HD Newb, looking for advice.

I'm just shopping around looking to jump into HD land and there's a
few questions I'm wrestling with.

1.) I've heard OTA HD is better than either Sat or Cable HD, so is it
worth the extra $$ to buy a TV w/ tuner or just rely on the STB from
the provider.

2.) The classic Sat. vs Cable, I've heard Sat gets better quality &
full 5.1 ch. sound because the cable companies compress their feed to
fit in more crappy channels, is this just hype from anit-cable zealots?
- I suppose I should mention that my only option for cable is
Comcast, which may exclude cable from one of the options.

Thanks in advance!

C

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, wrote:
1.) I've heard OTA HD is better than either Sat or Cable HD, so is it
worth the extra $$ to buy a TV w/ tuner or just rely on the STB from
the provider.

It's up to you. Generally, there isn't a significant extra cost for a TV
with an OTA tuner, especially at the high end. On the other hand, last
year's monitors are on firesale.

HD satellite tuners, such as DirecTV's H20, have OTA tuners built-in. In
fact, the H20 has an *excellent* OTA tuner, much better than any other
that I've seen. Satellite tuners have OTA tuners as well because not are
local stations are carried in satellite in HD; hence you need to use the
OTA tuner to augment satellite.

DirecTV currently carries only two Seattle locals in HD; the others are SD
from analog. Comparing the satellite with the OTA version on the same
equipment, the OTA version *is* superior. If you have topography or other
considerations that preclude reception of the OTA signal, the satellite
version is definitely watchable.

One reason why you may want to have a TV with its own OTA tuner is if the
TV has PIP (picture-in-picture) functionality. STBs generally don't offer
PIP, so if you want to use your TV's PIP usefully you need to have more
than one source going to it.

2.) The classic Sat. vs Cable, I've heard Sat gets better quality &
full 5.1 ch. sound because the cable companies compress their feed to
fit in more crappy channels, is this just hype from anit-cable zealots?

It depends. Cable and satellite are fighting tooth and nail right now.
Cable lost the analog quality battle to satellite, miserably, and has
learned from the experience.

Both cable and satellite are trying to make their HD look good, because
any bad impressions made with the high end crowd will haunt them for
years.

Currently, cable has generally gotten more HD material available sooner
than satellite. Satellite had to get new satellites launched into space
and online, then they have to get the customers' dishes and satellite
receivers upgraded (hence the push to leased as opposed to customer owned
satellite equipment; it's easier to force upgrades that way).

It's all in a state of flux, and what is said today won't necessarily
apply in a few years. If history can be used as a guide, then eventually
satellite will come ahead. Due to the monopoly status of cable in most
areas, satellite is traditionally much more competitive and motivated to
compete.

Put another way: cable is traditionally defensive in its technology (they
deploy new stuff to head off threats), whereas satellite is traditionally
offensive (they deploy new stuff to lure new customers).

I fired the cable company years ago and never looked back. There were
many issues, such as the overall poor signal quality (it was analog back
then); but the big issue was reliability. I live in an area with
unreliable power and frequent multi-hour blackouts. Cable would go out
along with the power (meaning that these guys didn't have any backup power
deployed...) and often would not come back until several hours after power
was restored since the outage fried something.

Since I have an RV and hence use satellite in it, going back to cable is
not something that I would consider.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:51:17 -0700, soul_chicken wrote:

I'm just shopping around looking to jump into HD land and there's a
few questions I'm wrestling with.

1.) I've heard OTA HD is better than either Sat or Cable HD, so is it
worth the extra $$ to buy a TV w/ tuner or just rely on the STB from
the provider.

