Topic '3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse' in forum 'Comcast Cable TV' - dslreports.com

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:14:53 EDT

cypherstream posted : Ok I haven't really had a good comparison between a 2:1 and 3:1 on our new HD channels in Central PA, because when they were added, they started out in 3:1 muxes.

This weekend I stayed at a friends house who has a smaller MSO called Service Electric Cablevision. He has a Motorola DCT-6416 P3 connected to a Phillips 50" Plasma TV via HDMI.

I watched some of the Discovery Channel feed there, and thankfully it was an HD program. I paid close attention to the channel logo, text, and other fine elements where you would normally see compression artifacts or "mosquito noise" around sharp contrasting pixels. I don't know if it was the placebo effect, or just the fact that his TV is 50" when mine is a 42", but Discovery HD looked a little smother motion (absolutely no stuttering) and slightly crisper. But since his TV is bigger, perhaps I was just seeing more of the pixels. (50" 1366x768 vs 42" 1024x768 at roughly the same viewing distance) Also it's not really a fair comparison since they are both different make and model TV's along with different preferences in video settings.

SECV doesn't have USA HD or SciFi HD, so I'm not sure what their HD mux is. I did notice that Discovery HD was in the 300 MHz range with a 37 dB SNR and 0 errors. (They have a gap between analog ch 31 and 41 - Basic and Standard service)

I've checked HGTV HD, FOOD HD, and even got a glimpse of some HD's I don't have with Comcast, Animal Planet HD, Science Channel HD, Wealth TV HD, Outdoor Channel HD. All of them were very crisp, smooth motion and excellent quality.

It would be interesting to use the same setup on a Comcast system for a better comparison. But in the end of it all, the 3:1 on my Comcast system is required since they don't want to upgrade to 1GHz. The 3:1 gets the job done and looks miles ahead of the 12:1 SD garbage, so I'll take it for now. Later on when SDV or full bandwidth expansion is considered, I would hope they do whatever is best for the quality of these channels.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:01:13 EDT

osxboi posted :

said by FifthE1ement:

USAHD in my area (South Florida) is unwatchable as the stutter and audio drops make it impossible to view. Comcast blows!

I've been having problems on most of the new HD channels, and it began on day 1 of the launch. It got so bad last week that I finally called CC. The CSR said "There is no network problem. You should come to my house. All HD channels are perfect, beautiful!" LOL

A tech came out, ran a few tests, replaced the coax (something about needing 5 layers of shielding -- LOL) from wall to DVR (DCT6400), removed an amp where the cable enters the house that was here when I bought the place, fiddled with something at the box outside, then rebooted the DVR. He noticed that the channel info was downloading very slowly. I told him it usually takes several hours before it completely updates. He said that wasn't normal, so he installed a new DVR (DCH3416). When he left there was no pixelating or sound drop-outs. But, after a few hours hours it started again, but not as bad as it had been.

Yesterday I was watching NGHD and it was pixelating every few seconds. Maddening. I switched to CNN and it was pixelating with audio drops at the same rate. So now, even non HD channels are having problems. I called CC again and the CSR tested the signal on CNN to my DVR. She said the signal was low and suggested I have a new DVR installed. So tomorrow I'll have more quality time with a CC tech giving me yet another reason for the problem. If I have to call one more time I'm gonna ask for an adjustment in my bill.

Another thing is that I've made sure that the coax isn't anywhere near power cables from the wall to the DVR, but this doesn't seem to make a difference. The problem is so erratic and fluctuates in severity from simply annoying to totally unwatchable that it's gotta be something on the network. My setup here is so simple that I'm convinced it has nothing to do with my wiring or connection to the network. BTW, no problems at all with my internet connection. Great speeds and no drop-outs.
--
west Plantation, FL / System Specs: Mac G5 DP-2.0, Surfboard 5100, Netgear WGT624

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:35:25 EDT

JeepMatt posted : I have to admit I think this thread is being followed by Comcast - and they are working on fixing things.

PQ looked dramatically better last night on FOOD HD, etc. No stuttering, slow-motion, or grainy-ness.

Whoever is making the changes - keep it up!
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!"

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:17:29 EDT

bicker posted : Okay so as long as an MSO carries all the must-carry local channels, transmitted in analog format (and after Feb 2009, in digital format), they have no other obligations vis a vis providing boxes to receive any other channels.

