722K users - picture quality compared to 722/622?

[JEFFinINDY]

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

 

[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.

 

[MikeD-C05]

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.

 

[HailScroob]

The 722k is noticeably better than the 722 when scaling (i.e. watching 4:3 material on an HD channel in Partial Zoom mode).

 

[gadgtfreek]

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.

 

[bhodgins]

My informal observation is that the 722k does have better PQ than the 622. The menus are a little sharper looking too. (Strange!)

 

[JEFFinINDY]

Thanks all. So that's a definite maybe.

 

[lakebum431]

I have a 622, a 722 and a 722k and I don't really see any difference between them.

 

[DishSubLA]

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.

 

[mountnbykr]

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.

 

[sampatterson]

722K video is much crisper than my 622 or 722. Especially noticeable on the menu system UI, text on HD channels. Video also seems crisper/more colorful to my eyes.

 

[satjay]

I have a 722K on a 52 five year old projection and a 612 on a 42 plasma and dont notice much picture difference. maybe slight difference with the 612. But both HD pictures are sharp!!

 

[bhodgins]

A non-technical person in my house commented last night on how much sharper and better the colors were on the Jay Leno show (comes in high definition over the air). So, I think there is definitely better picture "processing" on the 722k than the 622. I've noticed it myself too.