ram1220 said:I just got home and turned on the TV. Voom PQ today looks like crap. It has gotten a lot worse since last night. Soft, grainy, and now a little blurry. And to top it off 261 is gone. And on 4 out of 6 channels changes I just did, there was no audio. Everyday it's some new problem with Voom. I'm sick of it and am cancelling.
Could say that about ALL VOOMchannels right now-lolvurbano said:Dont expect great picture quality on espnhd when it comes to voom:
"Real bad this early morning on ESPNHD on D**.
Lots of green flashes and a few blackouts.
Seems to be happening a lot recently."
Couldn't agree more Jay-D* seems to be handling the HD additions in a more cautious manner, and as a result, pq is much stronger than Voom right now(even though there are those who refuse to acknowledge that fact-i.e. oh never mind-no names)GeneWildershair said:Folks like you tend to scare me a bit. You would take quantity, over quality? I'm sorry but I cannot stand by your logic at all. I think D* is doing the smart thing by not adding more and compressing the hell out of what they've got now. Instead they are waiting til they get more room to add any more HD content. I actually applaude D* for doing it the right way. I care about quality, and could do without several of the VOOM exclusives if that would make the PQ go up. If more and more folks thought like you we'd head down a bad path in the HD world my friend.
Walter L. said:Guys again, unless Wilt was lying (which I doubt) ALL channels are fully loaded in all transponders from day 1. That means that the bandwidth of each channel was pre-allocated. Everytime that VOOMS adds a new channel, they simply start transmiting real-data (as oppose to dummy data) in the added channel.
Yes, VOOM has been experincing some PQ problems, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are adding channels.
GeneWildershair said:I'm not disputing Wilt's claim. What I'm arguing is the quantity over quality mentality, and helping others realize why we don't need that type of logic within the HD community.
Completely agree: I want more channels but not at the expense of lower quality. I was trying to clarify that, to the best of my understanding, VOOM has not taken bandwidth from existing channels to add new ones. Yes, there are some PQ problems, but it is not related to the added channels.GeneWildershair said:I'm not disputing Wilt's claim. What I'm arguing is the quantity over quality mentality, and helping others realize why we don't need that type of logic within the HD community.
Thats correct. They have 50Mb/s on each transponder. And when WM9 is implement the quality should increase as well as the quantity.cameron119 said:D* actually packs 2 HD channels on one QPSK transponder. I'll look up the numbers in a bit...but I seem to recall that D* actually transmits HD at 1-2Mbps less than Voom. This pretty much invalidates the quality/quantity argument. Voom has more capacity/transponder, their channels are at a higher bitrate, and there is simply more to choose from on Voom.
E* places 2 HD channels on an 8PSK transponder. That puts E's HD's at about 19.x Mbps. Naturally they're going to have to start putting 3/transponder before too long if they intend to be "the HD leader (Bullsh!t)"
Voom currently has the highest capacity transponders (50 or so Mbps). Thus, when E* moves to 3/8PSK transponder, Voom will be the bitrate champ of all three major DBS providers.