For those who are thinking of getting *C

  • WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!

    If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!

    While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!

    Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!

    CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE

miguelaqui

SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
Oct 14, 2004
1,002
28
I just wanted to post my impression of *C and the DSR 530, in case anyone else is thinking about getting *C with the DSR 530.

I always had heard the the standard picture quality was better then EV's. I have a EV 5900, yes, I know that is not a HD receiver. But, the standard PQ is not as good as the 5900!

Specifically, I checked DIVA, CTV Travel, CTV and Global Toronto.

I have a JVC HD52BP6....The main difference I notice is
A. The color seems to be washed out, when compared to the 5900.
B. If any words or sharp images are on the screen, there seems to be fuzz around them on the DSR 530, but, that problem doesn't happen with the EV 5900.

My only thought is that the hard drive is much smaller in the DSR 530, than the EV 9200, maybe, there is a reduction in PQ due the the fact it must compress more.

Just to make sure, I connected the DSR 530 to the same port, S-video, where the EV 5900 was connected. I has the same issue.

My DSR 530 looks OK on my older, 27", TV, but still not as sharp as the 5900.

Is it possible I have a bad DSR 530 or has anyone else noticed this???
 
Most of those channels are offair channels, so you have to deal with the reception, and encoding of analog channels.

You should look at network channels, such as Space, TMN, TechTV etc..


I personally have a DSR505, and I have seen BEV and Dish signals.. I truely believe that the SD image quality is vastly superior on *C
 
On standard definition channels, such as TMN, the picture is not as good. As you said...you have a 505; it does not run through a hard disk. The hard disc in the 530 is not as big as the one in the EV 9200, so I think it might ave something to do with that.

Even on live TV, the signal must pass through the disc.....I was just wondering if the DSR 530's picture is just not as good as the other receivers.
 
Its possible that the process of compressing to the hard drive is giving visual artifacts. IIRC, most DVRs give you the option of selecting a recording quality, I would think that the DSR530 would as well. You may want to see if there is a LiveTV Quality function somewhere in the menu? Perhaps it is set too low by default.

But I can vouch for the quality of the satellite stream, much better then anything else I have seen in a long time.
 
It has nothing to do with hard drive

Whatever picture quality problems you are experiencing are not due to the hard drive. The signal is encoded/compressed/modulated etc. by the satellite service provider at their transmission/uplink facilities. It goes up to the satellite and then back down to you. Your receiver gets that signal and converts it to a data stream. The electronics in the receiver then decode the data stream and pass the picture in a signal format that can be displayed by your TV. To the best of my knowledge, the receiver does not have recode and recompress the signal (doesn't make sense) before storing it on the hard drive. Therefore, all the hard drive does is store a copy of the digital bitstream that your receiver receives from the satellite.

The primary factors that CAN influence the picture quality are:

1) Quality of source. If SC is getting poor quality video (no matter how it's provided to them), there's not much they can do with. The rule is garbage in = garbage out.

2) What SC is doing to the picture before they transmit it. If they are overcompressing, using poor modulation, or a number of other technical things that I won't pretend to understand the details of, then that could adversely affect the picture quality. From what I've read on the forums, SC is one of the better TV programming providers with regard to picture quality. They don't seem to have bandwidth constraints like DirecTV or some of the cable providers and don't have to overcompress.

3) What's going on between your sat receiver and your TV. Part A of this lies in the electronics of your SC receiver. If the electronics in your satellite receiver are of poor quality, they may do a poor job of decoding the data stream and providing a good signal for your TV. I don't think this is the culprit.

Part B is the signal that goes out from the back of the receiver to the TV. There are a number of ways to get the picture to your TV from the satellite box. They are (from worst to best): RF modulation (transmitting the signal like a regular TV channel over a coax cable to your TV, usually on channel 3 or 4), composite video, S-video, component (used for analog HD), and DVI or HDMI (used for digital HD).

If your TV is a modern set, then using DVI or HDMI will send a digital signal to the TV that it decodes and displays. This gives the best picture for HD and the best for SD in most circumstances. Component is your next best choice for both HD and SD, again in most circumstances. A TV with superior electronics will usually do a decent job of cleaning up a muddy SD picture, but it will be limited in how much it can do by what it's getting from the receiver.

In other circumstances, the SD outputs (also know as analog outputs) on your sat receiver (coax, composite, S-video) may do a better job of feeding your TV a good signal, especially if you TV is an analog model (i.e., not HD or ED). You should try those outputs to see if the picure quality for SD channels improves. Again, if inferior components are being used to produce the output, you will get a poor picture. Also, keep in mind that your SC receiver is not going put out exactly the same signal that your BEV receiver does. There will be differences in the levels of hue, saturation, etc. The differences may be vast enough to make a visible difference in picture quality and require you to make adjustments to your TV.

The final element in the chain is your TV and this ties in with the last point I just made. Try making adjustments color, contrast, and other settings to improve picture quality. You may notice a big improvement after you fiddle around a little bit.

Finally, don't forget the cables that link your receiver to your TV. If the cables are poor quality or have a flaw in them such as exposed wiring, then this can cause problems too.

I think your problems will be solved by adjusting your TV or switching to analog output (or changing which analog output you are using).

In the end, there may not be too much that you can do about it. It's common knowledge that SD video looks awful when it converted to HD. The garbage in = garbage out rule applies to every step of the chain.

Hopes this helps.
 
Last edited:
Why in the heck would you even compare something off a hard drive and not live?

That will be the only true apple to apple comparison.

And both should have similar connections to the TV as well - as opposed to one using DVI and the other component.
 
Well,

I had the Starchoice DSR530.... enough said !!!!

As for ExpressVU they store a bit to bit recording of live tv so the recorded and live will be identical without any further compression.

Kryspy
 
I know there could be a number a factors, but, when it comes down to it....When connected in the exact same manner, there are no standard def channels that look better on the 530 than the 5900!

Even when I compare the composite from the 530 and the Svideo from the 5900, the picture is still better on the 5900.

I might be the only one who thinks EV has better PQ!
 
Last edited:
I cant really say much about the 530 specifically, but the SD image quality of Starchice is vastly superior then the SD image quality of BEV.. but whatever happens in that reciever, I have no idea.

I can only base this on my experiences with the BEV 6000 and 3000, and the DSR205, 315, 500, and 505 (all of which are not DVRs)
 
oh, and apples to apples would be svideo to svideo comparison, not svideo to composite (since composite is a significantly inferior way to transmit video data)
 
ultatryon said:
oh, and apples to apples would be svideo to svideo comparison, not svideo to composite (since composite is a significantly inferior way to transmit video data)
That's what I did....I added the composite just to show I tried other outputs of the 530. My VHS videos look just as good as the *C standard def picture; I noticed that today.
 

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)