More channels or better quality signal

[Mr Tony]

Here is just an off the wall question

Say you have a dish and you get 10 channels all at 70 quality (lets use the theory 25 is threshold)...
but if you skew the LNB a little more, you get 2 extra channels that you probably would watch at a 30 quality but 6 channels drop from 70 to 45/50 all of which you watch

what do you do? Do you go for the quality or the quanity? And no a bigger dish/multiple dishes is not an option

 

[Juan]

It would be a great idea if we could find 10 channels everyone could agree on

 

[Mr Tony]

I'm talking FTA here

 

[LordKaT]

I say get some more channels. I'm not really interested in what's on TV so much as what I can watch that everyone else doesn't have a clue exists.

Unless we're talking RTN. In that case, I'd prefer that they upgrade from the current pringles can transmitter that they're using.

 

[toucan-man]

I usually want highest quality on whatever gets watched the most, and let the rest suffer. I hate pixelation, makes my skin crawl. But I guess I'd go for the extra channels anyway and have another beer to deal with the picture quality.

Unless we're talking RTN. In that case, I'd prefer that they upgrade from the current pringles can transmitter that they're using.

That ain't no Pringles can they're using, it's a lower quality generic brand they picked up at Aldi. Wish they'd move back to G-18.

 

[Anole]

And no a bigger dish/multiple dishes is not an option

. . . says the man with how many dishes, and how many LNBs on line????


Well, it sure is for me! - -

I don't put up with pixelated, drop-out signals!
If it's something I want to watch, I'll watch it.

But going for quality vs quantity is not the trade-off.
Once I know -which- I want to watch, then I'd optimize for that!
I don't subscribe to the theory of getting more useless channels just for bragging rights.

edit: Full Disclosure
Oh, now I see what prompted this poll. -

 

[MikeinBaja]

Pixies just drive me absolutely crazy!

 

[Mr Tony]

yep here is tghe thread that kinda made me do the poll
http://www.satelliteguys.us/c-band-...hose-crazy-c-band-satellites.html#post1867034

 

[Corrado]

I'm pretty selective in what I watch and I won't put up with pixelation. Back when RTN came from Little Rock facilities and storms went through, I hated it.:rant:

Having a choice in the matter, I'll take the quality over quantity any day.

 

[toucan-man]

Having a choice in the matter, I'll take the quality over quantity any day.

He didn't say we couldn't switch back after a few days. I guess it depends on what the extra channels turn out to be. Many were all excited by the addition of This network in the beginning, but now it seems that many don't care that much for it any longer.

 

[tvropro]

Unless it was something that I had to have like RTN. I would go for more channels.

 

[Pismire]

I voted for more channels.

 

[HIFI]

more channels

 

[Mr Tony]

He didn't say we couldn't switch back after a few days. I guess it depends on what the extra channels turn out to be. Many were all excited by the addition of This network in the beginning, but now it seems that many don't care that much for it any longer.

good point

 

[1inabillion]

Pic quality. is the best choice.:up

 

[jbmiller]

quality is always the best.
john

 

[Keith Brannen]

More channels. Had to do something very similar when I did a major re-arranging of dishes/LNBs to get a decent dish on AMC9 for RTN. AMC21 (125) was going from a 80cm dish down to a 60e dish which meant some loss across the board for all, but not of great significance due the strong signals in general on the satellite.

However, I found that if I peaked on Montana PBS (12104), which I do watch, the signal quality on the Horizontal feeds was seriously compromised. If I peaked on the Horizontal feeds, Montana PBS's quality went into the toilet. I believe it is interference from 12104 G-18 (123) which meant to peak for Montana PBS required the dish to be slightly off of 125. So to get all, I had to give up a little on Montana PBS (about 10-15%) to get enough quality on the Horizontal feeds to avoid them getting too close to the pixelation zone. Works just fine. (NOTE: interestingly, the mux at 12178 seemed to be "happy" at either peak location.)

 

[DishDigger]

Tough decision, but with the lowest level being reasonably far enough above threshold to give a decent picture, I believe more channels would be the better choice. Of course, if it turned out to be a real nuisance, the LNB could be skewed back to its original position. Always go for more, that's why we put motors on these dang things, now THAT'S a problem to overcome, but we do it (I haven't found many that took them back off either, too much to get it there!).

 

[GreatFTA]

That is a tough question. I like to get as many channels I can get, legally. It doesn't matter if some may have low signal quality. We gonna have that in the FTA world...
I am happy with I am getting. Since I suspended Directv for a little while FTA keep me happy!
Heck, I may not go back to Directv!

 

[Blindowl1234]

More Channels for me. One of the big issues around us is when Hd came available on OTA...the purists wanted no sub channels only Hd. The majority of people in FTA or OTA probably would want quantity...so long as 1. It's watchable 2. It's something worth watching. Blind