Switched to cable from Sat.

[JAS]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sorry 'bout empty post.

I've had Directv (w/HD) for 4 years and finally decided to switch to Cox
digital cable (w/HD).
These are my opinions/observations:

1. HD program quality is very good for both.
2. I get local HD channels (included) via cable, can't via Satellite.
3. The Cox STB lets me set sidebars to black for std programs and they look
bigger and better as well.
4. Heavy rain in last couple of days would have blanked my Satellite signal.
No problem for Cable.
4. Cost is about the same for me.

I've had two failures (over 4 years) with Satellite which I had to figure
out and repair myself:
(a) The "C" LNB unit failed (lucky I had a spare).
(b) The HD receiver failed. I had to test it on a friends system.

The Cable remote lets me setup my entire system as I like (e.g. volume
buttons work the audio receiver no matter which device is currently selected
etc).

Cable service is included with subscription.

I'm very happy with the change.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5X1oe.2003$R21.1730@lakeread06...
> Sorry 'bout empty post.
>
> I've had Directv (w/HD) for 4 years and finally decided to switch to Cox
> digital cable (w/HD).
> These are my opinions/observations:
>
> 1. HD program quality is very good for both.
> 2. I get local HD channels (included) via cable, can't via Satellite.
> 3. The Cox STB lets me set sidebars to black for std programs and they
> look bigger and better as well.
> 4. Heavy rain in last couple of days would have blanked my Satellite
> signal. No problem for Cable.
> 4. Cost is about the same for me.
>
> I've had two failures (over 4 years) with Satellite which I had to figure
> out and repair myself:
> (a) The "C" LNB unit failed (lucky I had a spare).
> (b) The HD receiver failed. I had to test it on a friends system.

Why do you have to troubleshoot your problems? Is there a cost if a dish
guy comes out to look at it?

I never had dish so I don't know these things.

>
> The Cable remote lets me setup my entire system as I like (e.g. volume
> buttons work the audio receiver no matter which device is currently
> selected etc).
>
> Cable service is included with subscription.
>
> I'm very happy with the change.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> "JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5X1oe.2003$R21.1730@lakeread06...
>> Sorry 'bout empty post.
>>
>> I've had Directv (w/HD) for 4 years and finally decided to switch to Cox
>> digital cable (w/HD).
>> These are my opinions/observations:
>>
>> 1. HD program quality is very good for both.
>> 2. I get local HD channels (included) via cable, can't via Satellite.
>> 3. The Cox STB lets me set sidebars to black for std programs and they
>> look bigger and better as well.
>> 4. Heavy rain in last couple of days would have blanked my Satellite
>> signal. No problem for Cable.
>> 4. Cost is about the same for me.
>>
>> I've had two failures (over 4 years) with Satellite which I had to figure
>> out and repair myself:
>> (a) The "C" LNB unit failed (lucky I had a spare).
>> (b) The HD receiver failed. I had to test it on a friends system.

Exact opposite experience in Seattle for me three years ago when I dumped
Comcast Digital Cable and went for Direct TV. Never a problem with my Sat
Dish, LNB's, or any of my SD or HD receivers. SD picture from Direct TV was
markedly better than the heavily compressed SD signal from Comcast. Maybe
things have changed in three years but since I get 9 local stations HD/DTV
OTA and a great piture from Direct TV I'm not changing anytime soon.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

 

[JAS]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Direct tv does not service equipment as far as I know.

