Topic: OT... Digital v Analog Cable TV Quality (Read 4303 times)

DocLotus · « **on:** January 15, 2003, 01:35:58 pm »

I have my TV on my flat screen Sony computer monitor by way of an ATI All-In-Wonder video card with TV tuner (which works really great - no scan lines).

I was using analog cable TV (Basic service). Heard all the hype about Digital Cable TV so I spent the additional $15 bucks & upgraded to it. It gave me 35 more so-called digital channels plus 46 digital CD quality, commercial free music channels.

What I want to know is... has anyone else done this & what experience you have had with digital cable.

My observations so far are...

1: The digital channels are no sharper, brighter, or cleaner then the analog channels.

2: The music channels are at a reduced volume for whatever reason I fail to understand.

3: The GemStar Guide Plus channel selector for the ATI A-I-W card no longer works as all the TV channels are now coming out of the digital control box and are going through channel 3 of the ATI A-I-W & all the other channels in the A-I-W are dead or blanked out.

4: The ATI remote control no longer works for the same reason as number 3 above. You now have to use the remote that comes with the digital control box (but - it is a very nice remote).

I can understand numbers 3 & 4 as the cable company has to provide a digital converter box.

Item #1 is what I fail to understand. I thought that digital cable channels would be much clearer, sharper, brighter then analog. Just look at the difference between VHS & DVD.

Also has anyone gone from digital cable to Direct TV or Dish Network?

Is the satellite TV any sharper then digital cable TV?

Do clouds or rain effect the quality?

zevele10 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2003, 02:31:22 pm »

Far from you - in Israel

cable analogue vs digital
The same allmost -digital is a marketing word-

Satellite= much better picture

rain wind storm
more problems with cable than satelilte

as i say ,not a mistake.

go to www.dsl.reports.com.
Was a very very long forum on cable -sat-tivo-direct tv

sstrick · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2003, 02:47:04 pm »

Right now digital cable is more about more channels than better quality. Digital cable is highly compressed so the image quality is not as good as a stong analog signal. This is really apparent in scenes with clouds or ones that are very dark. The sound quality seems to be much better on digital cable. Satellite seems to have a much better picture quality, but if it snows heavily you'll be out scraping(sp?). Heavy rain can affect satellite reception. I've never had a problem with weather and digital cable. I like the user interface of direct tv much better than attbi. As far as digital music on cable tv, it has always seemed to me like there was something missing when I listened to it. I never have been able to nail it down but the music just seems hollow, even when you pipe it through a home theater system. Maybe it's just me.

RemyJ · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2003, 03:14:03 pm »

As they say, a system is only as good as its weakest link. In this case, it's using the RF out of the set-top-box and the RF in of the AIW. That is the absolute worst of all mechanisms. You could be right next door to the studio and it would still look crappy. Are you even getting stereo sound? I don't know anything about the AIW or your set top box, but many don't pass stereo sound through the RF link.

First step...

Separate the audio and video. If the box has stereo outputs (red and white RCA jacks), use them to connect to your sound card. If you want the ultimate, most digital boxes have digital audio outputs, both optical and coax. If your sounds card has digital inputs, give that a try.

Second step...

Use the best video transfer method common to the 2 devices. RF is the worst, Composite is better (single yellow RCA jack), S-Video is even better (a single DIN type jack) and Component is the best (3 RCA jacks, 1 red, 1 blue, 1 green). Even though I listed these in order of technical superiority, that doesn't mean that they will look that way to you. Use the one that looks the best.

All other things being equal (they frequently aren't), digital cable and digital satellite should be the same from a quality perspective. From a reliability perspective, my neighbors who are AT&T Digital Cable subscribers have had more outages in the past month than I've had in the last 7 years as a DirecTV customer. Any weather event serious enough to knock out the satellite either knocks out the cable as well (for a much longer term) or has you scrounging sandbags in which case you'll never notice.

DocLotus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2003, 03:37:03 pm »

Hi Guys;

Thanks for the neat replies.

I have always had full stereo out of the ATI A-I-W card. It has dbx Stereo so the sound is pretty good. It also supports S-Video input but am not currently using that. The ATI card is a Radeon 7500 & is totally superb!

I have noticed that the sound with digital cable is much better then with analog cable, especially more bass & there is less noise on all the channels, better signal to noise ratio.

Yes, the digital box does have separate audio outputs & I will give them a try to see if it helps to improve the low volume level of the digital music channels. I will also look at trying S-Video as an input.

I have been told that rain can kill a satellite dish TV signal; it rains a lot here in Houston Texas; any thoughts on that?

Also has anyone gone from digital cable to Direct TV or Dish Network? What differences in quality did you see between digital cable & satellite?

Griff · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2003, 04:16:54 pm »

Hi Doc

Quote

I have been told that rain can kill a satellite dish TV signal; it rains a lot here in Houston Texas; any thoughts on that

The satellites are above you.

I know, I have had direct tv for 5 to 7 years now and the others are in the same possition.

Yes, the storms can kill recp. but not as long as a cable outage.

