Social Feed

and even though I gave LEGIT examples of proof that as long as you have enough signal the picture is the same he resorts to flaming me.

For fun last night I brought up PBS HD that is available. Had a 70 quality on the Coolsat 8000 (FTA receiver). Moved the dish off a little bit and the signal went down to 36 but the picture stayed the same (pretty damn crisp)

by the way....the Bucky/Cal Poly game that Big10 is showing right now looks frickin awesome on the original signal...a sweet 34 signal quality yet the picture is STUNNING!!!

Iceberg said:

and even though I gave LEGIT examples of proof that as long as you have enough signal the picture is the same he resorts to flaming me.

For fun last night I brought up PBS HD that is available. Had a 70 quality on the Coolsat 8000 (FTA receiver). Moved the dish off a little bit and the signal went down to 36 but the picture stayed the same (pretty damn crisp)

by the way....the Bucky/Cal Poly game that Big10 is showing right now looks frickin awesome on the original signal...a sweet 34 signal quality yet the picture is STUNNING!!!

Click to expand...

I don't know what the big deal is with regards to signal integrity and getting the best picture but I am getting 119-120's on my Signal and my HD is just about perfect!

However with some channels (with lower bit rates) I do see tiny blocks of pixelation with fast moving content...

3000 Miles to Graceland was on (in HD) last night, and the fast scenes weren't as sharp, and seemed to suffer from this pixelation...My Plasma has no detectable motion blur.

JohnDillinger said:

I don't know what the big deal is with regards to signal integrity and getting the best picture but I am getting 119-120's on my Signal and my HD is just about perfect!

Click to expand...

I call BS as the meter wont go that high anymore. I had a 36" dish installed for a member here for 61.5 and I could max at 90 on the signal

Iceberg said:

I call BS as the meter wont go that high anymore. I had a 36" dish installed for a member here for 61.5 and I could max at 90 on the signal

Click to expand...

whatchel1 said:

119 to 120 SS what the F are you using for a dish? Do you have amplifiers in line. I've never heard of anyone getting that high of a reading. I have a .9 meter dishes on 129 and the highest it runs is 85. At those levels I would be near worry of over loading the input.

Click to expand...

I made an obvious noob mistake and thought the Satellites (119, 110, 129) were the signal strengths, oops

I'm looking at *g* and the signal is just a green bar?
I didn't mean to intentionally say that, I completely misread the numbers.

When I Press *details* I see a screen with orbital information, and numbers ranging from 69-73, is this it?

On another note, you people are so damn serious it's pretty F-in sad to see people get so pissed over something that is so trivial to begin with.


Iceberg: If the signal won't go higher than say 90....WTF is your problem dude?
It is obvious that if the signal won't go that high on a standard dish installation such as mine, then obviously the numbers I stated are/were wrong.

No need to call *BS*
It's as if you think I had some intent to mislead people or lie about my signal intentionally to uh, "look cool?" Right.



And Whatchel, I'm really beginning to think that most of the membership here (including you) is/are a bunch of elitist pricks with nothing better to do than to *school* people just
because you may know more than some that are here to learn something and post/hang out.
ProTip: (If the preceding statement offends you? YOU ARE an elitist prick with nothing better to do than to show how tough you are over the internet!)


-Clearly you're tact abilities SUCK at best.
"Calling out" new members as trolls (so Farking 3rd grade mentality)
-Making fun of people's screen names (so farking petty)

Thank your god this forum doesn't have requisites like:
being tact, grammar, syntax and deductive reasoning....

JohnDillinger said:

I made an obvious noob mistake and thought the Satellites (119, 110, 129) were the signal strengths, oops

Click to expand...

no problem

When I Press *details* I see a screen with orbital information, and numbers ranging from 69-73, is this it?

Click to expand...

sounds about right

Iceberg: If the signal won't go higher than say 90....WTF is your problem dude?
It is obvious that if the signal won't go that high on a standard dish installation such as mine, then obviously the numbers I stated are/were wrong.

Click to expand...

chill homefries. Just stating that no way the meter would go that high anymore. I dont have a problem...just stating a fact.

No need to call *BS*
It's as if you think I had some intent to mislead people or lie about my signal intentionally to uh, "look cool?" Right.