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0C5oe.2492$fp6.750@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5X1oe.2003$R21.1730@lakeread06...
>> Sorry 'bout empty post.
>>
>> I've had Directv (w/HD) for 4 years and finally decided to switch to Cox
>> digital cable (w/HD).
>> These are my opinions/observations:
>>
>> 1. HD program quality is very good for both.
>> 2. I get local HD channels (included) via cable, can't via Satellite.
>> 3. The Cox STB lets me set sidebars to black for std programs and they
>> look bigger and better as well.
>> 4. Heavy rain in last couple of days would have blanked my Satellite
>> signal. No problem for Cable.
>> 4. Cost is about the same for me.
>>
>> I've had two failures (over 4 years) with Satellite which I had to figure
>> out and repair myself:
>> (a) The "C" LNB unit failed (lucky I had a spare).
>> (b) The HD receiver failed. I had to test it on a friends system.
>
> Why do you have to troubleshoot your problems? Is there a cost if a dish
> guy comes out to look at it?
>
> I never had dish so I don't know these things.
>
>>
>> The Cable remote lets me setup my entire system as I like (e.g. volume
>> buttons work the audio receiver no matter which device is currently
>> selected etc).
>>
>> Cable service is included with subscription.
>>
>> I'm very happy with the change.
>>
>
>

 

[JAS]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thanks for your comments Charles.

I understand what you say. Actually I had Cable first, and added Satellite 4
years ago because my Cable company (Cox) didn't provide HD service at the
time.
I had both cable and satellite, so I could AB them. Local sd programs
usually looked sharper from Basic cable than Satellite. The problems I had
with Satellite were not caused by Direct tv of course.
Don't get me wrong, I liked Direct tv very much, but now with Cox Digital
Cable, I have more HD, and more control over the screen sidebars etc.
Another thing, Cox has a channel (Entertainment On Demand) that lets me
pause, or reverse programs as though I had a DVR, except that I don't have a
DVR.
So, it doesn't make sense to keep Satellite anymore.
And yes, if you can get OTA HD, (which I can't) that makes choices a lot
harder.
JAS


"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:RsydnQZaRJ1xcz3fRVn-2g@comcast.com...
>
>> "JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:5X1oe.2003$R21.1730@lakeread06...
>>> Sorry 'bout empty post.
>>>
>>> I've had Directv (w/HD) for 4 years and finally decided to switch to Cox
>>> digital cable (w/HD).
>>> These are my opinions/observations:
>>>
>>> 1. HD program quality is very good for both.
>>> 2. I get local HD channels (included) via cable, can't via Satellite.
>>> 3. The Cox STB lets me set sidebars to black for std programs and they
>>> look bigger and better as well.
>>> 4. Heavy rain in last couple of days would have blanked my Satellite
>>> signal. No problem for Cable.
>>> 4. Cost is about the same for me.
>>>
>>> I've had two failures (over 4 years) with Satellite which I had to
>>> figure out and repair myself:
>>> (a) The "C" LNB unit failed (lucky I had a spare).
>>> (b) The HD receiver failed. I had to test it on a friends system.
>
> Exact opposite experience in Seattle for me three years ago when I dumped
> Comcast Digital Cable and went for Direct TV. Never a problem with my Sat
> Dish, LNB's, or any of my SD or HD receivers. SD picture from Direct TV
> was markedly better than the heavily compressed SD signal from Comcast.
> Maybe things have changed in three years but since I get 9 local stations
> HD/DTV OTA and a great piture from Direct TV I'm not changing anytime
> soon.
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

As a long time and generally satisfied DirecTV subscriber, I still have the
feeling that if you are fortunate enough to live in an area that has a
top-notch cable/fiber-optic system you will be better off. You can't get
around the vagaries of weather and vulnerabilities of outside antennas.

Ain't competition great?

--
"JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5X1oe.2003$R21.1730@lakeread06...
> Sorry 'bout empty post.
>
> I've had Directv (w/HD) for 4 years and finally decided to switch to Cox
> digital cable (w/HD).
> These are my opinions/observations:

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Joel Graffman" <JRGraff@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ewhoe.48921$8S5.27512@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> As a long time and generally satisfied DirecTV subscriber, I still have
> the feeling that if you are fortunate enough to live in an area that has a
> top-notch cable/fiber-optic system you will be better off. You can't get
> around the vagaries of weather and vulnerabilities of outside antennas.


