General question about how signal loss manifests...

[sealrock]

Hi.

I set up satellite for the first time ever a few weeks ago. So far basically so good - I think it's an improvement over streaming for motion in sports, though there is much to be said in comparing the two. Streaming definitely wins in many areas. We had YouTube TV for about 6 years, and although I understand why people like it (great interface & DVR, colors look good out the box or with calibration via Apple tools, better price, no signal dropout), I felt that the re-compression of an already bad signal was constraining motion in a way that did not look as natural or 'live' as satellite - a few weeks flipping back and forth between satellite & streaming confirms this to my eyes - it's subtle, but it's definitely real. The abysmal quality of broadcasts on events such as the NBA Playoffs on ESPN via ABC is not helped too much by switching to satellite, except for with regard to motion, which is very important for sports. I think YTTV has a very pleasing picture, but lacks a bit of detail or sharpness that satellite has, as well.

I have one basic question which is with regard to the question of signal loss. I had strong enough (though not perfect) signals that Solid Signal felt ok with activating - i'll post these below for reference. So far I have only had the grey screen signal dropout I think once, for half a second. Have been through a few decent rains as well, and haven't noticed any issues during the rain that I could directly connect to the weather event.

My question is - to what extent can (I don't know the exact terms for these effects, sorry) things like pixel 'blur'/pixelation be attributed potentially to the signal not being perfect? Not speaking so much about artifacts or obvious signal dropout (grey screen, big blocks), but just kind of a basic pixelated blur that seems to happen sometimes in fast motion sequences in movies, etc.

I am wondering if this is a result of imperfect signal, or whether is something else that may or may not be able to be fixed.

The reason I am wondering is that I am inclined to not try to 'fix what ain't broke' by tweaking the satellite more. I may do this anyway, but am more likely to attempt if I think it would help something like the milder pixelation I refer to.

I had the idea in my head that, like with a CD skipping, satellite signal loss would happen in 'chunks' (i.e. grey screen or obvious large-block pixelation) and not in more subtle pixelation, but I am not sure where I got this idea, or whether it's true. If any of you satellite longtimers know about this sort of thing, I'd appreciate any insight.



Here are my readings I noted during setup. I know not perfect, but deemed sufficient by some:

I am getting almost all 95 on 101 transponders (one 100, one 0, one 72, rest are 95-97 after dithering (I went into the signal meters for 101 satellite and tweaked each dial back and forth to see what highest % was I could get on tuners - 96 was tops).

99ca ranges from 82-90 on all transponders.

99cb ranges from 82-91 on all transponders.

103ca ranges from 72-92 on all transponders.

103cb ranges from 80-88 on all transponders.

The tuner readings range from 88% to 94% on those satellites.

 

[slice1900]

My question is - to what extent can (I don't know the exact terms for these effects, sorry) things like pixel 'blur'/pixelation be attributed potentially to the signal not being perfect? Not speaking so much about artifacts or obvious signal dropout (grey screen, big blocks), but just kind of a basic pixelated blur that seems to happen sometimes in fast motion sequences in movies, etc.

Such things are almost always coming from the network that way. You'll see them on cable TV or "streaming cable" like Sling too. There is so much error correction built into the satellite signals that they are pretty much an all or nothing proposition until you get down to the very ragged edge - which IIRC is a signal in the 20s for HD channels.

Here are my readings I noted during setup. I know not perfect, but deemed sufficient by some:

I am getting almost all 95 on 101 transponders (one 100, one 0, one 72, rest are 95-97 after dithering (I went into the signal meters for 101 satellite and tweaked each dial back and forth to see what highest % was I could get on tuners - 96 was tops).

99ca ranges from 82-90 on all transponders.

99cb ranges from 82-91 on all transponders.

103ca ranges from 72-92 on all transponders.

103cb ranges from 80-88 on all transponders.

The tuner readings range from 88% to 94% on those satellites.

You can probably do better than those, though how much better depends on where you live. Some areas of the country get less signal, some more. That's by design, places like the desert SW where it doesn't rain as often get a weaker signal and places where it rains a lot like the deep south and especially south Florida get a stronger one. If you are in the desert SW your numbers are pretty good, they could get a few points higher perhaps but not much. If you are elsewhere, especially if you are in the deep south, you could definitely get them higher.

Getting them higher will not make any difference on the pixelation you're seeing though. All it will do is allow you to maintain your signal through slightly stronger rain / thicker storm clouds than you currently can.

 

[Johnnyspot]

You were able to do a self install with solid signal?

 

[sealrock]

slice1900 Thanks, that was sort of my hunch, and by sharing your perspective you are saving me time that spent tweaking that sounds like it wouldn't make a difference anyway

Johnnyspot Yes

 

[Johnnyspot]

slice1900 Thanks, that was sort of my hunch, and by sharing your perspective you are saving me time that spent tweaking that sounds like it wouldn't make a difference anyway

Johnnyspot Yes

They should advertise this. Would probably pick up a lot of installs

 

[dtv757]

PQ can vary so many factors. I see many ppl on YTTV reddit complain about PQ...