This stuff you quoted also makes clear that the vast majority of local channels don't have to be carried in analog (after Feb 2009). The order says specifically that it applies to must-carry signals. For many of us, that does NOT include ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:14:48 EDT

markofmayhem posted : Comcast "all digital" is digital above the "Lifeline" package (or Basic/Standard Basic in most areas). Chicago still has analog channels, I beleive 29? This "all digital" lineup as defined by Comcast is to be across 20% of all markets by end of 2008. The "all digital" the FCC refers to is just that... ALL DIGITAL. There is a quote at the end rejected Comcast's "All Digital" complaint of the need for dual carriage in analog and digital.

»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···70A1.doc

quote:
15. In this section, we adopt rules requiring cable systems that are not “all-digital” to provide must-carry signals in analog, while “all-digital” systems may provide them in digital form only. We also require that the cost of any downconversion be borne by operators, but that downconverted signals may count toward the cap on commercial broadcast carriage. Pursuant to Sections 614 and 615 of the Act, cable operators must ensure that all cable subscribers have the ability to view all local broadcast stations carried pursuant to mandatory carriage. Specifically, Section 614(b)(7) (for commercial stations) states that broadcast signals that are subject to mandatory carriage must be “viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber which are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which a cable operator provides a connection.” Similarly, Section 615(h) for noncommercial stations states that “[s]ignals carried in fulfillment of the carriage obligations of a cable operator under this section shall be available to every subscriber as part of the cable system’s lowest priced tier that includes the retransmission of local commercial television broadcast signals.” These statutory requirements plainly apply to cable carriage of digital broadcast signals, and, as a consequence, cable operators must ensure that all cable subscribers â€“ including those with analog television sets â€“ continue to be able to view all commercial and non-commercial must-carry broadcast stations after February 17, 2009.

quote:
17. In the Second Further Notice, we sought comment on proposals that would ensure the viewability, for all subscribers, of signals carried pursuant to mandatory carriage. To that end, we proposed that
cable operators must either: (1) carry the signals of commercial and non-commercial must-carry stations in analog format to all analog cable subscribers, or (2) for all-digital systems, carry those signals only in digital format, provided that all subscribers with analog television sets have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content.

We also proposed that the cost of any down conversion rendered necessary by these rules be borne by the cable operators.

quote:
20. As NCTA notes, the congressionally mandated end of the Digital Television transition does not apply directly to cable operators. We thus recognize that there may be two different kinds of cable systems for some period of time after the DTV transition is complete. Some operators may choose to deliver programming in both digital and analog format. NAB and MSTV describe these systems as those in which they “keep an analog tier and continue to provide local television signals (and perhaps many cable channels as well) to analog receivers in a format that does not require additional equipment.” Other operators may choose, as many already have, to operate or transition to “all-digital systems,” and as NAB and MSTV further note, “virtually all cable operators ultimately will do so.”

quote:
23. As we explained in the Second Further Notice, the operators of either all-digital or mixed digital-analog systems will be responsible under the statute for ensuring that mandatory carriage stations are actually viewable by all subscribers, “including those with analog television sets.”

quote:
27. Some commenters have incorrectly characterized our rule as “dual carriage.” Comcast attempts to frame this requirement as “a requirement to carry broadcast signals in [analog]â€¦ in perpetuity.” Not only is this not the Commission’s rule, Comcast’s proposal for avoiding “dual carriage” would read “viewability” itself out of the Act. Dual carriage, as considered and rejected by the Commission, would have required cable operators “to carry both the digital and analog signals of a station during the transition when television stations are still broadcasting analog signals”; that is, the mandatory simultaneous carriage of two different channels broadcast by the same station. The Commission ultimately rejected this concept. The rule we establish in this Third Report and Order is quite distinct. It requires carriage only of a single broadcast signal, and gives operators the freedom to choose how to ensure that signal is viewable by all subscribers. It does not require carriage of more than one broadcast signal from a given must-carry broadcaster, and it does not require carriage of an analog version of a signal unless an operator chooses not to operate an all-digital system.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:40:55 EDT

bicker posted :

said by markofmayhem:

Fios does not employ a fiber backbone all the way to the home and in a stroke of genius, limited itself to the same capacity problems as cable. Fios runs a shared fiber line to 64 homes (addresses; MORE in MDU's).

Thanks for the clarification, Mark.

said by markofmayhem:

The FCC is BEGGING cable companies to go all-digital as stated within the Third Report and Release that I have posted a link to multiple times. It would really put an end to today's capacity crunch. A method to downconvert to analog MUST be provided and the cost MUST be bourne by the operator;

That is a widely-held misunderstanding: The regulations say absolutely nothing indicating that.