In my nearly 4 years of Direct TV use in the Seattle area I have NEVER
noticed a weather issue with my reception. I've heard you guys talk about
rain fade and the such but it just doesn't seem to happen. With cable I
could depend on a least a couple of decent outages per year....not so with
Direct TV or with my little UHF OTA yagi on the roof.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:QPnoe.9445$%Z2.4393@lakeread08...
> You can make arguments for and against either cable or sat. Most of my
> analog cable channels look better than the over-compressed stuff on
> satellite. The quality varies more, however, with cable. Overall, we get
> more down time here with rain affecting sat reception than cable outages.
> As for broadband internet, there is no contest between cable and DSL from
> the phone lines in our area. Cable is clearly superior.


No question in my neck of the woods in Seattle when I had cable television a
few years ago that the analog cable channels looks markedly superior to the
digital cable channels which were so compressed that the bugs, titles and
credit rolls were downright blurry and unreadable. I believe they were
compressing at about 12:1 at the time which might have been ok on a 20"
television but really broke down quickly on a large screen set.

 

[JAS]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Well, maybe New England is different. During hard rain, even the local Mobil
station satellite link goes down and you can't pay at the pump!


"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:3-2dnQkoKawIeDzfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Joel Graffman" <JRGraff@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ewhoe.48921$8S5.27512@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> As a long time and generally satisfied DirecTV subscriber, I still have
>> the feeling that if you are fortunate enough to live in an area that has
>> a top-notch cable/fiber-optic system you will be better off. You can't
>> get around the vagaries of weather and vulnerabilities of outside
>> antennas.
>
>
> In my nearly 4 years of Direct TV use in the Seattle area I have NEVER
> noticed a weather issue with my reception. I've heard you guys talk about
> rain fade and the such but it just doesn't seem to happen. With cable I
> could depend on a least a couple of decent outages per year....not so with
> Direct TV or with my little UHF OTA yagi on the roof.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:3-2dnQkoKawIeDzfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Joel Graffman" <JRGraff@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ewhoe.48921$8S5.27512@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > As a long time and generally satisfied DirecTV subscriber, I still have
> > the feeling that if you are fortunate enough to live in an area that has
a
> > top-notch cable/fiber-optic system you will be better off. You can't
get
> > around the vagaries of weather and vulnerabilities of outside antennas.
>
>
> In my nearly 4 years of Direct TV use in the Seattle area I have NEVER
> noticed a weather issue with my reception. I've heard you guys talk about
> rain fade and the such but it just doesn't seem to happen. With cable I
> could depend on a least a couple of decent outages per year....not so with
> Direct TV or with my little UHF OTA yagi on the roof.

We lose signal with rain all the time in Florida.

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
newsonoe.9440$%Z2.4722@lakeread08...
>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:3-2dnQkoKawIeDzfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Joel Graffman" <JRGraff@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:ewhoe.48921$8S5.27512@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> > As a long time and generally satisfied DirecTV subscriber, I still have
>> > the feeling that if you are fortunate enough to live in an area that
>> > has
> a
>> > top-notch cable/fiber-optic system you will be better off. You can't
> get
>> > around the vagaries of weather and vulnerabilities of outside antennas.
>>
>>
>> In my nearly 4 years of Direct TV use in the Seattle area I have NEVER
>> noticed a weather issue with my reception. I've heard you guys talk about
>> rain fade and the such but it just doesn't seem to happen. With cable I
>> could depend on a least a couple of decent outages per year....not so
>> with
>> Direct TV or with my little UHF OTA yagi on the roof.
>
> We lose signal with rain all the time in Florida.
>
> Leonard

Contrary to popular belief it doesn't rain that much here in Seattle...it
just drizzles.


