With Cable TV Quality Going Down the Tubes Blu-ray is The Only HD Choice

[cpgator]

Originally Posted by InTN

It's all the channels. I have the newest DVR and have both an XBR 3 and XBR 5. The MPEG4 is being over compressed and the bit rate is low in order to deliver more channels. DirecTV has even admitted they modify the picture to get more room. Google HD Lite or DirecTV picture quality and you will find tons of reprots as well as ongoing HD Lite discussions.

I think you are a little behind the times. A few of the mpeg2 channels mights still be "HD Lite", but the mpeg4 channels are not.

[xman]

My 2 cents worth.

I have DirectTV and can’t be happier, We really enjoy the HD channel line up (more than any other provider in my area), the picture quality is fantastic, the sound quality is good (Dolby Digital 5.1) it’s not PCM but it high-quality plus they just added a few more channels yesterday.

[Spankey]

Originally Posted by cpgator

I think you are a little behind the times. A few of the mpeg2 channels mights still be "HD Lite", but the mpeg4 channels are not.

Exactly. HD Lite is a thing of the past. The MPEG4 channels are indistinguishable from OTA. If you are seeing artifacts it is the result of the signal sent. Without know what channels numbers you are watching it is hard to tell. I believe there was someone in this forum even a few months back that thought they were watching MPEG4 major networks when they were in fact still watching the old MPEG3 feeds.

[InTN]

December 2007


The term "HD Lite" is a phrase DirecTV would probably prefer its customers never learn, or at least common sense would seem to dictate so. What is HD Lite, you ask? It is certainly not terminology included in any formally recognized HDTV specification as far as I know, but DirecTV and a few other television service providers currently rely upon the technique to deliver high-definition content within the limits of their available bandwidth. The underlying technical aspects aside, a HD Lite service provider can take content originally being broadcast in the popular 1920x1080i format, then downsample the content to 1440x1080i or even 1280x1080i for delivery to customers.
There is little debate on why DirecTV uses the HD Lite technique considering the high cost of deploying additional satellite bandwidth. However, getting back to common sense, DirecTV's decision to sue Comcast over HD video quality claims has likely done little to help the satellite provider's market position among retail consumers. Awhile back Comcast commissioned a survey to compare the video quality of its cable-based HD service against satellite-based HD Lite service, and naturally Comcast dominated the survey with a two-thirds majority.

Armed with its survey results, Comcast proceeded to roll out a marketing campaign declaring the surveyed customers' preference for Comcast HD service as compared to competing satellite services. DirecTV responded with a lawsuit, and in typical fashion for marketing disputes, the case was settled outside of the courtroom. Each side was supposedly "pleased" with the confidential settlement, but it shouldn't take a mystical psychic to determine DirecTV likely got the proverbial short end of the stick, as Comcast can still continue using the survey results in future advertisements. Ultimately it appears DirecTV did little more than perhaps running up yet another tab for legal fees and maybe further alienating a few consumers with its HD Lite approach to delivering high-definition television content.

[Spankey]

Read that article when it was posted. It was based on old information. HD Lite NO LONGER EXISTS ON MPEG4 channels. To say otherwise is outright misleading.

[blu2]

For any Canadians in Rogers territory, watch out next week as they are set to start compressing some of their HD channels:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/2426/206/

Hope anyone impacted will be complaining to Rogers - I certainly intend to.

[PaulGo]

Even more compression?

Comcast first in US with 50Mbps cable Internet
Comcast today said it would be the first cable Internet provider in the US to offer Internet access based on the new DOCSIS 3.0 standard for cable Internet service. In its early form, the service will bond together multiple cable channels to offer download speeds of 50 megabits per second, or more than six times the 8Mbps ceiling previously set by the company's existing 8Mbps tier. This early implementation isn't set to have full support for the technology on uploads but will still offer 5Mbps upstream.

The extra speed is currently considered a luxury tier and will be available at first in a $150 monthly plan compared to the $53 for existing technology. Minneapolis and St. Paul are currently the only cities to have access, though Comcast has already said it will expand the network throughout 2008 and may also increase speeds up to 100Mbps by the end of the year.

The cable firm warns that its launch will require that a few analog stations be taken off-air and compression added to HD channels to make room for DOCSIS 3, whose channel bonding consumes much more bandwidth than earlier single-channel services. Comcast's launch also comes amid controversy over its network management techniques, which will no longer throttle BitTorrent later this year but may still impact some services.

DOCSIS 3.0 is considered essential for the cable industry to compete against Verizon's FiOS and other fiber optic services, which have already reached the 50Mbps mark. The extra speed is already being used for IP-based TV on Verizon's service and will be necessary for mainstream HD downloads, which will take as little as four minutes for a whole movie on a 100Mbps connection.