For me DirecTV has the best PQ. Streaming is bad for me even with all devices hard wired ethernet ... constant buffering, grainy PQ etc...
(Not everyone has good home broadband)

But even between the various linear TV providers PQ can vary . I tested cox tv VS DirecTV one day and DirecTV won hands down NBA was unwatchable via cox . Even the tech had no words for how bad the PQ was (microblocks etc)..

Just my 2 cents... as always everyone's experience may vary

 

[sealrock]

Johnnyspot I agree - maybe i'll suggest it. It did cost a bit more and took a LOT of work, but this was mainly due to how the house is situated (very tall, asbestos siding, trees everywhere, houses close together). I was pretty sure at various points I was going to have to just give up. We had DTV installer come out at one point, they had 101 reasons why they couldn't do the install , and customer service was as bad as you can imagine (friendly, but just...well you know). After watching a YouTube video where a 13-year old was explaining how to align the satellite, I thought well I must be able to do this.

dtv757 Yes, we have hardwired near-gigabit internet and I wasn't satisfied with the PQ with YTTV. I was one of those complaining on Reddit, and seeing the YTTV people respond to those posts year after year with 'we're working on it' made me realize nothing was going to change. It's hard for me to believe that employees of YTTV are sitting down watching a Warriors game (the employees' local team) on the service and thinking 'this looks fine' - they being the richest & most technologically well-resourced company on the planet - can't get a better image? We never had issues with buffering really, but I thought the motion was off and that detail was smooted out to look nice at the expense of definition. We don't have Cox here, but in the middle of trying to get DTV going I threw up my hands, said 'what the hell i'll give Xfinity cable another shot' and spent 4-5 hours working through mysterious account issues with Xfinity, got the equipment (quickly, to their credit), set it up, watched some basketball and the PQ was HORRIFIC. Yes - unwatchable - blocking was just out of control. Worse than YTTV. Plus got a 'revised bill due to our errors' with extra charges that weren't agreed-upon the next week which they then pestered me daily to approve. So bad. So so so bad. So that stuff went back in the 30-day cancellation period.

I wish DTV could do a bit better - I know it is the source material in some cases, but there are 1000 channels on here i'll never watch - at least in the Bay Area they are making a rare (can't remember the last time I've seen a DTV ad) & strong advertising push, and also have a uniform badge deal with either the Giants (I think, unless I'm mixing up the team). It would be cool if they could commit to being THE source of HD sports and forget about trying to stuff fifteen different Food Network channels into their bandwidth or whatever, but anyway. Because the quality of the sports broadcasts still leave something to be desired at a time when you can be wowed by the quality of a video someone made in their garage on an iPhone in 4K60fps. But that might not make sense from a business perspective, and is Apple or someone going to swoop in and grab all the rights for major sports events in coming years? Curious to see.

 

[Johnnyspot]

Why didn’t you try Directv stream? PQ is definitely better then Directv Sat

 

[Carl Leon]

Your signals are a more than a bit low, and could stand improvement.

 

[sealrock]

Why didn’t you try Directv stream? PQ is definitely better then Directv Sat

Johnnyspot - I did try DTV Stream (and DTV Now and ATT Now) several times over the years. And I have it now since it is included with satellite (less DVR). As I mentioned, I think streaming wins decisively in certain ways, but to me it seems like motion is constrained - I don't really have the language to say exactly what I'm seeing, but it seems like motion is not as 'live' and 'quick' as it is with satellite. And I think they are likely improving the picture by essentially blurring/correcting via AI artifacts that exist in the source, with a slight but general loss to definition.

Carl Leon Thank you - do you disagree with slice1900's contention that improving signal would not help issues like pixelation/pixel 'blur - in other words (to avoid double negatives), do you think improving the signal would help issues like this?

 

[Johnnyspot]

Johnnyspot - I did try DTV Stream (and DTV Now and ATT Now) several times over the years. And I have it now since it is included with satellite (less DVR). As I mentioned, I think streaming wins decisively in certain ways, but to me it seems like motion is constrained - I don't really have the language to say exactly what I'm seeing, but it seems like motion is not as 'live' and 'quick' as it is with satellite. And I think they are likely improving the picture by essentially blurring/correcting via AI artifacts that exist in the source, with a slight but general loss to definition.

Carl Leon Thank you - do you disagree with slice1900's contention that improving signal would not help issues like pixelation/pixel 'blur - in other words (to avoid double negatives), do you think improving the signal would help issues like this?

What device were you using to watch it?

 

[Carl Leon]

Johnnyspot - I did try DTV Stream (and DTV Now and ATT Now) several times over the years. And I have it now since it is included with satellite (less DVR). As I mentioned, I think streaming wins decisively in certain ways, but to me it seems like motion is constrained - I don't really have the language to say exactly what I'm seeing, but it seems like motion is not as 'live' and 'quick' as it is with satellite. And I think they are likely improving the picture by essentially blurring/correcting via AI artifacts that exist in the source, with a slight but general loss to definition.