Click to expand...

ya never know. Always Wrong Jeff seems to say you need a higher signal for a cleaner picture which is BS

And Whatchel, I'm really beginning to think that most of the membership here (including you) is/are a bunch of elitist pricks with nothing better to do than to *school* people just
because you may know more than some that are here to learn something and post/hang out.
ProTip: (If the preceding statement offends you? YOU ARE an elitist prick with nothing better to do than to show how tough you are over the internet!)

Click to expand...

yep we're all elitists here

-Clearly you're tact abilities SUCK at best.
"Calling out" new members as trolls (so Farking 3rd grade mentality)
-Making fun of people's screen names (so farking petty)

Thank your god this forum doesn't have requisites like:
being tact, grammar, syntax and deductive reasoning....

Click to expand...

shows you obviously are trolling.....and flaming is not tolerated here.

Jeff, since you like quoting articles so well that (at least the last one) have nothing to do with making pictures, try reading this... Signal Meters & Bit Error Rate

Some key comments...

From 0, signal must be increased to a high enough point on the signal meter to produce a picture. Until that point, there is not enough information for the digital-to-analog converter (DAC) to produce a picture at all. The result is a "loss of signal" message.

Click to expand...

Just above the failure point (FP), you will see a relatively stable, but slightly degraded picture.

Click to expand...

When you increase the signal on the signal meter a little more, there comes a point where signal is strong enough to overcome the noise in the system and produces a low enough BER to present the digital picture , uncompromised. This is referred to as the quasi error-free (QEF) condition.

Click to expand...

I bolded that key word in case you missed it.
And last but not least...

The amount of signal in excess of the QEF condition, is the signal power margin. The signal power margin is the amount of signal you have "left over" to compensate for signal drops that occur from atmospheric disturbances - like storms and sunspots.

Click to expand...

Now, look at this picture...

This is from a publication on digital 2Ghz microwave reception... FOR VIDEO! It charts signal to noise in the video (can also be called "image quality". Notice how as the signal strength increases (moves right to left on the scale), a digital signal's V-SNR, once you attain a set RF-SNR, doesn't change.

Now, either a) start quoting articles specific to video (talking about a "generic" RF link doesn't prove anything about video, b) post pictures showing how a minor difference in signal strength affects the picture, or c) STFU.

Iceberg said:

chill homefries. Just stating that no way the meter would go that high anymore. I dont have a problem...just stating a fact.

ya never know. Always Wrong Jeff seems to say you need a higher signal for a cleaner picture which is BS
shows you obviously are trolling.....and flaming is not tolerated here.

Click to expand...

It's not the content, it's how you go about saying it. People (for the most part) are able to deduce from your posts whether or not you know your stuff....To put undo emphasis on your point of view seems much too strong.
-Just an observation.

Just so YOU know, a troll goes around forums/threads looking to provoke and stir sh!t up....Not my intent, nor was it. I came here to learn and join in...
Your peers' were the ones trolling as I recall. Do you know what Elitist means?

Exhibit A:

whatchel1 said:

I laugh at your silly statements; nit nit. Elitist pig oink oink. Did the noob get his feelings hurt silly man :haha Stick around and you too can become elitist as well. You really are funny now that I know you weren't just a troll here to stir up trouble. Besides I apologized for that and you still have not gotten over it. Grow a pair and get over it. Some days you will get chided some days you will get praised hang around and have a bit of fun as we make mistakes too. School's out now children! :haha:haha:haha

Click to expand...

I laugh at your ineptitude and lack of understanding.
Yeah, I'm a noob at life because I don't have countless posts (like you) haha.
This makes perfect sense, and is a testament to your thinking you're better than *

Grow a pair. Nice touch. You've got class, that's for sure.
Schools out, huh? K....

I feel 10 times wiser/smarter now that I've read this enlightening post.

Thank you very much, really. You've done this thread a huge service. Congrats:up




What IS rather interesting is how HiDefJeff says something.......
Then ALL or most of you refute his posts with contempt and and attempt to denigrate his character.:rant:

What a bunch of classy guys, real class acts as they say.....

JohnDillinger said:

I laugh at your ineptitude and lack of understanding.
Yeah, I'm a noob at life because I don't have countless posts (like you) haha.
This makes perfect sense, and is a testament to your thinking you're better than *

Grow a pair. Nice touch. You've got class, that's for sure.
Schools out, huh? K....

