HD network quality (channels 80-89)

[0db]

Is it just me or has the HD quality been dropping a bit on the networks over the past few months? Are they compressing more or something?

I think I need to put my antenna up and compare the DTV feed to the OTAs. It's possible that my CRT RPTV got bumped out of calibration so nothing looks sharp anymore.

 

[carlosg]

your right its real low

 

[Skyboss]

Your right. You've been watching for some time now, so the level of detail is less apparent to you.

I have OTA, Cable and DirecTV and the image quality between the three is no different at any given time. You might get some image drops from time to time using either three, but that's about the only difference. QAM feeds do come across somewhat softer around the edges at times, but it's hardly worth whining about.

Quit pretending you have some imaginary decerning eye. It's a load of crap fed by bored technojunkies with nothing better to do but complain about bit rates they are able to measure. It's all in the compression system, and as far as a quality backbone, DirecTV has better equipment for this than your local cable co and odds on your local broadcasting station.

 

[0db]

Quit pretending you have some imaginary decerning eye. It's a load of crap fed by bored technojunkies with nothing better to do but complain about bit rates they are able to measure.

Dear god, don't take it so hard. I can tell this is a touchy issue for you so I won't address the obvious picture quality difference I observe between OTA feeds from Los Angeles broadcasts and what I saw immediately upon switchign to DTV. I'll pretend I never noticed that because I don't want to upset you further.

But what I did notice is that my picture quality is currently significantly lower than it was a few months ago. I was only asking if they've changed the quality of signal recently so I can eliminate that as a possible cause for my video degradation. As I said, I've got a CRT RPTV that was moved, which could have knocked my focus and convergence out, which would be a logical explanation.

 

[charper1]

I would always recommend getting your RPTV serviced/calibrated before making any comparisons. Unless your OTA affiliate is multi-casting 3 or more sub channels, the OTA channels should always look marginally better. I also agree that I wouldn't take too much out of the bitrate reading you read about.

 

[guffy1]

Your right. You've been watching for some time now, so the level of detail is less apparent to you.

I have OTA, Cable and DirecTV and the image quality between the three is no different at any given time. You might get some image drops from time to time using either three, but that's about the only difference. QAM feeds do come across somewhat softer around the edges at times, but it's hardly worth whining about.

Quit pretending you have some imaginary decerning eye. It's a load of crap fed by bored technojunkies with nothing better to do but complain about bit rates they are able to measure. It's all in the compression system, and as far as a quality backbone, DirecTV has better equipment for this than your local cable co and odds on your local broadcasting station.

This information is so wrong its laughable...

I dont know if the quality has gotten any worse than its always been on the D* HD Nets, but its always been way worse than pretty much any OTA signal..

This guys information is just plain irresponsible, and wrong...

A guy would have to be blind (or be a Joe Six Pack idiot) not to see the difference between OTA and D*...

 

[hancox]

It's also going to depend on several factors:

720p vs 1080i (less discernable difference between 720p OTA and DBS vs 1080i due to lesser bandwidth constraint)

Local OTA status (i.e. an NBC affiliate vs. WNBC-DT with one subchannel

Is it noticeable? Sure. Is it worth getting your knickers in a twist over? Maybe.

Either way, nobody should really make polar comments either way, i.e. there are MANY flavors in between "IT #@$@#$@#@#$@#ing SUCKS!" and "OMG, holy @!#$@!#$!@$#, it's AWESOME!"

Personally, it's a good mix of HD content and programming, at a comparable price to my cable company, whom I consider to be "less than ethical."

 

[FlyingJ]

Hey Guffy, In Columbus, Ohio here. Get NBC over the air and channel 82 which is the D* feed. I tried but I can not see any difference between the two. None, zip. I am not blind, haven't had a six pack....so talking about making blanket statements. That said, yup I wish we were not getting compressed signals. Don't think local cable is any better and I can see that the future looks bright with D*

 

[guffy1]

Hey Guffy, In Columbus, Ohio here. Get NBC over the air and channel 82 which is the D* feed. I tried but I can not see any difference between the two. None, zip. I am not blind, haven't had a six pack....so talking about making blanket statements. That said, yup I wish we were not getting compressed signals. Don't think local cable is any better and I can see that the future looks bright with D*

If you arent blind, then your eyes must be closed

P.S. One does not actually have to consume a 6 pack to be a Joe Six Pack...

 

[dfergie]

I'm getting intermittent audio and video dropouts on FoxHD west channel 89... (Bears/Bucs)