Depends how long the storm is.

The most I ever had is 10 to 15 min..

Hate cable.

When I move, all I got to do is set up the dish and I got TV.

Dont have to wait on the cable co..

Food for thought.

You have rf (rj6) going into your cable box from the cable co. , right?

So ?

The AIW 7500 is a great card. Dont see much diff. between composite and s-video.

What are you planing, HTS

Hope I help You
Griff

DocLotus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2003, 05:21:10 pm »

Hi Griff;

Don't know what HTS is.

Eventually, I plan on buying a Sony 24 inch wide screen computer monitor as soon as the price fall a little. They are now available in two versions CRT ($1,899) & Plasma ($2,899). I will be able to have two full page documents on the screen in hi-res. It will also be great for games such as Flight Sims which I am really into. The 24 inch should give me superb TV on my computer.

I just want to get the best possible video & audio quality. Have been a little disappointed with digital cable I see no difference between it and analog (as far as quality is concerned). There are more channels & the sound is little better, but that's it.

The cable installer had never seen cable hooked up to a computer screen. He said it was the best picture that he had ever seen on cable. I think he confused the lack of scan lines for image quality. I'm running 1024 x 1280 on a Sony 19 inch flat screen & the ATI card fills in the spaces between each scan line for a very good overall picture.

Although the quality is better then what I have seen on normal TV's, I find a very big gap between digital cable & playing most DVD's which are far sharper, brighter & in general have a better overall image.

I imagined that digital cable would approach DVD quality, so it was a big letdown when it is no better then analog cable.

xen-uno · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2003, 08:05:09 pm »

Why satellite (which I have) would look better than digital cable is beyond me. They both use mpeg/2 compression and probably at similiar comp levels. Both suffer on darker material (flat, stationary, blotchy patterns). DVD at its root is some kind of mpeg compression. The best picture quality will come when the local broadcasters start pumping out HDTV signals. Unfortunately except for the Simpsons, 60 Minutes, the NFL, and some good science shows there won't be anything worthwhile then (as is the case now) worth watching on commercial TV.

Yes, that big Sony rocks! Used to be about $5000...so it's come WAY DOWN.

10^-27

DocLotus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2003, 04:11:28 am »

Most everyone I have talked to seems to think that satellite TV is the best image.

I have heard that in the US all TV stations & all TV manufacturers must be producing & transmitting HDTV by 1995 (I think the date is correct).

Can hardly wait for the day as it has taken entirely too long for HDTV to get here.

rocketsauce · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2003, 04:30:17 am »

An interesting link about HDTV:

http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/020805-tk.html

Quote

Even though Congress mandated that each and every commercial broadcaster was to be transmitting high-definition television signals to the public by May 1, 2002, hundreds of broadcasters filed petitions with the FCC asking for waivers from the rollout requirements earlier this year. The FCC granted most of them, citing "economic hardship" or other technical factors. Consequently, roughly 70% of America's 1,200 commercial TV stations missed the May 1 deadline to be HDTV-ready. This delay is very important because it will almost certainly push back the more important transition date of December 31, 2006, which is the date when all old analog broadcast channels are suppose to go dark and that valuable spectrum is to be returned to the FCC and reallocated to other uses.

Consumers won't care about a digital TV tuner or mandatory cable carriage if there's nothing on for them to see. And regrettably, there's just not much to see in high-def today. Only a small number of Americans have made the transition so far since networks only provide a handful of programs in high-definition, and much of their best programming (sporting events, movies) is not passed through in HD. Second, just because a television network produces a program in HD, it doesn't mean their local affiliates will pass it through to you. Many local broadcasters aren't willing to transmit expensive and complicated signals to the limited number of consumers in their territories with HD-ready sets. Moreover, affiliates in smaller rural markets don't have the financial resources to retool their facilities and build the new transmission towers that are necessary to beam a digital signal to their communities.

Rob

JimH · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2003, 05:04:52 am »

Rob,
Thanks for the link.

FWIW, I think that HDTV is here to stay and it's happening. I say so from two different perspectives.

I cruise Best Buy about once a week just to keep in touch with what the average consumer is interested in. There the offerings of HDTV are steadily increasing and Best Buy clearly is giving them the spotlight. Prices are now under $1000. $699 for a 32 inch Sanyo HDTV last Saturday.

Secondly, I've served as a board member of our local public television station for five years so I've watched them struggle through the process from the beginning. They were one of the 30% who did get it going by the deadline.

There are some benefits to the stations for switching. The bandwidth of each digital channel is enough to be able to broadcast several streams at a quality that is better than today's analog. So they pick up the ability to offer more programming and features like bonus material that can be viewed by selecting a link.

It will be chaotic for a while (forever?) but it will be fun.

Jim

Galley · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2003, 07:46:35 am »

A digital signal does not have any snow or hosting. So-called "digital cable" may not be 100% digital. For instance, Charter Digital offers only the "plus" channels in digital; all the basics are still analog.
DirecTV is your best bet. Although they do have to use quite a bit of compression at times, it still blows cable away. I get nearly every channel you could ever want, plus local channels for $39.99 per month. Over the past five years, my programming costs have actually gone down!