Carl Leon Thank you - do you disagree with slice1900's contention that improving signal would not help issues like pixelation/pixel 'blur - in other words (to avoid double negatives), do you think improving the signal would help issues like this?

Help, yes. 100% solve, unknown. i don't have those issues, but that doesn't mean you won't.

 

[sealrock]

What device were you using to watch it?

Apple TV 4K hardwired with 800mbps internet

 

[sealrock]

Help, yes. 100% solve, unknown. i don't have those issues, but that doesn't mean you won't.

Thanks, might give it a shot when I have time then!

 

[Johnnyspot]

Apple TV 4K hardwired with 800mbps internet

Something is off there. What TV do you have?

 

[sealrock]

Something is off there. What TV do you have?

Sammy & Panny plasmas that are (I supposed considered) older but have no issues with any other format you throw at them - I doubt it's an equipment issue, having A/B'd so many different things, and having seen similar gripes from people online with brand new TOL 4K OLED. I think it's inherent to whatever processing the streamers are doing to save bandwidth or whatnot. It's not something I'd necessarily expect many people to notice, in the same way that a majority of people will tell you there's 'no difference' between a 16/44.1 and 24/192 audio file (many did not even notice a difference between mp3s & full res files for ages). It's not nearly as dramatic as seeing the difference between 30 & 60 fps, it's more like if you took 60 fps and it was off by 10 or 15%. The motion in sports through satellite looks a lot more natural to me, which again says to me probably not an equipment thing.

 

[Johnnyspot]

I have yet to see any motion issues with sports or otherwise with Directv stream. That’s using both ATV4K’s/Fire TV’s and Geminis This is over a variety of LG OLED/Vizio and TCL TV’s If anything the higher bit rate on Stream vs Sat helps with this

 

[sealrock]

I have yet to see any motion issues with sports or otherwise with Directv stream. That’s using both ATV4K’s/Fire TV’s and Geminis This is over a variety of LG OLED/Vizio and TCL TV’s If anything the higher bit rate on Stream vs Sat helps with this

I'm not sure whether or not I'd call it an issue - to my eyes it is a different quality, though - ymmv.

 

[videojanitor]

I've never really taken any time to critically evaluate the quality of the satellite vs stream, but did so this afternoon. Equipment used was an HR54, Apple TV 4K, and LG 27EP950 4K monitor. Sources were sent to the same HDMI input using a patch cable. I have 200 Mbps cable internet.

Video/audio evaluation has been my life's work, having spent 40 years in television engineering. I'm very sensitive to motion issues, but didn't see any difference between the satellite or stream -- both looked equally fluid on video-based content. Overall, I gave the stream the edge in quality as it exhibited fewer compression artifacts. This was especially obvious with small graphics. On the satellite feed, small text was degraded in the way one might see in a photo with a high degree of JPEG compression. The text was sharper and cleaner on the stream.

Of course, as mentioned above, YMMV, but these are my observations.

 

[sealrock]

I've never really taken any time to critically evaluate the quality of the satellite vs stream, but did so this afternoon. Equipment used was an HR54, Apple TV 4K, and LG 27EP950 4K monitor. Sources were sent to the same HDMI input using a patch cable. I have 200 Mbps cable internet.

Video/audio evaluation has been my life's work, having spent 40 years in television engineering. I'm very sensitive to motion issues, but didn't see any difference between the satellite or stream -- both looked equally fluid on video-based content. Overall, I gave the stream the edge in quality as it exhibited fewer compression artifacts. This was especially obvious with small graphics. On the satellite feed, small text was degraded in the way one might see in a photo with a high degree of JPEG compression. The text was sharper and cleaner on the stream.

Of course, as mentioned above, YMMV, but these are my observations.

It is interesting to hear your impressions as someone with so much experience in this specific field. I wonder what it is I'm perceiving. I know it's something! I think it could be as simple as a sort of a pseudo-blur effect created by edges that are less defined (an unintended consequence perhaps of algorithms that are both removing artifacts, as you say - which I agree with, but also perhaps creating softer edges and, resultingly, a sort of a blur/ghost effect). I would be really interested to hear any other impressions from those who have done comparisons or decide to take that on. The general word around the internet is that people are very happy with how streaming quality compares to satellite, with many saying it beats satellite - though many seem happiest with it for other reasons than PQ alone. But there is also a whole class of gripers about various aspects of streaming PQ (mostly around artifacts), and it's not uncommon to see people saying DTV satellite still beats streaming. Tonight I watched 3/4 of a baseball game on satellite and am now finishing it on YTTV (because DTV receiver went kaput) - there are marked differences - some very positive for YTTV to my subjective eye, but I would still say a slight net negative - one thing I noticed off the bat was up close shots are distinctively less sharp/clear on YTTV, though not bad looking. And whatever thing is going on with fast motion I do see.