Electronista | Comcast first in US with 50Mbps cable Internet

[PaulGo]

A excerpt for an interview with a Cox executive - Cox will be shoving three HD channels into a single QAM - with probably the same results as Comcast.

Q&A: Cox’s Steve Necessary
...
Q: What are you dong in the area of compression?

A: The typical implementation of high definition would mean that we would carry that content on a system at somewhere around 19 Mbps.

We have found that with improved MPEG-2 encoders, that we can get equally good pictures to the eye in the 13 Mbps to 14 Mbps. So basically, that means you can squeeze three high-definition channels into one of the 6 MHz blocks instead of 2 channels. ...

Full article at:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6529086.html

[shelland]

Originally Posted by savage1984

The only problem with an outdoor antenna is you get cut-outs (loss of signal) Being that I use one for local channels, I experience it first hand. I will have a great signal "76" one second and the next second it cuts to a yellow box saying it lost the signal. Extremely frustrating especially when watching sports, Like March Madness

That sounds like an issue with your particular setup. I have had OTA for nearly 4 years. I am almost 40 miles from the antenna farm, but still get signal of 90+ on most channels (several 97-99).

I very rarely get any loss of signal. Even when my satellite signal has been lost during a storm (which takes a very heavy downpoor), my OTA comes in clear as can be.

[shelland]

Originally Posted by raginranger

Could you recommend a good indoor antenna for hd ota broadcasts? I currently live in an apartment and refuse to pay for our local hd cable due its sh*tty quality.

It depends on your particular situation - how far you are from the towers, line of sight, etc. A lot of people have good luck with the Zenith Silver Sensor, but it may or may not work with your particular situation.

Plug your info into AntennaWeb and click "choose an antenna".

[g217814]

[QUOTE=PaulGo;777228]Even more compression?

Comcast first in US with 50Mbps cable Internet



THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETE BS!! Verizon FIOS already has 50Mbps in many markets with fiber to the home.

[PaulGo]

HD enthusiasts crying foul over cable TV's crunched signals

By CHRIS WILLIAMS 4/20/2008

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — In Brent Swanson's basement home theater, there should be nothing drab about "Battlestar Galactica." He's got a high-end projector that beams the picture onto a wall painted like a silver screen, and speakers loom in the corners, flanking two big subwoofers.

Yet when he tuned in Sci Fi HD for a recent episode filmed in high definition, the image was soft and the darkest parts broke up into large blocks with no definition. Explosions, he said, were just dull.

"It kind of looked like they took the standard definition and just blew it up," said Swanson, a 33-year-old graphic designer and videographer who subscribes to Comcast Corp.'s TV service. "I couldn't really tell if what I was seeing was really better than what I saw on regular television."

As cable TV companies pack ever more HD channels into limited bandwidth, some owners of pricey plasma, projector and LCD TVs are complaining that they're not getting the high-def quality they paid for. They blame the increased signal compression being used to squeeze three digital HD signals into the bandwidth of one analog station.

The problem is viewers want more HD channels at a time when many cable and satellite providers are at the limits of their capacity, said Jim Willcox, a technology editor for Consumer Reports magazine.

"They have to figure out a way to deliver more HD content through their distribution networks," he said.

Compressing the signal is cheaper than costly infrastructure upgrades to increase capacity. Satellite TV providers — including DirecTV Group Inc. and Dish Network Corp. — also have the option of launching satellites to boost the number of HD channels on their systems.

While information is nearly always lost when signals are compressed and then uncompressed, the process can theoretically be made unnoticeable to eyes and ears — and Comcast says it should be.

But some viewers say they can see it. Willcox said complaints about compression have been showing up on Web forums, including the AV Science Forum, a site for serious audio visual enthusiasts.

"It's not exclusively Comcast, although Comcast, being the largest cable provider, is probably the largest target," he said.

Derek Harrar, a Comcast senior vice president in charge of video, said the company recently began using new technology on some channels to compress three HD channels into the bandwidth of one analog station. Other channels continue to get the previous 2-to-1 compression.

In a posting on the AV Science Forum, Ken Fowler of Arlington, Va., compared Comcast signals with those on Verizon Communications Inc.'s all-fiber-optic network, which doesn't have the same capacity limitations. Fowler found the higher-compressed HD stations, including Sci Fi, Animal Planet, the Discovery Channel, the Food Network and A&E, fared particularly poorly.