In Chicago, Comcast has gone all-digital and provides only one box for free, and only for one year.

duplicate message - please delete

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:38:18 EDT

bicker posted :

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:27:57 EDT

FifthE1ement posted : USAHD in my area (South Florida) is unwatchable as the stutter and audio drops make it impossible to view. I recorded PSYCH and Monk every week for the past size weeks and both shows experienced audio drops and stutter throughout every recoding! You can't watch USAHN in my area for 15 mins without getting the issue and it is unbearable to watch with it. I find myself watching the normal USA channel as the picture quality it simply not worth missing words and frames. Comcast blows!

FifthE1ement :mad:
--
»www.xphilez.com

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:58:12 EDT

cypherstream posted : AGC should be listed under Current Channel Status (d07?) IIRC.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:58:15 EDT

Chad473 posted : thanks. I'll look over my wiring to see whether I have rg59 or rg6. What is the range I should be looking for in regards to AGC? I don't rememeber seeing that in the inbound status part of the diagnostics (d04 I think? the one that lists both tuners). Under d03 the OOB status, I think it was 11%.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:41:45 EDT

markofmayhem posted : There isn't much you can do with the STB, but you can "better" things. I have a stretch of RG59 that comes off of a splitter and is then "extended" with a one port female-female to more RG59 that runs through the attic (perfect place for an aerial: AKA, NOISE INSERTION). I'm going to rerun RG6 with waterproof compression fittings. I'm also going to eliminate one splitter by just rerouting a few lines. I'm going to ensure that all of my splitters are AT LEAST 5-1000mhz (if I have to buy another one, I'll go with 5-2000 or 5-2400mhz) with DC upstream pass through and that they are ALL grounded properly. Last, I'm going to remove the coax from my surge protector and just run it straight. What I'm specifically looking for is to either hold steady or raise my SNR while SIGNIFICANTLY lowering my AGC. SNR doesn't go up or down when using quality splitters, for the splitter should lower BOTH the signal AND the noise by x.x db; thus the SNR should remain the same. My AGC is hovering around 55% on the USAHD/Disc/Sci trio frequency (betwen 20-45% on local channels and as high as 65% on HGTV which is all by itself, and yes, I've seen a little stutter on this lately). It makes me wonder if my carrier level is a bit low since the tuner is really ramping up gain to lock in on this frequency. RG6 throughout, split as close to tap as possible and eliminate down-line splits, water-tight compression fittings all around since some will be in the attic and crawl space (humidity), no loss or noise insertion equipment in-between (surge protectors, female-female extenders, etc.); is what I'm going to work on. If I don't see a difference in stutter AND see a drop in AGC, then I can't do anything more. If I DON'T see a drop in AGC, I may begin looking at purchasing an amp. PLUS, by using 5-2400mhz splits and rerun all lines to one central splitter; I've just wired myself for satellite if I so choose to go that route... "Always be prepared"???

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:07:03 EDT

Chad473 posted : curiously, I flipped on RAW last night because I've read so much about that program having problems. I saw stuttering in the couple of minutes that i watched. It was slight and might not be noticeable on a drama or something with low motion, but it was definitely there.

same as mark, I need to check the wiring around the house. mark, what kind of things should I specifically be looking for? Basically, all I've done so far is check for loose connections and the diagnostics on the box..which apparently don't report a problem.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:05:49 EDT

markofmayhem posted : I gotta check my wiring and ensure it's not me. With the pipe (QAM channel) being full and possibly reduced FEC data, a less than ideal setup will exploit errors beyond reasonable acceptance. I know I have ingress in a few frequencies, maybe I have more than I thought...

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:01:48 EDT

pennstatejim posted : I had RAW on USA last night from 8-9:30ish and did not see it stutter one time. And I still have not seen it stutter on any of the other 3 to 1 channels...

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:52:55 EDT

Chad473 posted : I definitely plan to call about the stuttering issues. They're unacceptable.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:38:33 EDT

cypherstream posted :

said by JeepMatt:

There was a story on TVPredictions that as of 3/31 both Food and HGTV HD will be full simulcasts of the SD station. (I'm actually happy about that).

Good news!

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:30:48 EDT

JeepMatt posted :

said by cypherstream:

(Except for Food and HGTV since their programming differs).

Cypher-
There was a story on TVPredictions that as of 3/31 both Food and HGTV HD will be full simulcasts of the SD station. (I'm actually happy about that).
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!"

