acs12798
join:2006-03-13 | More channels crammed in
Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by acs12798  :Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. Do they have the bandwidth available, or will quality have to be compromised? |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
1 edit | said by jmn1207 :said by acs12798 :Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. Do they have the bandwidth available, or will quality have to be compromised? If you look at lyngesat, many channels are already 3 per transponder anyway from the satellite. Some cable providers even have to pad their QAMs with extra bits to fill up the extra space.
So don't think that 3 per QAM automatically means "worse than FiOS" because FiOS gets it from the same place. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by Eat Me :said by jmn1207 :said by acs12798 :Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. Do they have the bandwidth available, or will quality have to be compromised? If you look at lyngesat, many channels are already 3 per transponder anyway from the satellite. Some cable providers even have to pad their QAMs with extra bits to fill up the extra space. So don't think that 3 per QAM automatically means "worse than FiOS" because FiOS gets it from the same place. This has been discussed at length in the AV science forums, and it did appear that my Comcast picture quality was reduced on those channels grouped 3 per QAM. I agree it does not automatically mean the quality is inferior, but it is more prevalent when the signal is recompressed and not simply passed without any modification. |
|
MOTO6809
join:2007-11-05
Springfield, MA
| reply to acs12798
said by acs12798 :Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. Don't subscribe to the HD then. |
|
acs12798
join:2006-03-13
| Its still generally better than SD, and the charge for HD is built into the regular price, you're paying for it whether you use it or not. I just don't consider 4 channel per QAM anywhere near acceptable. Versus HD is virtually unwatchable, and I know its not the feed, because up at school in Albany, we get verus and its far better. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to jmn1207
Comcast is taking the feeds from the sats that are less than 3 per QAM and cramming them in 3 per QAM.
I can understand why you are bitter towards Comcrap, but they are not reflective of all cable providers.
But many cable providers are in fact passing along the signal as received, even if they are 3 per QAM, because they are received 3 per transponder on the satellite. |
|
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Cingular Wireless
| reply to MOTO6809
said by MOTO6809 :said by acs12798 :Hooray, we get more channels....now we can have every HD channel crammed with 3 more per QAM. Don't subscribe to the HD then. Subscribe? The HD box is the same price as the SD box. Just ask for one, no extra cost. Works great with SD sets too. You get the HD channels that go with your SD service plan. Only the DVR service is extra cost. |
|