He analyzed the signals by recording them on a digital recorder, then transferring them to a personal computer for analysis. He found there was much less data, measured in bit rates, flowing to some channels than others.

For example, Discovery's bit rate was 14.16 megabits per second on Verizon's FiOS system but only 10.43 Mbps on Comcast; A&E HD was 18.66 Mbps on FiOS compared with 14.48 Mbps on Comcast. The FiOS system didn't offer Sci Fi HD, which Fowler's testing showed at 12.59 Mbps on Comcast.

He found the signals from the major networks and ESPN weren't getting the increased compression.

In an interview, Fowler said he reran his analysis about two weeks ago and found "basically the same thing."

Philadelphia-based Comcast wouldn't identify specific signals that are 3-to-1 compressed, and a Sci Fi channel spokeswoman referred questions back to Comcast.

Harrar said the company works to make sure any new compression technology is invisible to consumers, but Comcast is "constantly monitoring our network and making adjustments" for best picture quality. The company has been rolling out the new compression technology at different times around the country.

In fact, postings on the AV Science Forum from early April suggest the Comcast network has improved in some places.

And there are other reasons a high-definition picture can appear subpar: The source image might not have been recorded in HD, or the television's settings, the viewing angle and even the ambient lighting in the room could be the cause.

New York-based Time Warner Cable Inc. has avoided many of the criticisms aimed at Comcast, although the companies are technologically similar and face the same capacity limits.

Time Warner spokesman Alex Dudley attributed it to his company's testing procedures. He said that before Time Warner rolls out new technology that may affect image quality, it sets up two identical televisions in a lab, one with the old signal and one with the new. Technicians make adjustments until the pictures can't be told apart.

"The testers are our engineers who we call 'golden eyes,' who have a proven track record of picking up subtle differences in picture quality," he said.

Verizon's FiOS doesn't compress the signal once it receives it, and Willcox said it's considered the picture quality "benchmark." However, Verizon said the system is growing but is now available only in parts of 17 states and has just over a million subscribers — compared with more than 24 million for Comcast.

He said two possible solutions are on the horizon, an improved version of compression, called MPEG-4, and something called "switched digital video."

Comcast and Time Warner Cable have introduced switched video on a trial basis across their networks. In concept, it's like on-demand videos. The company sends only the channels the viewer is watching, instead of all the channels at once.

But switched video has its own issues, including possible slower channel switching times and compatibility problems with digital video recorders.

Willcox said cable providers can't afford to ignore quality complaints. Many customers are already picky about quality after paying $800 to $3,500 for an average-size, HD-ready LCD television.

Swanson, the "Battlestar Galactica" fan, is sticking with Comcast for now.

"It hasn't gotten bad enough for me to consider changing," he said.

The Associated Press: HD enthusiasts crying foul over cable TV's crunched signals

[DetroitSportsFan]

^ Yeah, that article says it all.

[thr0ttles]

when comcast starting compressing HD signals about a month ago, I was in complete shock and angry but there was nothing I could do about it because I was stuck with them as a provider without any other choice. to say i was angry, was putting it lightly and to read articles like this last one had me wanting to simply grab a bat and start bashing things. watching HD on comcast now is like watching videos on youtube.com. before this, comcast HD was superior in my area. friends with fios agreed. now, fios is better...but sadly, only marginally now. fios is being installed in my area right now, so i will have a choice in the near future, and i'll be making a move only for slightly better quality but also the hope that with fios' higher bandwidth capacity, better quality and true HD will come again and warrant the money i spend every month paying for their services.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by mgonzo2u

What?

Cable has long sucked donkey danglers.

If you are not receiving DirecTV HD, you are not experiencing HD TV.

I had Comcast and thought the PQ was great for what they are working with...

then I went to Dish for the HD only package and immediately noticed a drop in PQ...

now I have DirecTV and this might be the best I've seen so far aside from Blu-ray..

the only problem now is the fact that Comcast owns most of the local sports viewing, but DirecTV doesn't blackout local games when aired on ESPN like they used to a few years ago...but Dish DOES still black them out...

[nycomet]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

I have been following (and contributing) the thread on AVs as to how cable companies are reducing the signal quality to so the can put more channels in their limited bandwidth. It seems if you really want to enjoy high definition on a large screen television Blu-ray is your only choice. I am really upset about the quality how the quality of HD cable channels is going down the tubes!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

I agree. My cable quality sucks. It seems to be getting weaker and weaker every passing month. Even the HD signal frequently breaks up and demonstrates a screen load of blocking. The 5.1 audio signal "burps" often, then the system tries to catch-up and restore the sound.

I do not like broadcast television anymore.

