Woochifer
11-17-2008, 03:38 PM
As a long-time Directv subscriber, I've been mostly satisfied with their technical quality and customer service. I recently upgraded my TV as well as the Directv service to HD. My initial observations about Directv's HD service and their HR22 HD DVR were posted earlier (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=260646&postcount=36). This post has some follow-up, including some observations using cable.
DIRECTV v. CABLE - THE ANALOG ERA AND HD TRANSITION
Back in the days of analog cable and even going up to digital cable, I always thought that satellite retained the advantage both in channel availability and picture quality. I was able to compare the services for myself because we also subscribed to bare basic cable for the local channels (this was before Directv and Dish offered local broadcast channels on their service), and the cable company inadvertently left the extended basic channels unscrambled for years. It was no contest -- Directv blew cable away.
With the advent of HD, cable for years was the only option for the local broadcast channels in HD. Directv and Dish were already maxed out on their satellite bandwidth, and they still used the less efficient MPEG-2 codec. They opted for offering up national HD feeds for broadcast networks, and their early HD receivers had built-in ATSC tuners. Directv and Dish offered up a limited selection of HD channels, and Directv was accused of downsampling the MPEG-2 signal to the point that it degraded the picture quality (their service was referred to as HDLite).
It wasn't until two years ago when Directv's new satellites went online and Dish acquired VOOM's satellite capacity, and both services migrated to the more efficient MPEG-4 codec that they were able to roll out HD more in earnest. In fact, it's at a point right now where Directv has a larger selection of HD channels than most cable systems.
OBSERVATIONS OF CURRENT SERVICES
After upgrading the TV, we also upgraded our Directv service. Until the new Slimline dish and HR22 HD DVR got installed, I was pulling OTA stations using a set of rabbit ears. The picture quality for the stations that I could pull in was stunning. OTA broadcasts have more bandwidth than satellite, and use the original MPEG-2 format. Knowing that satellite had to make do with less bits, I was prepared for lesser picture quality when the satellite got installed.
The satellite got installed, and indeed the picture quality of the satellite feed for local broadcast channels is a slight step down, but still quite stunning. I read that this has to do with Directv having to convert the original MPEG-2 signal to MPEG-4 in real time. Overall though, the picture quality for most of the HD channels has been excellent, with none of the shortcomings that I read about with some of Directv's old bandwidth-constricted HD feeds.
So how does it compare to cable? Well, all these years later, we still have that bare basic cable service for the other rooms in the house (it's cheaper than buying separate satellite receivers for those rooms and paying the additional monthly charges), so last week I decided to try running the cable into the new HDTV and see what I get. Lo and behold, it turns out that Comcast actually rebroadcasts the local DTV channels over basic cable without a set-top box! And I must say that the picture quality is every bit as good as what I got with the OTA antenna.
That said, I was also able to pick up some other non-HD cable channels (TBS, Discovery, WGN), and those channels sucked -- just as bad as I recall some of the early digital cable channels looking. The non-HD feeds for those channels look a lot better via Directv. Also, my HDTV will only output 2.0 audio through the digital audio output on DTV feeds.
All in all, it seems like a trade-off. I've read mixed things about the set-top boxes used by the different cable companies, and most cable systems still offer fewer HD channels than Directv. In fact, my parents' cable company doesn't even offer the DTV channels to basic cable subscribers -- they require a set-top box and a digital tier subscription for any kind of DTV service. Still, I must say that at least with my cable service and at least with local broadcast channels, the picture quality is slight step up from Directv. I have no idea how Directv compares to the scrambled channels that must go through a cable set-top box.
All things considered, most of my TV viewing will still use the Directv box, since that has the DVR, the extended basic channels, and the sports package (which my cable company does not offer). But, now I also have a cable coax going into the TV (for one thing, Directv does not have the local digital multicast subchannels that include things like local weather and traffic cams).
DIRECTV v. CABLE - THE ANALOG ERA AND HD TRANSITION
Back in the days of analog cable and even going up to digital cable, I always thought that satellite retained the advantage both in channel availability and picture quality. I was able to compare the services for myself because we also subscribed to bare basic cable for the local channels (this was before Directv and Dish offered local broadcast channels on their service), and the cable company inadvertently left the extended basic channels unscrambled for years. It was no contest -- Directv blew cable away.
With the advent of HD, cable for years was the only option for the local broadcast channels in HD. Directv and Dish were already maxed out on their satellite bandwidth, and they still used the less efficient MPEG-2 codec. They opted for offering up national HD feeds for broadcast networks, and their early HD receivers had built-in ATSC tuners. Directv and Dish offered up a limited selection of HD channels, and Directv was accused of downsampling the MPEG-2 signal to the point that it degraded the picture quality (their service was referred to as HDLite).
It wasn't until two years ago when Directv's new satellites went online and Dish acquired VOOM's satellite capacity, and both services migrated to the more efficient MPEG-4 codec that they were able to roll out HD more in earnest. In fact, it's at a point right now where Directv has a larger selection of HD channels than most cable systems.
OBSERVATIONS OF CURRENT SERVICES
After upgrading the TV, we also upgraded our Directv service. Until the new Slimline dish and HR22 HD DVR got installed, I was pulling OTA stations using a set of rabbit ears. The picture quality for the stations that I could pull in was stunning. OTA broadcasts have more bandwidth than satellite, and use the original MPEG-2 format. Knowing that satellite had to make do with less bits, I was prepared for lesser picture quality when the satellite got installed.
The satellite got installed, and indeed the picture quality of the satellite feed for local broadcast channels is a slight step down, but still quite stunning. I read that this has to do with Directv having to convert the original MPEG-2 signal to MPEG-4 in real time. Overall though, the picture quality for most of the HD channels has been excellent, with none of the shortcomings that I read about with some of Directv's old bandwidth-constricted HD feeds.
So how does it compare to cable? Well, all these years later, we still have that bare basic cable service for the other rooms in the house (it's cheaper than buying separate satellite receivers for those rooms and paying the additional monthly charges), so last week I decided to try running the cable into the new HDTV and see what I get. Lo and behold, it turns out that Comcast actually rebroadcasts the local DTV channels over basic cable without a set-top box! And I must say that the picture quality is every bit as good as what I got with the OTA antenna.
That said, I was also able to pick up some other non-HD cable channels (TBS, Discovery, WGN), and those channels sucked -- just as bad as I recall some of the early digital cable channels looking. The non-HD feeds for those channels look a lot better via Directv. Also, my HDTV will only output 2.0 audio through the digital audio output on DTV feeds.
All in all, it seems like a trade-off. I've read mixed things about the set-top boxes used by the different cable companies, and most cable systems still offer fewer HD channels than Directv. In fact, my parents' cable company doesn't even offer the DTV channels to basic cable subscribers -- they require a set-top box and a digital tier subscription for any kind of DTV service. Still, I must say that at least with my cable service and at least with local broadcast channels, the picture quality is slight step up from Directv. I have no idea how Directv compares to the scrambled channels that must go through a cable set-top box.
All things considered, most of my TV viewing will still use the Directv box, since that has the DVR, the extended basic channels, and the sports package (which my cable company does not offer). But, now I also have a cable coax going into the TV (for one thing, Directv does not have the local digital multicast subchannels that include things like local weather and traffic cams).