Direct TV---over compression

Have you noticed that Direct TV has been cranking up the compression lately? On Thursday I was watching Leave It To Beaver, and the compression was up so high that the show was almost unwatchable.

I may have to switch back to cable.

 

If you can lower the compression on DirecTV, that's the way to go, otherwise, go with cable if you have that choice.

 

Johnny, I have DTV and cable. I have to have basic cable to get my cable modem connection. Cable's no better than DTV with compression. Trust me. The picture on cable tv is one reason I'll never get rid of DTV.

mud-

 

I noticed that when I was with Charter, the compression on the "Analog" channels was boosted more heavily than those on digital signals, but when I switched to Paul Bunyan Television (my ISP's cable service), the compression got a little better and more acceptable to my ears.

 

I figured out what was wrong

I think that I fixed the problem. The contrast on the TV was set all the way up. Plus the sharpness was set all the way up. I lowered the contrast and turned the sharpness to off. The picture quality is dramatically better.

 

Re: I figured out what was wrong

Ouch. Yeah, Johnny, Sharpness should almost always be set to it's lowest setting (or OFF) Glad you fixed it.

 

I've noticed a lot more compression during the past couple of years as DirecTV crams more channels into a set amount of bandwidth. Cuts between scenes are particularly pixellated, and I've noticed that some commercials and some of the lesser channels are more pixellated than others. It was nowhere near this bad when I first got DirecTV in either 1995 or 1996.

Despite that, my ex has Comcast digital cable at her apartment, and just about all the channels are lousy. You can tell they are not getting a quality feed from the satellite, or just have a poor distribution system. Just about all of the channels I've seen (except for the "local" coming events channel) look like UHF channels with the tuning slightly off.

I'd rather do without DirecTV than live with cable. If I dropped DirecTV, I'd stick with broadcast TV only.

 

DISH Network uses less compression than Direct TV.

 

I think that most cable channels are almost unwatchable, but DTV is great. I was at a friend's house the other day an was trying to figure out why the TV picture looked so crappy... then I realized it was because they are cable subscribers...

 

The thing about cable is, you cannot make generalizations. Picture quality depends on your local provider and their infrastructure.

My digital cable (including the old analog channels) has notably better picture quality than DISH and DirecTV. My friends with DBS satellite agree.

On top of that, I get High-Def ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Discovery, InHD1, and InHD2...at no extra charge, and without a huge antenna on my roof (no HD locals on DBS satellite).

 

I get excellent picture quality on my digital cable.

 

Sure does. Comcast has digital cable in Dearborn, and it's terrible at my ex's place. Even the "cable" channels look poorly tuned in. It's such a waste.

I'll never get cable...mainly because it's a lot more expensive than what I'm paying DireTV, doesn't have the channels I want, and the pricing isn't as controlled by the government with satellite as it is with cable. For local channels, I use an antenna. Plus, I can get network affiliates from Toledo OH if ours are showing different programming, and a couple of stations from Canada. And PBS in Flint, too, since the Detroit PBS station routinely has missed programs I've wanted to watch.

 

The house where I live in, I have to get cable, even for local channels, because the house is in the flight path of the airline.

 

Is cable really still more expensive than DBS in some places? Around here they are within a buck or so in price (greatly outweighted by the High-Definition on cable, IMO). I assumed it was due to the competition.

 

They are roughly the same price in my area, but I would rather watch static, than support ComCast.