Do yourself a favor and get one of those DirecTV/TiVo combo units. The series-1 devices can be found for $199, and the service through DirecTV sonly $4.94 per month, whereas it is $12.95 on a stand-alone unit. I can record two channels at once, and watch some previously recorded at the same time!

DocLotus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2003, 07:58:28 am »

I think Jim is correct. I visit Best Buy every week myself & have noticed the same thing happening in the HDTV market.

It's like anything else, there has to be a certain mass market built-up before the TV stations will commit to it entirely. The same thing is true with recordable DVD's but it's slowly getting there.

Price determines all. When the price gets low enough the market gets up a real head of steam & rolls over the old technologies. That's one of the reasons DVD movies has taken off so fast... you can buy a DVD player for as low as $50 or less.

DocLotus · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2003, 09:11:52 am »

I upgraded my cable service from basic to digital. My cable provider has told me that only the 35 new channels are digital & the rest will remain analog. They all go through the new digital control box then on to my ATI A-I-W video card.

I have a big question...
* All the channels, digital & analog look to be the same quality... only so-so.
* I thought the new digital channels would be of higher quality.

Has anyone else had similar experience?

DocLotus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2003, 09:19:11 am »

Hi Galley;

I herd on the news this morning (NPR Radio) that Direct TV is having some financial problems & they are going to raise prices across the board. A Direct TV spokesmen said they are not sure at this time how much the prices will be going up.

I checked the prices for Dish Network & they are currently at $39.95 @ month but expect that will go up when Direct TV raise prices.

Ah, competition!

xen-uno · « **Reply #15 on:** January 16, 2003, 04:05:46 pm »

To me, HDTV & the widescreen (16x9) format are synonomous. Most sets today that proclaim HDTV compatibility are the old fashioned & ugly 4x3 format. I have yet to see a CRT based widescreen TV (NOT monitor, like that gorgeous Sony, or the LCD based Silicon Graphics). To date, they have been either plasma or projection (my brother's giant Pioneer Elite is killer), which aren't as affordable as a CRT.

10^-27

PS: I pay about $66/mnth for Dish Network (thats the Top 100, Starz, Showtime, and 2 additional receivers)

sraymond · « **Reply #16 on:** January 17, 2003, 09:34:30 am »

I think HDTVs greatest benefit to the computer user in its ability to do progressive instead of just interlaced display.

I tend to get confused in the discussion of 24 fps (film) vs 25 fps (PAL) vs 29.97 fps (NTSC) and what happens to resultant compression. Deinterlacing can also be a complicated (and imperfect) process. But if broadcasts went to progressive vs. interlaced, wouldn't the world be a simpler place?

Does anyone have a good grasp on what DTV will mean by way of progressive broadcases?

Scott-

xen-uno · « **Reply #17 on:** January 17, 2003, 10:35:15 am »

Scott....what do you mean by "what DTV will mean by way of progressive broadcases"?

Last i heard it was something like ABC & FOX liked 1080i while CBS & NBC liked the 720p format.

10^-27

sraymond · « **Reply #18 on:** January 17, 2003, 10:54:36 am »

I guess that's my question... who's going to broadcast progressive?

Now I'm starting to wonder something out loud... Does DTV imply that NTSC goes away? I mean, isn't NTSC an analog format? Isn't HDTV a DTV "format"?

Do you know the answer to my wonderings? I googled for about fifteen minutes, but I can't find anything...

Scott-

xen-uno · « **Reply #19 on:** January 17, 2003, 11:16:34 am »

The slow adoption means that NTSC will be around for a while. NTSC defines a transmission method as well as a format. So even HDTV could be loosely considered NTSC...and both are FM. HDTV codes in a digital bitstream on a analog wave, just like digital cable and satellite, so secondary processing is req'd via a DAC.

10^-27

sraymond · « **Reply #20 on:** January 17, 2003, 11:40:55 am »

Then HDTV keeps the same senseless 29.97 frame rate? I've never understood why we don't just move to 24 like the films and keep it at that. At least PAL's 25 fps makes converting from 24 a lot easier.

Scott-

Galley · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2003, 05:13:42 am »

Quote

Hi Galley;

I herd on the news this morning (NPR Radio) that Direct TV is having some financial problems & they are going to raise prices across the board. A Direct TV spokesmen said they are not sure at this time how much the prices will be going up.

I checked the prices for Dish Network & they are currently at $39.95 @ month but expect that will go up when Direct TV raise prices.

Ah, competition!

That would be OK, I guess, as the Total Choice package has only had one price increase since 1994 (and that was $2.00/month)!

JimH · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2003, 05:52:31 am »

Newly revised TV instructions, thanks to Yaobing, have been posted here:
http://www.musicex.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=beta;action=display;num=1036784704;start=0

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: OT... Digital v Analog Cable TV Quality (Read 4303 times)

zevele10

sraymond

sraymond

sraymond