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Probably worth mentioning to keep in mind... Since the ViP622 is a DVR... and allows the pausing of "live" TV and so forth... Technically speaking, when viewing OTA (or anything else for that matter) through the ViP622, you are actually watching a slightly delayed recording.

    Your TV, on the other hand, is displaying the info as it receives it when you directly connect your antenna to your HDTV digital tuner... so while picture quality should be close to the same for a given resolution... there could be issues in the ViP receiver caused by that slight delay of watching the buffer rather than live TV. Things like the audio skips or skipping frames are introduced by the DVR nature of the ViP622 that would not be seen in your TV.

    A ViP211, for that reason, could perhaps be a more valid unit to compare to HDTV built-in tuners.
     
  12. bmcleod

    bmcleod Mentor

    48
    0
    May 13, 2006
    California...
    So we are talking about pretty subtle differences here and as I mentioned it's not just PQ but a complete loss of useable signal, but I'm willing to give a spliter a try and see if when I lose it on the 622 the Mits tuner is any better.

    Yeah, this certainly seems to have the potential of affecting the picture as much or more than different tuners.
     
  13. smackman

    smackman Godfather

    430
    1
    Sep 18, 2006
    When using side by side PIP on my TV, the picture on the 622 with live programming is not delayed compared to the TV Tuner. They are in sync totally when viewing live programming such as The Masters. The colors such as the green of the grass or the blue sky is much more vivid with the TV tuner. Once again I use HDMI from my 622 receiver to TV. Sharper colors is the biggest difference but I will take the 622 features anytime. I have no trouble with pixelation from OTA signal on TV but sometimes for no reason the 622 OTA tuner will pixelate for no reason unless it is signal overdrive. I love my 622 with 3.66. The workarounds are no problem for the features you have.
     
  14. wje

    wje Godfather

    471
    0
    Mar 8, 2006
    New England
    Not necessarily. A 3db loss is 1/2 the original power. The db scale is logarithmic. This makes sense for a splitter - the signal is divided into 2 signals, each with half the power of the original. Additionally, splitters aren't perfectly efficient, so the total loss is going to be more. If you're in a fringe area, you will certainly see the effect of using a splitter.

    However, as was pointed out, the signal is digital; if you don't get dropouts or pixellation using the splitter, then the image will be the same quality as the non-split original.
     
  15. smackman

    smackman Godfather

    430
    1
    Sep 18, 2006
    If your signal is already weak that is dropping out or pixellation is present, common sense would tell you not to use a splitter. As far as the linearity of the signal goes, I was taught a long time ago to figure 3 db loss as a standard but this was on analog signals.
     
  16. wje

    wje Godfather

    471
    0
    Mar 8, 2006
    New England
    Yes, 3db loss is the standard measurement point, although it's not a minor amount. Bandwidth specs of an amp, for example, usually goes something like "20Hz-20Khz +/- 3db". These are the half-power points. Sounds better than "your amp will deliver half-power at 20Hz and 20Khz", doesn't it?

    To further complicate matters, RF amps for off-air signals frequently have their sensitivity specified in microvolts; voltage, not power. In that case, 3db of power loss is equivalent to a reduced signal voltage, given a constant input impedance, of 0.707. Isn't that exciting?

    Anyway, even in a fringe area, a splitter can be used, but you might also need an inline amp. (I'm in the boonies. I have two high-gain antennas, one for Boston and one for NH stations, each with a preamp, feeding a combiner and another high-gain amp to drive 60 feet of coax to get to my 622!)
     
  17. Mr.72

    Mr.72 Icon

    564
    0
    Feb 2, 2007
    you cannot really compare PQ with side-by-side PIP mostly because #1 the TV is processing the signal and #2 the resolution is 1/4 in side-by-site PIP! There's no improvement HD vs. SD with side-by-side PIP.

    Now if you have color saturation issues etc. those are all calibration issues. It's entirely possible the signal processing in the 622 is different from that in the TV and therefore would require calibration for each signal input. If the color levels are different, and you prefer more saturated (what I am interpreting from "sharper") color, then whichever input has more saturated color is going to get the nod.

    Either way side-by-side PIP won't do the trick. You'd have to switch between the two and keep a careful memory. If you could calibrate both inputs so that they match with a calibration signal, then I would be intrigued to see the results of a blind test.
     
  18. smackman

    smackman Godfather

    430
    1
    Sep 18, 2006
    In my small world I would never use your way of calculating a loss because its not necessary. I aplaud your knowledge and honestly understand "most" of what you are saying because I am a Electronic Technician on the Industrial side of the technical world. I would say this though; probably over 90% of the people reading your comments have no idea what the Hell you are talking about so I keep it simple for simple minds like myself. You are probably 100% correct but what you are saying is highly technical to most readers. Anyway, have a nice day.
     
  19. Mr.72

    Mr.72 Icon

    564
    0
    Feb 2, 2007
    -3dB for audio and -3dB for RF are entirely different things. In audio, it matters because really, from a frequency response point of view, -3dB is about the minimum difference most people can hear. So if it was 20Hz-20kHz +/- 1dB vs. 3 dB you would not likely hear the difference if it was indeed flat in the range only - a couple of dB at either end. However, for an audio amplifier, the normal specification is +/- 1dB and it's throughout the band. +/- 1dB is considered flat.

    Anyway, your -3dB is a more common loudspeaker specification but still it only applies to audio. The reason we use dB for audio or even light levels is because we don't perceive it linearly. A half-power sound does not SOUND half as loud, so it only sounds a little bit quieter so 3 dB makes a lot more sense than saying it's 50%.

    The more important thing about using a splitter is the effect on antenna loading and frequency response. But since even dB is too technical for smackman I guess I should avoid talking about such nonsense as RF frequency response in this forum.
     
  20. smackman

    smackman Godfather

    430
    1
    Sep 18, 2006
    The more important thing about using a splitter is the effect on antenna loading and frequency response. But since even dB is too technical for smackman I guess I should avoid talking about such nonsense as RF frequency response in this forum.[/QUOTE]

    Since you insist calling me out by name I suggest you reread mypost concerning technical. Here is what I said:

    In my small world I would never use your way of calculating a loss because its not necessary. I aplaud your knowledge and honestly understand "most" of what you are saying because I am a Electronic Technician on the Industrial side of the technical world. I would say this though; probably over 90% of the people reading your comments have no idea what the Hell you are talking about so I keep it simple for simple minds like myself. You are probably 100% correct but what you are saying is highly technical to most readers. Anyway, have a nice day.


    Talk about Rf frequency, resonant frequency or whatever your heart desires. If I started talking about DCS, PLC, TDC, etc. it would mean little to most on this web but these abbreviations do entertain the use of rf, db, impeadance, cross talking,C,C+, visual basics etc. etc. You will not go over my head and look forward to your extreme knowledge of RF Frequency.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page