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:29:27 EDT

markofmayhem posted : There's other things at play. If you read through the ICE Broadcast "solution", it was not intended to be statmuxed and modulated into 8PSK, bounced off of a satellite, received and then modulated into 256QAM. Unless, CMC is actually modulating 256QAM for satellite transmission ("there's your problem" moment). The "end to end QoS" that ICE encorporates into it's solution is being implemented as "end to middle" by Comcast. The ICE solution was to be placed directly at the fiber feeder of an HFC system. Returning the 3:1 to 2:1 is not the ONLY solution. Either way, word should get back to them that this current implementation is not "optimal" or "acceptable", depending on your opinion. The breakdown may not be at CMC, but at how the head-ends are implementing these feeds.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:18:10 EDT

cypherstream posted : Great, what we need is a bunch of people calling in to complain about the 3:1 and then a few months go by and we get a horrible announcement.
"Effective on xx/xx the following HD channels will no longer be available: "

"New HD additions will be put on hold until sometime in 2009/2010".

Sorry but I'd rather have channels at 3:1 than 12:1 or more. It still looks far better. In fact, I locked out the SD versions of the HD channels we recently got. (Except for Food and HGTV since their programming differs).

3:1 is just better bandwidth management right now. Bandwidth is precious. Who wants to pay A&E the extra monthly cost to lease more transponder bandwidth?

So say Comcast unloads them into 2:1 service groups. They are still receiving a good number of them in 3:1 from CMC. What good is that going to do? That's like using Monster Cables on a VHS VCR. Just no point.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:47:23 EDT

markofmayhem posted : Fios does not employ a fiber backbone all the way to the home and in a stroke of genius, limited itself to the same capacity problems as cable. Fios runs a shared fiber line to 64 homes (addresses; MORE in MDU's). Switched Digital Video in the form of switched broadcast sends only the channels that this area is capable of receiving to each home. The ONT at the home then modulates into QAM across 870mhz all of the video services. The advantage to Fios, however, is that they could easily go to "switched unicast" like AT&T's U-Verse without a huge cost, thus allowing LIMITLESS channel options. Literally, LIMITLESS. 64 homes sharing 125-130 QAM channels all to themselves that only displays channels on request? Damn!!!

Anyway, Fios is eliminating ALL analog from it's system. So all 870mhz is digital. That's a TON of HD potential. And with talks of going MPEG4 by end of 2009, they are in a position to stay above DirecTV technically, but may not be able to because of carriage cost and agreements.

The FCC is BEGGING cable companies to go all-digital as stated within the Third Report and Release that I have posted a link to multiple times. It would really put an end to today's capacity crunch. A method to downconvert to analog MUST be provided and the cost MUST be bourne by the operator; enter $35 dongle (one per billing address; bingo, compliant all-digital network). We don't need STB's to accomplish this (Time Warner's complaint), we don't need dual transmission in digital and analog (Comcast's complaint), we don't need costly downconversion equipment (Cox's complaint)... why won't the MSO's help themselves on this?

Anyway, if you don't like the quality, posting here accomplishes nothing except entertainment for those of us who visit. Ya gotta call it in for results!

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:06:43 EDT

bicker posted :

said by no3to1 :

fios has less hd channels but at least they are not doing rate shaping and stripping bandwith out of hd channels.

And yet folks are going to choose the HD Lite, whether it is from DirecTV or Comcast, because it is "more HD".

Don't worry, though. With a fiber backbone, all the way to the home, FiOS will add HD channels quickly.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:04:10 EDT

bicker posted :

said by Chad473:

the only problem with that is that cable co's will see people accepting this level of quality, so why would they go back to 2:1.

Indeed. Customer acceptance is a clear indicator that this is what the MSOs should be doing.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:44:33 EDT

cypherstream posted : Well I did get to see it on Service Electric Cable, but that was on different TV's. A true comparison would be using the same TV and connection method, along with the same picture settings.

Say I would move to an area that has both Comcast and Fios. As of right now I would pick Comcast. They have more of the HD that I want to watch right now. Plus they have a bigger VOD library, including HD-VOD, and their triple play price for $159.95 for everything is a deal to me.

Eventually FIOS will catch up, but as of right now, I have to go with the provider that suits me. Sure theirs DirecTV, and I would consider them, despite loosing VOD, HSI and Phone discounts. Perhaps Fios could bridge the gap in those situations.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:43:59 EDT

pennstatejim posted : Other than a few problems on USA HD, I have had no problems with the new channels or the 3:1 HD. I'm thankful that we have what we have. But, I guess we should have expected that after all the griping and moaning about not enough HD linear channels, here we get them, and now the complaints are about the channel quality. I guess everyone just needs something new to gripe about.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:33:38 EDT

JeepMatt posted : Garbage out is right.

