Who has better Picture Quality Direct TV or Dish?

Generally the thread is outdated after about six months or so.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
 
So out of curiousity I have only been doig this forum(ignore my start date) for about 3 weeks I would say. Maybe alittle longer. What's the oldest "recover" thread you guys have seen? 2004 seems like it might go the distance.
The trolls sure can resurrect some old threads. :)
 
I have looked a both Direct and Dish on the same TV on the same day when we switched. There is no doubt that Direct TV has noticeably better image quality. Zero. I saw it first and thought I was crazy, then my wife walked in and said exactly the same thing.
You do know that you are quoting a very old post from 2004, but since you're new you get a pass :biggrin2
:welcome Shorn
 
Methinks this thread is eligible for a lock and/or a move to the war zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
I think nowadays it should be more of a concern as to which HD TV screen looks better, rather than compare the Cable/Sat TV provider, Direct could look better on some TV's and Dish on others but if you adjust or calibrate the TV settings it could switch. But then I've noticed that I get some OTA HD channels look clearer, probably because it's uncompressed as compared to satellite or cable as there is bandwidth concerns and compression. But that's a whole different subject to discuss.
 
MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 are both compression schemes and can be to several degrees depending on bandwidth allowed.
Generally OTA has less compression of its MPEG-2 signal. But MPEG-4 can get a factor of 2 more compression.
There are no uncompressed signals except off the back of the studio camera and maybe not then.
-Ken
 
And we'll just keep repeating ourselves until this thread closes or changed to the war zone
But I agree with chiodo it has more to do on how well the TV is calibrated, plus if it's high end or lower entry level TV's sometimes makes a difference.
 
I got a old 200 pound Sony CRT, 34 in.wide screen,1080 I. My wife is begging me to get rid of. Guess what? I kinda prefer its picture over my LCD's.
 
To tell you the truth, some of the best PQ I ever had was on a 35" Sony Trinitron, about 20 years ago from the first generation analog signals on my Drake ESR-1824.


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
 
I saw a 4k tv the other day at Best Buy that was showing a city sky line of New York city. It looked really clear and detailed. It blew away what we get from anything we call HD today. The price on the other hand was out of sight. Besides there is NOTHING in 4k today and there won't be anything but 1080i or 1080p to show on it , so I see no reason to upgrade. PRICE alone is the deciding factor for most people today. So I don't see this 4k selling any better than 3-d did. I only bought a 3-D tv after Conns store sold it at a reduced price, back last year in January. They had practically nothing but 3-D tvs that they "were giving away for practically free", is what the salesman said. I needed a new tv so I bought it. Of course I knew nothing about the fan in the back of the tv panel, that has to remain dust free or the tv turns itself off. Costed another repairman call to find out you can spray a can of compressed air in the back and it cleans it right out.
 
I have three systems..While I do think all of this is subjective.
Here's my take. I have latest equipment from three providers.
Best HD picture:
Direc Hr44
Uverse Cysco (blasphemy-i know)
Dish Hopper sling

For some reason dish just does not look as sharp
as in the past?
Uverse has done upgrades in my area putting them on par with Direct.
I just had my main Hopper replaced-

Just my take. This all could change with software upgrades.
I have no loyalties here...just whatever looks better to my eyes..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skytrooper
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)