|
Welcome to SatelliteGuys.US - America's Most Popular Satellite Information Forum!!
You are currently viewing our forums as a guest which gives you limited access. By joining our free community you will have access to post & reply messages in our forum, play in our fun arcade and communicate privately with other members as well as enjoy many other members only features.
Also as a registered member you will also see much less advertising!
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!
|
 | | 
05-20-2009, 08:01 PM
| | SatelliteGuys Senior | | Join Date: Jul 31st, 2004 Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 859
| | | 722K users - picture quality compared to 722/622?
Hello, 722K users,
Early on, there were reports that the 722K had noticeably better PQ than the 622/722 receivers. Is this still the case? Has anyone done a recent A/B comparison between a K and a non-K?
Jeff
|
05-20-2009, 10:04 PM
|  | Pub Member / Supporter | | Pub Member / Supporter Join Date: Oct 19th, 2004 Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 3,705
| | |
I find it questionable that hardware has a greater effect on picture quality than the quality of the signal in the pipe.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but you can make a pile of strings out of a silk purse.
__________________
Hitachi 57F59; Sony VHP-D50Q - 7' diag on wall
DishNetwork ViP722k; DishNetwork ViP211; DishNetwork ViP211K; DishNetwork 301; 2 - TiVo Series 2's; Accurian 6000; Samsung SIR-T351; Panasonic Showstopper 2000; ATI HDTV Wonder
Hauppauge HD PVR; Sony PS3; Toshiba HD-A3 HDDVD
Dish 1000 on 110,119&129; Dish 500 on 61.5
RS U75-R; Funke PSP.1922 |
05-21-2009, 07:00 AM
|  | Pub Member / Supporter | | Pub Member / Supporter Join Date: Nov 25th, 2003 Location: Nederland , Texas
Posts: 8,002
| |
I no longer have my old 722s to compare, but when I first got the 722k , there was a difference in pq . I noticed an improvement in pq when I went from 622 to a 722 as well. I don't think that its enough to really make you upgrade if you are happy with the 722. I noticed the pq improved to me when I went from western arc to eastern arc, on sd channels. They are all mpeg4 and that might be why it looks better to me. I think that the newer chip set in the 722k might be why the pq looked better to me . But in the end as always your mileage might vary.
|
05-21-2009, 11:02 AM
| | Pub Member / Supporter | | Pub Member / Supporter Join Date: Nov 18th, 2003 Location: LaPaz, Indiana
Posts: 64
| | |
The 722k is noticeably better than the 722 when scaling (i.e. watching 4:3 material on an HD channel in Partial Zoom mode).
|
05-21-2009, 01:09 PM
| | .......... | | Pub Member / Supporter Join Date: May 29th, 2006 Location: Somewhere
Posts: 10,526
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim5506  I find it questionable that hardware has a greater effect on picture quality than the quality of the signal in the pipe.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but you can make a pile of strings out of a silk purse. | Well, it is a different Broadcom chip, so your statement is not accurate.
If you upgrade a video card, it allows you to do more things, so, if Broadcoms newest chip produced a sharper image, then its possible. I havent read anything where this model chip has video improvements, but who knows. I feel the menus are sharper, but they are new programming.
On my 50" tv, Ive not really noticed either, and I have not been looking real close.
|
05-21-2009, 04:41 PM
|  | SatelliteGuys Freshman | | Join Date: Oct 19th, 2005
Posts: 24
| | |
My informal observation is that the 722k does have better PQ than the 622. The menus are a little sharper looking too. (Strange!)
|
05-21-2009, 08:18 PM
| | SatelliteGuys Senior
Topic Starter
| | Join Date: Jul 31st, 2004 Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 859
| |
Thanks all. So that's a definite maybe.  |
05-21-2009, 09:09 PM
|  | Pub Member / Supporter | | Pub Member / Supporter Join Date: Sep 5th, 2005 Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 6,447
| |
I have a 622, a 722 and a 722k and I don't really see any difference between them.
__________________
Receivers - 722k, 722, 622, 211k
Home Setup - Dish 1000 (110, 119, 129) and 61.5 with a DPP44; Pioneer PDP 6020; Denon 3808ci
Tailgate Setup - 1000.2, 722, Honda Generator EU2000i, 2 Vizio 32" LCDs |
05-22-2009, 02:30 AM
| | SatelliteGuys Junkie | | Join Date: Apr 9th, 2006
Posts: 1,564
| | |
My observation is the 722K and 222K does, indeed, have a slight, but noticeable better PQ. In fact, the 222 PQ also looks even more noticeably better than the 722.
Best PQ's in my household:
1. Tivo Series 3
2. 222, 222K, 722K
3. 722
The differences between 1-2 are VERY slight, but those 2 are noticeably superior to the 722. However, the 722 still has great PQ, and you would not notice unless you had other boxes to make a comparison.
Yes, the quality of the hardware inside (chipset, etc.) and the bandwidth in and out of the HDD will make a difference. There is a noticeable difference between the Tivo Series 3 / HDXL and the Tivo HD, for example. In other words, the THX certification is something that can be appreciated in the PQ.
|
05-22-2009, 10:27 AM
| | SatelliteGuys Freshman | | Join Date: Jan 5th, 2006 Location: Arizona
Posts: 23
| | |
I just upgraded from a 622 to 722k and noticed that the text in the guide looks sharper. Haven't noticed any PQ difference while watching shows.
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:32 AM. |