I feel 10 times wiser/smarter now that I've read this enlightening post.

Thank you very much, really. You've done this thread a huge service. Congrats:up


What IS rather interesting is how HiDefJeff says something.......
Then ALL or most of you refute his posts with contempt and and attempt to denigrate his character.:rant:

What a bunch of classy guys, real class acts as they say.....

Click to expand...

You make me laugh that's what the laugh icons were about. I've that many posts because I've been here a long time. That's over 3 yrs guy. We say what we say about highdefjeff due to what he post it is a "broken record" of signal strength is almost the only thing that counts. Like I said hang around have some fun and see what goes on around here. We are pretty open to all kinds of things. Thing is if you are trying to prove a point with graphs & charts they better be right or we will jump you about it. If it's not your "cup of tea" then you don't have to stay it will not hurt my feelings. I know what my degree is in and if that makes you think I think I'm better than others well that's your opinion and your welcome to it.

Again I hesitate to stick my nose in here, but...

sam_gordon said:

Jeff, since you like quoting articles so well that (at least the last one) have nothing to do with making pictures, try reading this... Signal Meters & Bit Error Rate

Click to expand...

Most excellent ref; thanks.

Now most of you seem to think that Jeff is talking about signal levels well into the QEF regime. I haven't read every word of his posts, so I don't know. But I always thought he was talking about this which I quote again from your ref:

Just above the failure point (FP), you will see a relatively stable, but slightly degraded picture. At the threshold of visibility (ATSC) there is still a relatively low signal-to-noise ratio and high bit error rate (BER) that compromises the picture quality.

Click to expand...

This would occur in a very narrow range of signal levels, right at the top of the cliff in the graph. Such a picture is visible only because of error compensation, whereas getting into the QEF regime would be complete error correction. Now, what does that look like exactly? Can we tell it apart from crappy compression? I say "No, we cannot." So, when you and I are both looking at a digital picture, and I say it looks like s*&^ and you think it looks excellent, then just maybe I'm below the QEF regime and looking at a "slightly degraded picture."

In this case, Jeff is right in principle; he merely expresses himself badly. And all I need is just a little more signal to get into the QEF regime.

So you think all of the people complaining about PQ happen to be in that ever so tiny region on the signal?

Not only is it tiny but the signal is also fluctuating. It would be nearly impossible to always be on the edge of the cliff and not fall off constantly.

TheKrell said:

Again I hesitate to stick my nose in here, but...
Most excellent ref; thanks.

Now most of you seem to think that Jeff is talking about signal levels well into the QEF regime. I haven't read every word of his posts, so I don't know. But I always thought he was talking about this which I quote again from your ref:

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he's talking about signals up in the QEF range. After all, he talks about the "digital cliff" being a "hoax". But on the off chance he's not... Jeff, can you clarify what part of the signal strength range you're talking about? Do you really believe that ANY signal strength increase/decrease will affect the picture, or are you just talking about the part just past the "cliff"? If Jeff is referring to the part at the edge of the "cliff", I will apologize. However, I don't think that's the case.

This would occur in a very narrow range of signal levels, right at the top of the cliff in the graph. Such a picture is visible only because of error compensation, whereas getting into the QEF regime would be complete error correction. Now, what does that look like exactly? Can we tell it apart from crappy compression? I say "No, we cannot."

Click to expand...

Actually I think you can. Crappy compression will display as "rough" edges, and "blocking" in similar colors (picture looking at facial tones, grass of a field, or a solid background), along with a loss of detail. Bad signal will display as "out of place" macroblocking and occasional "loss of signal".

In this case, Jeff is right in principle; he merely expresses himself badly. And all I need is just a little more signal to get into the QEF regime.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the last article he talked about mentioned a "gradual rolloff" as signal strength decreases.

This is actually fairly easy to test... find a bunch of 10db attenuators. Pick your favorite station, take a screen capture. But an attenuator on the line. Another picture. Keep adding attenuators and pictures. If we're understanding Jeff correctly, as soon as you put that first attenuator in line you'll see a decrease in picture quality. hmmmm... I might be able to do this next weekend.