Cypher - unfortunately, you never got to see Food HD before it was a 3 to 1 channel. You'd be shocked.

The whole stuttering / slow-motion effect is the worst. I just turned off Comcast and watched DirecTV for the rest of the day yesterday.

But, what a day it was! Yesterday was my 1st official TV veg day in quite some time.

Sixers big win, followed by a Soul win, PSU knocked off Indiana in OT, then I watched the Big 10 wrestling championships (on BTN), then some Fast & Furious on USA HD, followed by a Hell's Kitchen marathon on Fox Reality (okay, i'll expect flack on this one).
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!"

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:32:05 EDT

anon posted : fios has less hd channels but at least they are not doing rate shaping and stripping bandwith out of hd channels.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:27 EDT

cypherstream posted : Well I did watch a lot of TLC HD yesterday and on my system it's a conventional HD, with only TBS HD on the same frequency.

TLC HD has very vivid colors and sharpness when watching LA Ink, Jon & Kate + 8, and shows like Rides or American Chopper. During fast motion, you do loose some resolution in small sized blocks, but you get that with everything.

Now switching to a 3:1 HD...
Food HD and HGTV HD both still look great IMO. I did see one glitch where there were a few small pixels "blipped" on Food HD. I see the same motion artifacts as TLC HD, perhaps a little bit more, but there's not usually really fast paced motion on these two channels to tell.

Discovery HD looks pretty good as well. It lacks the "pop" as TLC, but most of the times it seems I'm watching unconverted material. I did catch some Dirty Jobs and Mythbusters in HD and it did look really good. I had one or two occurrences of stuttered video during Dirty Jobs, and even one occurrence on "It Takes A Thief", during a bright flash transition screen.

USA HD looks pretty dark. I'd say this is the worst, but I don't watch SciFi enough to compare. It still looks HD, and is far better than USA SD, but it doesn't give me that pop that Mojo or TLC does in terms of color definition.

A&E HD looks pretty good. I watched some Gene Simmons HD and that Parking Authority show in HD. Looks great, minimal artifacting, good resolution and color fidelity.

My take on 3:1?
Our system is so bandwidth starved, and yet theres many of us clamoring for more HD. Theres a big push from DirecTV to move there for HD, so Comcast has to come up with something to please us early adopters while maintaining a balance with analogs for the general population. SDV will be a great solution, but it's expensive and time consuming to deploy. It will be deployed, no dobut, but to get it done in a timely manner 3:1 QAM can tidy us over. What would be the point in putting just Discovery HD and TLC HD on one 2:1 QAM when Discovery HD is already 3:1 loaded on the sattelite? The main delivery method (currently Hits Quantum AMC 18) is triple loading transponders, so there would be no benefit to 'unbind' one HD from each transponder and re-mux it into it's own QAM. Could they have picked a better channel combination for the Discovery/USA/SciFi mux? Probably, because the Food, HGTV, A&E trio looks slightly better.

But in the end of things, I'm ok with the 3:1, because it's good bandwidth management. How else do you think we are going to get the HD channels we want? Going out and doing a 1 GHz, or deploying a CablePON system would cost tons of money and most of all, TIME.

Removing analogs is an option but then you risk high customer churn as analog only customers start considering their options with other providers. "If you need a box now with Comcast, what's the difference with DirecTV? Let's give them a call." Sure we can remove analogs, but it's going to be a slow process, where one here and there goes every 60 days or so. It's not like overnight were going to loose 45-50 analog channels.

3:1 works good enough now, so we might as well accept that. When the time comes and SDV is deployed, or brute force bandwidth expantion is explored, or even perhaps MPEG4 set tops become the norm... 3:1 is what's needed as bandwidth is so costly.

Your going to find more and more HD networks launch on 3:1 muxes on their distributing satellites. Transponder bandwidth is VERY expensive. Again if the source is muxing at 3:1, the cable operator might as well pass that feed down. Garbage in is garbage out right?
»www.lyngsat.com/packages/hitsamc18.html

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:36:42 EDT

KenAF posted : SciFi-HD and USA-HD are both 17Mbps ABR with 18.2Mbps peaks. But on Comcast, they are now squeezed into a single QAM with another 12.5Mbps HD channel.