>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
news:L4qoe.4325$R21.212@lakeread06...
> Ok, now I'm taking the gloves off!
> When I had Satellite, all I wished for was that HD programs could sync
> video and sound once-in-a while (ok, a tiny exageration).
> But seriously, I should have realized that this is really "Religion War".
> You know ... IBM vs Apple, etc.
> A man who owned a cheap automobile (name withheld) had to replace the
> transmission and engine after only a few thousand miles said " a couple of
> problems, but it's a great car"

You know the audio sync issues probably have NOTHING to do with the
satellite and everything to do with your particular set up at your house.
Format conversion from 1080i to 720P or from 480P to 1080i or 720P - 1080i,
etc all eat up processor time and delay the video in comparison to the audio
as the audio does not pass through the same processing. So it depends on
your STB and your television at least as much as something at the head end
of your signal.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5X1oe.2003$R21.1730@lakeread06...
> Sorry 'bout empty post.
>
> I've had Directv (w/HD) for 4 years and finally decided to switch to Cox
> digital cable (w/HD).
> These are my opinions/observations:
>
> 1. HD program quality is very good for both.
> 2. I get local HD channels (included) via cable, can't via Satellite.
> 3. The Cox STB lets me set sidebars to black for std programs and they
> look bigger and better as well.
> 4. Heavy rain in last couple of days would have blanked my Satellite
> signal. No problem for Cable.
> 4. Cost is about the same for me.
>
> I've had two failures (over 4 years) with Satellite which I had to figure
> out and repair myself:
> (a) The "C" LNB unit failed (lucky I had a spare).

Directv doesn't use C band LNB's.
Big dish (BUD) uses C band LNB.
Big dish gives much better picture quality than small dish (LSD) or cable.


> (b) The HD receiver failed. I had to test it on a friends system.
>
> The Cable remote lets me setup my entire system as I like (e.g. volume
> buttons work the audio receiver no matter which device is currently
> selected etc).
>
> Cable service is included with subscription.
>
> I'm very happy with the change.
>

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 15:53:55 -0400, "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com>
wrote:

>You can make arguments for and against either cable or sat. Most of my
>analog cable channels look better than the over-compressed stuff on
>satellite. The quality varies more, however, with cable. Overall, we get
>more down time here with rain affecting sat reception than cable outages.
>As for broadband internet, there is no contest between cable and DSL from
>the phone lines in our area. Cable is clearly superior.
>
>Leonard
I agree with you. I live in Massachusetts and comcast cable is great
here. I have high speed Cable access and my brother has DSL. We get
on the phone from time to time and compare speed an mine is 3-4 times
his. That's not important to everyone but it is a factor to me. My
cable has great quality with hardly ever any artifacts. I had only one
cable outage for about 3 hours in the last 3 years. I am very happy
with it. There is no reason why I would switch to satellite unless I
was in an area not served by a good cable system.
Thumper

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 13:27:00 -0700, "Charles Tomaras"
<tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:

>
>"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
>news:QPnoe.9445$%Z2.4393@lakeread08...
>> You can make arguments for and against either cable or sat. Most of my
>> analog cable channels look better than the over-compressed stuff on
>> satellite. The quality varies more, however, with cable. Overall, we get
>> more down time here with rain affecting sat reception than cable outages.
>> As for broadband internet, there is no contest between cable and DSL from
>> the phone lines in our area. Cable is clearly superior.
>
>
>No question in my neck of the woods in Seattle when I had cable television a
>few years ago that the analog cable channels looks markedly superior to the
>digital cable channels which were so compressed that the bugs, titles and
>credit rolls were downright blurry and unreadable. I believe they were
>compressing at about 12:1 at the time which might have been ok on a 20"
>television but really broke down quickly on a large screen set.
>
My cable is Analog-poor to good, SdD-better, HD-best.

Keep in mind that my analog looks just fine on every tv but my 65"
Thumper

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stop Humpin' My Leg Dawg!! responded in reply to a posting:
----"Directv doesn't use C band LNB's.
Big dish (BUD) uses C band LNB.
Big dish gives much better picture quality
than small dish (LSD) or cable."----


Reply:
I think the poster was referring to the LNB's on a small dish
system,which are referred to as "A","B" and "C" on a MULTI-satellite
unit.Each of the LNB's on a small dish processes signals on a different
satellite except for the "C" LNB which somehow processes the HD
signals.It is sometimes an add-on kit to a small dish system.I am not
entirely certain what else the "C" unit does though.
In any event,a "C" LNB on a small triple LNB dish multiple satellite
system IN NO WAY refers to C-Band in any way.