Fortunately, we have blu-ray.

[PaulGo]

Is HDTV Compression Damaging Picture Quality?
To deliver more HDTV channels, cable and satellite services are resorting to new compression algorithms. But some viewers fear that quality is suffering as a result.
Louis Chunovic, PC World
Friday, April 25, 2008 04:00 PM PDT

Do your HDTV programs look as good as they should? If not, you may be seeing the results of overcompression. A growing number of viewers and experts are claiming that increased use of compression--technology that downsizes huge high-definition video streams for eventual reconstitution on your screen--is responsible for a drop in quality.

Such charges--aimed mostly at the two biggest cable providers, Comcast and Time Warner--have been echoing around the blogosphere in the wake of reports about new compression algorithms. Contributing to the debate: An AVS Forum member's tests showed that at least ten HD networks were more compressed on Comcast than on Verizon's fiber-optic-cable-based FiOS service.

While service providers insist that quality remains a high priority, some experts say competition has made channel quantity, not quality, the top priority.

It's no secret that most digital TV is compressed and decompressed--in some cases several times--not just by cable or satellite services and over-the-air broadcasters but also by the video cameras that create the programs and the network satellite systems that deliver them to distributors. Compression happens, too, in trucks, control rooms, cable headends, and other waystations along the signal's path to your screen. The telltale signs of overcompression include tiling, little colored blocks, and "mosquito noise," which looks like flaring fireflies. The crispness of the picture can suffer, too.
Quantity vs. Quality

Compressing huge HDTV video streams, however, allows carriers to deliver more of them. "Everyone's really fighting the same issue--limited bandwidth--[but] their offerings are more attractive if they give more channels," says Peter Symes, director of standards and engineering for the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. "There are big arguments in the broadcasting community about whether you should use virtually the whole of the 19.2 megabits you get for a single HD channel to deliver really good HD, or whether by using other standards or more compression you can get away with a high-definition [signal] and one or two standard-definition [signals] or maybe sell part of it for data services."

Currently, quality is "minor to a vast majority of the viewing public, because the vast majority...doesn't have very big TV screens," HDTV consultant Peter Putman notes.

But those viewers who do are starting to notice, including AVS Forum member Ken Fowler of Arlington, Virginia, a self-described audio-video enthusiast who posted the results of his Comcast-FiOS comparison.

Fowler had dropped Comcast for FiOS, but renewed his Comcast service (while retaining FiOS) in order to get Washington Nationals games in HD, and he began noticing quality differences between the two services. Some of the Comcast channels, he says, "didn't have the same pop, the same level of contrast, and there was a lot more blurring during movement."

So Fowler began recording the same shows on both FiOS and Comcast with his TiVo; he then downloaded the files to a computer and calculated the bitrates based on file size. The differences ran from just 0.7 percent more compression on Comcast for HBO HD to a whopping 38.5 percent for Discovery HD Theater.
More-Efficient Compression?

Comcast acknowledges that it recently implemented additional compression of selected HD networks, but contends that its improved compression technology allows it to transmit three channels in the same bandwidth in which two were transmitted previously, without a loss of quality. Comcast's spokesperson adds that many comments about Fowler's AVS Forum post recognize that "our ongoing tweaking, if you will, and adjustments" are improving image quality.

Comcast isn't alone in looking to squeeze more HD into its cables. A Time Warner Cable spokesperson says that company is testing new increased-compression technology as well. On the satellite side, DirecTV and Dish Network are switching to a "more advanced compression algorithm," Putman says. Verizon FiOS, however, applies no additional compression to the network signals that it receives, a spokesperson says.

The HD broadcast format that a network uses can make a difference in the compression's impact. ABC and Fox are among those that use a progressive-scan format (720p), which Putman and other experts say tolerates compression slightly better than the interlaced (1080i) format used by CBS, NBC, PBS, and others.
Blu-ray Is the Benchmark

For consumers, the best HD experience will be with Blu-ray Disc content on a player hooked up to a display with an HDMI connector, which transmits uncompressed digital streams. "That's going to be the benchmark," says Symes.

If you're shopping for an HD service, Symes adds, "it's fairly a no-brainer: If you have FiOS or [AT&T's] U-Verse available, that's probably the way to go." Beyond that, so much local variability exists among competing cable and satellite services, he says, that the best idea is to ask friends in your area about their satisfaction levels.

But if you have an HD picture quality problem that you think is the result of overcompression, the best thing to do is to call your provider. Symes and Putman agree that overcompression and lowered quality will become an industry issue only when buyers who trade up to the biggest, highest-resolution screens notice and complain.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,14...v/article.html