================Average bit rate================ USA     17.0SCIFI   17.0DSCHD   12.5------------        46.5 Mbps

================Peaks================ USA     18.2SCIFI   18.2DSCHD   15.0------------        51.4 Mbps

Squeezed into 38.8Mbps, something has to go...

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:23:28 EDT

JeepMatt posted : Mark-
My concerns have been relayed as well.
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!"

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:20:25 EDT

reelbigfish posted : Honestly, the only channel I am having issues with is USA HD. All the others look great and I haven't noticed any stuttering or blocking. I am going to call to complain about USA HD however.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:29:52 EDT

markofmayhem posted : I agree. The picture quality is still amazing, but the high-action blocking and frequent stuttering seems to be more often. Perhaps I'm just in-tune to it.

Out of curiosity, who besides me has actually called Comcast and complained about the stuttering/blocking on their 3:1 QAM HD channels? The 3:1 QAM HD is in direct response to both the CEO and COO publicly stating that "50% less bandwidth for HD" would be nationwide by the end of 2007, if your having trouble explaining it to a CSR.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:17:15 EDT

Chad473 posted : the stuttering is my main beef too. Other than that, when they show something from a nice source, it doesn't look any worse to me than before 3:1 started.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:00:35 EDT

markofmayhem posted : No sarcasm. The stuttered pictures are really getting annoying. I've been putting it off, but I better start checking my wiring before I really start complaining, I suppose.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:33:21 EDT

Chad473 posted : the only problem with that is that cable co's will see people accepting this level of quality, so why would they go back to 2:1. I guess we can hold out hope that they will get better with the 3:1 thing in the next few months. Hopefully in a few years mpeg4 will help, but they will always be trying to maximize channels and profit with quality not getting top priority.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:09:43 EDT

bicker posted : I'm much happier WITH Sci Fi HD than without it. 3:1 HD is just fine, and better that SD. I recognize that everything isn't just about what I want, and there are a lot of people who still need analog service, so this is a very nice compromise. I get my HD channels and they keep their analog service. Everyone gets some of what they want. That's what is fair.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:04:01 EDT

NoPegs posted : Ehhh, bear in mind that your normal 17-19mbps mpeg-2 stream has about 7-8mbps of FEC data in it... you "could" remove that and not lose any pic quality, assuming you're decoding 100% of all packets correctly... It is just like eight-to-foutreen-modulation used on CDs... There's waaay more than 650MB of data on there, there's about 600MB of FEC data that helps the discs work once they're scratched or of the laser is out of alignment just a bit... they're not adding *THAT MUCH* compression to the stream, they're just removing the redundant FEC data...

See:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-to-F···dulation

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:58:59 EDT

anon posted : 3:1 HD QAM is fake HD. I dont consider that HD

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:42:57 EDT

TurboDan posted : I guess now we know why Comcast never ran commercial attacking DirecTV's picture quality in the past.

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:43:40 EDT

JeepMatt posted : Mark-
I know you know your stuff...so not sure if you're being sarcastic. :p

I love new technology, but Food HD (ever since I saw it first when it came out on Dish Network), has been one of the most beautiful HD channels available.

DirecTV's version of it actually looks BETTER than Comcast's now. I could never say that before.
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!"

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Like Crap

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:23:46 EDT

markofmayhem posted : I have no "grainy" channels, that's interesting. The stutters and slow downs are a killer, though. Really, really annoying! 45 days of patience to "work out the kinks for new technology" is enough, isn't it?

Re: 3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Like Crap

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:59:25 EDT

anon posted : Everything in life, including HD image quality, is a relative thing. And it's a bitter thing to be moving in the wrong direction, especially when one is paying a premium for service.

Here's hoping that they can restore your Food & HGTV channels to your satisfaction on a local basis.

Those two channels are among our most outstanding HD benchmarks here in the Mid-South Comcast area. So I feel your pain.

3 to 1 HD - Channels Look Worse

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:46:05 EDT

JeepMatt posted : Now that i've finally had time to watch some of Food HD, etc. since Comcast this week moved them 3 to a QAM here in the DE area, I'm thoroughly disappointed.

Comcast has taken two of the best, full quality HD channels (Food and HGTV) and ruined them. Tell me how you fit two 17-18 meg channels along with a 3rd HD channel when there's only 39 meg to go around??? Oh that's right, you don't.

Food HD now looks grainier, doesn't have that pop - and I constantly am seeing the picture slow down, stutter, etc. on both Tivo and the HD-DVR.

Thank you Comcast for taking the shorter road to give us more HD.