I doubt the STB from your provider will have an ATSC tuner in it so if you
want OTA HD you'll need a tuner somwhere in the mix. All I get is OTA
ATSC and none of my TV's have an ATSC tuner in them. I do have 4 of them
in my server though which acts as a media server to all the TV's
throughout the house over ethernet. In prime time, most if not all 4 of
the tuners are recording HDTV shows leaving me with many hours (more than
I can actually watch most of the time) of prime time TV recorded to watch
at my leasure. This way allows me to record anything anytime from any TV
in in my house up to 4 shows at once. It also means that I don't have to
worry about even using a TV with a tuner of any kind in the system. 2 of
my *TV's* are actually low cost computer monitors. $69 for a 19" 1600x1200
res HDTV is the only way to go IMO. I also don't worry about cable or sat
or having to pay for them.:-)

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Thanks for the response.

Essentially what you're saying is, I should look for a TV with OTA,
regardless of what provider I choose.

Also, that both Sat & Cable are less than optimal, but in your
estimation Sat is probably a better long term choice because their
business philosophy is significantly more consumer friendly.

If I go with Sat, should I purchase the equipment or go the lease
route?

SC


Mark Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, wrote:
1.) I've heard OTA HD is better than either Sat or Cable HD, so is it
worth the extra $$ to buy a TV w/ tuner or just rely on the STB from
the provider.

It's up to you. Generally, there isn't a significant extra cost for a TV
with an OTA tuner, especially at the high end. On the other hand, last
year's monitors are on firesale.

HD satellite tuners, such as DirecTV's H20, have OTA tuners built-in. In
fact, the H20 has an *excellent* OTA tuner, much better than any other
that I've seen. Satellite tuners have OTA tuners as well because not are
local stations are carried in satellite in HD; hence you need to use the
OTA tuner to augment satellite.

DirecTV currently carries only two Seattle locals in HD; the others are SD
from analog. Comparing the satellite with the OTA version on the same
equipment, the OTA version *is* superior. If you have topography or other
considerations that preclude reception of the OTA signal, the satellite
version is definitely watchable.

One reason why you may want to have a TV with its own OTA tuner is if the
TV has PIP (picture-in-picture) functionality. STBs generally don't offer
PIP, so if you want to use your TV's PIP usefully you need to have more
than one source going to it.

2.) The classic Sat. vs Cable, I've heard Sat gets better quality &
full 5.1 ch. sound because the cable companies compress their feed to
fit in more crappy channels, is this just hype from anit-cable zealots?

It depends. Cable and satellite are fighting tooth and nail right now.
Cable lost the analog quality battle to satellite, miserably, and has
learned from the experience.

Both cable and satellite are trying to make their HD look good, because
any bad impressions made with the high end crowd will haunt them for
years.

Currently, cable has generally gotten more HD material available sooner
than satellite. Satellite had to get new satellites launched into space
and online, then they have to get the customers' dishes and satellite
receivers upgraded (hence the push to leased as opposed to customer owned
satellite equipment; it's easier to force upgrades that way).

It's all in a state of flux, and what is said today won't necessarily
apply in a few years. If history can be used as a guide, then eventually
satellite will come ahead. Due to the monopoly status of cable in most
areas, satellite is traditionally much more competitive and motivated to
compete.

Put another way: cable is traditionally defensive in its technology (they
deploy new stuff to head off threats), whereas satellite is traditionally
offensive (they deploy new stuff to lure new customers).

I fired the cable company years ago and never looked back. There were
many issues, such as the overall poor signal quality (it was analog back
then); but the big issue was reliability. I live in an area with
unreliable power and frequent multi-hour blackouts. Cable would go out
along with the power (meaning that these guys didn't have any backup power
deployed...) and often would not come back until several hours after power
was restored since the outage fried something.

Since I have an RV and hence use satellite in it, going back to cable is
not something that I would consider.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

wrote:

1.) I've heard OTA HD is better than either Sat or Cable HD, so is it
worth the extra $$ to buy a TV w/ tuner or just rely on the STB from
the provider.


I think buying a set without a tuner is saving in the wrong place.

What if you have to move in about 3 or 4 years? Until you get cable at
your new location, if it's even available, you'd be out of service.

-=tom=-

wrote:
Thanks for the response.

