[eags]

For those of you who have downloaded the OX10b software this weekend, I think it would be helpful for others to know if you notice a significant difference in PQ between the OTA HD locals and the Directv HD locals. Would appreciate any reports. Thanks.

 

[Jeremy W]

Here in Detroit, there is no significant difference. OTA does look better, but not enough to really make a difference.

 

[Oliwa]

I switched all of my series link recording to OTA because I know my signal over the antenna is uncompressed.

 

[Jeremy W]

I know my signal over the antenna is uncompressed.

It's compressed, just not by DirecTV. Your local station is compressing it. It'll also take up more space on the hard drive compared to the ones from DirecTV.

 

[jheda]

i too have hd locals here in fort lauderdale so i am monitoring this thread as i am not supermotivated.....

 

[wakajawaka]

I don't see any difference here in Charlotte, NC. I'm thinking of just leaving the sub-channels in the guide for ABC,CBS,NBC and Fox. Of course I'll leave all HD channels for the stations I don't get through the SAT.

 

[joejhawk]

Are you all comparing TV shows, sports or both? My locals via satellite look great for programming, but I can see room for improvement with the movement in the sports programming. I am curious to see if there is any difference for sports.

 

[bonscott87]

No real difference between OTA and MPEG4 for me. CBS is crap on both and the rest are just fine. I have switched all my series links to OTA though simply because of no rain fade and don't have to worry about the occasional MPEG4 error or satellite outage. Taking up more space doesn't concern me.

 

[Earl Bonovich]

I have only been using OTA when watching LIVE TV, kinda still to just test teh box when I am sitting there.

OTA vs DTV supplied, at least for me.. on my TV... in Chicago... VERY little difference. I have been lucky enough with my MPEG-4 signal, and don't have many cases of rain-fade so, I have just stayed with MPEG-4 for the SL's

 

[hr20manray]

I just installed an ota antenna on my roof and am now getting hd, mostly Maryland channels. I don't see much difference between dtv and ota right now. I haven't gotten the ota upgrade yet here on east coast.

HR20, Pioneer pdp5071-hd

 

[mhayes70]

Here is St. Louis I have not been able to tell a difference on shows or sports. I think they all look about the same.

 

[S. DiThomas]

OTA vs. MPEG 2 locals (They look like.... !pu****! ) - no comparison.

The MPEG-2 feeds often look slightly better than good SDTV some days.

Can't speak to the MPEG4 but until I get it I am sticking with my antenna (once it is officially installed that is).

I am anxious to see how good MPEG4 looks - but given the recording issues that it seems are still present with the HR-20 even in its 0x10b iteration I can wait for ever with OTA.

Anyone else with MPEG2 locals care to chime in on this topic?

 

[Earl Bonovich]

OTA vs. MPEG 2 locals (They look like.... !pu****! ) - no comparison.

The MPEG-2 feeds often look slightly better than good SDTV some days.

Can't speak to the MPEG4 but until I get it I am sticking with my antenna (once it is officially installed that is).

I am anxious to see how good MPEG4 looks - but given the recording issues that it seems are still present with the HR-20 even in its 0x10b iteration I can wait for ever with OTA.

Anyone else with MPEG2 locals care to chime in on this topic?

Well, it is not necessarily a direct comparison.
As you have two different sources; two different programs, from two different channels.

So sure, the "locals" be it MPEG4 or OTA; do look better then some of the other channels that are part of the HD pack.

 

[qlanus]

I have only been using OTA when watching LIVE TV, kinda still to just test teh box when I am sitting there.

OTA vs DTV supplied, at least for me.. on my TV... in Chicago... VERY little difference. I have been lucky enough with my MPEG-4 signal, and don't have many cases of rain-fade so, I have just stayed with MPEG-4 for the SL's

I must say - late last week I did see a significant difference between channel 7 via D* as compared to OTA 7. The D* feed had a noticeable 'haze' that the OTA didn't. That said, it doesn't seem to on-going and, as you noted, the difference is generally small.

 

[drmorley]

I have only been using OTA when watching LIVE TV, kinda still to just test teh box when I am sitting there.

OTA vs DTV supplied, at least for me.. on my TV... in Chicago... VERY little difference. I have been lucky enough with my MPEG-4 signal, and don't have many cases of rain-fade so, I have just stayed with MPEG-4 for the SL's

I'll second your sentiments Earl. I spent some time comparing OTA vs. MPEG-4 here over the weekend and to my dismay the OTA feeds look identical to the MPEG-4 feeds. Even watching football I couldn't tell the difference and often forgot which was which while I was trying to compare the two.

I can't speak for other markets, but here in Chicago the MPEG4 feeds look pretty darn good.

 

[brewer4]

The HR20 is less stable when recording OTA programs. I am just experimenting with it while my HD Tivo does the bulk OTA recording. My unit has been rock solid until the OTA release. My unit has locked up 4 or 5 times recording/watching OTA stuff. Just watching OTA live doesnt seem to be a problem but its when I am recording 1 or 2, delete a recording, then it freezes. So OTA live is great, just staying away from switching my Season Passes until another release or 2.

BTW, cant really see much of a difference since D* corrected the 8 mm effect on Boston HD MPEG locals.

 

[Oliwa]

I hope this isn't too far off topic, but does anyone know how much more space OTA recordings consume opposed to MPEG4 recordings?

 

[PoitNarf]

No noticeable difference whatsoever with the MPEG4 NY locals and OTA. I am quite pleased that the MPEG4 NY locals look so good.

 

[NYHeel]

Well, it is not necessarily a direct comparison.
As you have two different sources; two different programs, from two different channels.

So sure, the "locals" be it MPEG4 or OTA; do look better then some of the other channels that are part of the HD pack.

Earl, My guess is that he was referring to the Mpeg-2 locals that he gets because he lives in LA. Therefore it is a direct comparison.

 

[IndyTom]

I'll second your sentiments Earl. I spent some time comparing OTA vs. MPEG-4 here over the weekend and to my dismay the OTA feeds look identical to the MPEG-4 feeds. Even watching football I couldn't tell the difference and often forgot which was which while I was trying to compare the two.

I can't speak for other markets, but here in Chicago the MPEG4 feeds look pretty darn good.

Please help me understand why this would cause dismay. Maybe I don't understand the technology well enough - but if D*'s MPEG4 HD signals looked as good as the OTA - and could (ultimately) provide the subs - then why keep the OTA at all?