 

[JAS]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I have only seen audio delayed, never the video.

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:LNydnRdW9YJA2D_fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>
> "JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:L4qoe.4325$R21.212@lakeread06...
>> Ok, now I'm taking the gloves off!
>> When I had Satellite, all I wished for was that HD programs could sync
>> video and sound once-in-a while (ok, a tiny exageration).
>> But seriously, I should have realized that this is really "Religion War".
>> You know ... IBM vs Apple, etc.
>> A man who owned a cheap automobile (name withheld) had to replace the
>> transmission and engine after only a few thousand miles said " a couple
>> of problems, but it's a great car"
>
> You know the audio sync issues probably have NOTHING to do with the
> satellite and everything to do with your particular set up at your house.
> Format conversion from 1080i to 720P or from 480P to 1080i or 720P -
> 1080i, etc all eat up processor time and delay the video in comparison to
> the audio as the audio does not pass through the same processing. So it
> depends on your STB and your television at least as much as something at
> the head end of your signal.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
news:j3soe.4346$R21.3621@lakeread06...
>I have only seen audio delayed, never the video.


How sure are you that the audio was delayed and not the video?. When sync is
off by 50 or 60 milliseconds, most people can only tell that it's out of
sync but they can't reliably tell you which way. I'd lay big time odds that
the video was/is late in your situation. As a professional sound mixer for
film and video I deal with sync issues on a regular basis and when things
are only out by a four or five frames it's very difficult to discern which
direction they are going. You will also notice that all of the home theater
receivers that offer sync compensation only deal with DDL on the audio. My
Denon 5803 will allow up to 200ms of audio delay to compensate for late
video.


> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:LNydnRdW9YJA2D_fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:L4qoe.4325$R21.212@lakeread06...
>>> Ok, now I'm taking the gloves off!
>>> When I had Satellite, all I wished for was that HD programs could sync
>>> video and sound once-in-a while (ok, a tiny exageration).
>>> But seriously, I should have realized that this is really "Religion
>>> War".
>>> You know ... IBM vs Apple, etc.
>>> A man who owned a cheap automobile (name withheld) had to replace the
>>> transmission and engine after only a few thousand miles said " a couple
>>> of problems, but it's a great car"
>>
>> You know the audio sync issues probably have NOTHING to do with the
>> satellite and everything to do with your particular set up at your house.
>> Format conversion from 1080i to 720P or from 480P to 1080i or 720P -
>> 1080i, etc all eat up processor time and delay the video in comparison to
>> the audio as the audio does not pass through the same processing. So it
>> depends on your STB and your television at least as much as something at
>> the head end of your signal.
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:22:48 -0700, SAC441@webtv.net (SAC 441) wrote:

>Stop Humpin' My Leg Dawg!! responded in reply to a posting:
>----"Directv doesn't use C band LNB's.
> Big dish (BUD) uses C band LNB.
> Big dish gives much better picture quality
> than small dish (LSD) or cable."----
>
>
>Reply:
>I think the poster was referring to the LNB's on a small dish
>system,which are referred to as "A","B" and "C" on a MULTI-satellite
>unit.Each of the LNB's on a small dish processes signals on a different
>satellite except for the "C" LNB which somehow processes the HD
>signals.It is sometimes an add-on kit to a small dish system.I am not
>entirely certain what else the "C" unit does though.
> In any event,a "C" LNB on a small triple LNB dish multiple satellite
>system IN NO WAY refers to C-Band in any way.

Correct. The DirecTV "C" LNB is used for a satellite at 110 Deg W.
Long orbit position. The "A" LNB is for 101 Deg W. Long, while the
"B" is for 119 Deg W. The "C" LNB is unrelated to BUD C band.

Big Ugly Dishes take up too much space.