Essentially what you're saying is, I should look for a TV with OTA,
regardless of what provider I choose.

Also, that both Sat & Cable are less than optimal, but in your
estimation Sat is probably a better long term choice because their
business philosophy is significantly more consumer friendly.

If I go with Sat, should I purchase the equipment or go the lease
route?

The lease model which DirecTV uses (I think Dish is similar) has you pay
an upfront charge (much less than buying a box would be) and a $4.99 fee
for each box after the first (if you have a DVR, there is also a $5.99
fee which covers all DVRs you have). Before DirecTV went to leasing,
you bought the box for a reduced price (more than the lease upfront fee)
and also paid $4.99 per month so the upfront fees are less and the
monthly fee is the same.

The only practical difference is that if you upgrade to a new box or
discontinue service you need to return the receiver (at their expense).
If a leased receiver breaks, they will replace it at no additional
charge (except for shipping). There is a two-year commitment for HD and
DVR receivers (one year for standard receivers).

I understand that it is still possible to purchase a receiver, but the
cost is much higher and you still pay the monthly fee. Since the boxes
aren't of much use without the service, I don't really see the point of
purchasing (I have two (pre-leasing) owned and one leased receiver).

"Tom Orle" wrote in message
...
wrote:

1.) I've heard OTA HD is better than either Sat or Cable HD, so is it
worth the extra $$ to buy a TV w/ tuner or just rely on the STB from
the provider.


I think buying a set without a tuner is saving in the wrong place.

What if you have to move in about 3 or 4 years? Until you get cable at
your new location, if it's even available, you'd be out of service.

-=tom=-

I'd say it'd be easy to just buy an external ota tuner in that case, but
I've been looking all over for one the past few days and have been striking
out unless I want to add a card into my pc...I bought an antenna yesterday
in preparations of watching some HD football, but just got snow...guess that
means I need a tuner or to grudgingly go back to a digital STB from
Millenium, who strangely charge 10 or 12 extra dollars for their HD "tier",
which is basically all the local HD affiliates and Hallmark/Discovery. I
thought cable companies were supposed to provide the local HD stations at no
extra charge??? maybe I'm crazy. anyway. what are my options for an
external atsc tuner? anyone?

wrote:
I'm just shopping around looking to jump into HD land and there's a
few questions I'm wrestling with.

1.) I've heard OTA HD is better than either Sat or Cable HD, so is it
worth the extra $$ to buy a TV w/ tuner or just rely on the STB from
the provider.

You should research what's available in your area OTA and compare that
with what Sat and cable have to offer. If you are serious about OTA,
then you have to have an ATSC tuner and some sort of antenna. You'll
need to know where the broadcast towers are; how far away and what
direction.

Keep in mind if you already subscribe to a basic cable service that they
might pass some of the local HD OTA stations along unencrypted and you
would be able to get them with a QAM tuner - and you won't need their
box. If you want their Sat encrypted HD stations, like ESPN HD and the
movie channels, that will require their HD box or a cable card, to use
in a cable card ready QAM tuner.

2.) The classic Sat. vs Cable, I've heard Sat gets better quality &
full 5.1 ch. sound because the cable companies compress their feed to
fit in more crappy channels, is this just hype from anit-cable zealots?
- I suppose I should mention that my only option for cable is
Comcast, which may exclude cable from one of the options.

Compression may be true for the 4x3 NTSC analog stations on the cable
digital tier, but shouldn't be the case for the HD channels on cable.
They should simply pass along the digital stream at the bitrate they get
from their Sat feed or what they get from the OTA stations they pass
along. Others can chime in to claim otherwise, but I see no reason for
the cable companies to compress their HD channels.

Again, keep in mind that you may be able to get some of the local OTA HD
channels from your cable system without a box if you have a QAM tuner.

When looking at TVs, ask questions about what built in tuners they have
and if they are ATSC and/or QAM. Good luck getting a correct answer
from a salesperson in a big box store - you may have to look it up
online later.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/rmb.html