Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > HD Talk
Reload this Page >

Cable or satellite?

Community
Search
HD Talk The place to discuss Blu-ray, 4K and all other forms and formats of HD and HDTV.
View Poll Results: Cable or satellite for HD content?
Cable
62.26%
Satellite
37.74%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Cable or satellite?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-12-06 | 10:25 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 7,763
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Texas
Cable or satellite?

I've tried a few searches but can't really find anything along these lines, except for the DirecTV thread.

I know for the best signal you should go with OTA. But most people aren't going to switch to OTA for locals and back to cable/satellite for everything else. SO, which will generally give a better HD picture, cable or satellite?

Discuss.
Old 02-13-06 | 04:33 AM
  #2  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Los Angeles, CA
i have directv and will be upgraded to HD this weekend. and i was told that i will be able to access the OTA feeds thru the HD reciever, as well as the satellite feeds. just a matter of selecting the right channel.
Old 02-13-06 | 06:04 AM
  #3  
Adam Tyner's Avatar
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,610
Received 2,772 Likes on 1,842 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
Originally Posted by shaun3000
SO, which will generally give a better HD picture, cable or satellite?
It really depends on the cable provider. DirecTV, by many accounts, is pretty lousy as far as picture quality goes. Many cable providers aren't much better. If you were to use a cable provider, who would it be?
Old 02-13-06 | 07:38 AM
  #4  
FantasticVSDoom's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,610
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From: No longer trapped
I’ve never had satellite, but at the places I’ve been that have it, I’ve always preferred my cable picture to theirs, and usually they have much better setups than I have, as they usually have more money.
Old 02-13-06 | 08:07 AM
  #5  
Chew's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 18,628
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: South of Titletown
Like Cygnet74 said, people with OTA HD and satellite aren't "switching". Both the Dish and DirecTV DVRs allow for recording HD via antenna hook-up.

I have DirecTV and don't pay a dime for any of their HD programming. My HD TiVo uses it's two OTA tuners more than anything I get from my satellite dish.

As long as my local cable company and the Fox affiliate argue over payment issues, Fox HD won't be available via cable. No Fox HD = no HD NFC football = NO SALE.
Old 02-13-06 | 10:28 AM
  #6  
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: greenwood, in
neither for 5 years now
Old 02-13-06 | 10:29 AM
  #7  
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: NYC
Cable has always had a better picture, hands down.
Old 02-13-06 | 10:35 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Mpls, MN
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
Cable has always had a better picture, hands down.
For you. Changes from one spot to another. Probably every 50' in NYC.
Old 02-13-06 | 11:08 AM
  #9  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 7,763
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Texas
Woudln't the quality on a given digital cable system be consistant throughout? It's either getting the signal or isn't, right?
Old 02-13-06 | 12:35 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: NYC
Originally Posted by shaun3000
Woudln't the quality on a given digital cable system be consistant throughout? It's either getting the signal or isn't, right?
Yup.

I don't know what Spikey is talking about.
Old 02-13-06 | 12:58 PM
  #11  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 7,763
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Texas
His statement would be true if he is referring to analogue.
Old 02-13-06 | 01:05 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,447
Received 89 Likes on 77 Posts
From: Triangle, NC, USA
Good HD content on my cable box looks incredible. Lower analog channels often times look like crap, or at the very least, somewhat snowy [also, I have a 60" screen, so imperfections are magnified].
Once you get a 'good' signal or connection or whatever from the cable outlet outside, your picture should be consistent, based on however it was originally recorded.
I went cable because I didn't want to cut trees down to get Dish, and cable HD was a lot cheaper than sat HD [ie, free].
Old 02-13-06 | 01:29 PM
  #13  
speedyray's Avatar
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Kingston, TN
Both suck for different reasons. I went with cable because it is a lot cheaper. I pay 10 bucks a month and get my HD channels and a dual tuner HD-DVR. I had VOOM, and I loved it, when it went under, I saw no compelling reason to get the HD package from either DISH or Directv. If either of them ever get it up to the level of VOOM, I will probably go back to satellite.
Old 02-13-06 | 01:34 PM
  #14  
Chew's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 18,628
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: South of Titletown
Originally Posted by speedyray
If either of them ever get it up to the level of VOOM, I will probably go back to satellite.
The quality level or the quantity? Because Dish now has at least 15 of those VOOM channels.
Old 02-13-06 | 03:11 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 12,349
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
From: USA
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
Cable has always had a better picture, hands down.
Not from my provider.

I have had Direct TV for over 6 years. Better picture quality, more channels for less money.
Old 02-13-06 | 04:16 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Mpls, MN
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
Yup.

I don't know what Spiky [no E in Spiky] is talking about.
Originally Posted by shaun3000
His statement would be true if he is referring to analogue.
My statement is true no matter what. If I was commenting on analog cable, then I would say sat is simply better. Every cable company has a different signal. So it depends on where you are. My parents have Comcast in Mpls, some channels good, others meh, others horrible. If you have Comcast in Boston (pick a town), it will be different. You will also get different channels for different dollar amounts, perhaps.

Sat is more consistent, but not necessarily better. For HD, DirecTV may be the worst right now. For SD, sat tends towards lower resolution and a soft look. Digital cable tends toward grainier, but more detail. So sat looks smoother with less detail, cable looks sharper with more artifacts. But it still depends on your local company, could be completely the other way around in some areas.
Old 02-13-06 | 07:21 PM
  #17  
Member
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I used to have digital cable here in LA and it was nearly unwatchable. I switched to DirecTV and found the picture quality to be a lot better. I know the resolution is a bit less, but my digital cable was worse than VHS quality even for local networks. DirecTVs DVR is way better anyway with the 2 tuners and no picture loss like the stand alone tivo did with the digital cable. Basic quality did not cut it.
Old 02-13-06 | 07:53 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Gamecock Country
Originally Posted by compulsive dvd
DirecTVs DVR is way better anyway with the 2 tuners and no picture loss like the stand alone tivo did with the digital cable.
The SA8300 has two tuners. There is no picture loss.
Old 02-13-06 | 11:09 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
I cant speak for picture quality comparisons, but as far as 'cost of entry' cable hands down...and basically, if you cant afford the HD dual tuner DVR, then your getting NO picture quality
Old 02-13-06 | 11:32 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 17,677
Received 79 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally Posted by shaun3000
Woudln't the quality on a given digital cable system be consistant throughout? It's either getting the signal or isn't, right?
Part of the problem is that not all channels are digital with digital cable.
Old 02-13-06 | 11:48 PM
  #21  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 7,763
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Texas


Please elaborate.
Old 02-14-06 | 02:15 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 17,677
Received 79 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally Posted by shaun3000


Please elaborate.
With cable, most channels are still analog. In general, the channels you see in your cable company's non-digital lineup will all be analog, even for digital cable subscribers (except for HD versions of channels, of course).
Old 02-14-06 | 03:43 AM
  #23  
speedyray's Avatar
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Kingston, TN
Originally Posted by Chew
The quality level or the quantity? Because Dish now has at least 15 of those VOOM channels.

Yeah, They still are lacking in quantity, plus, unless it changed real recently, and it may have since I think I saw mpeg4 discussion starting, you have to have two dishes, which you have to pay for the second. VOOM was nice because it was very simple and high quality. If DISH or Direct get it together I will go back to satellite when I move later this year.
Old 02-14-06 | 10:54 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Mpls, MN
Originally Posted by Jeremy517
With cable, most channels are still analog. In general, the channels you see in your cable company's non-digital lineup will all be analog, even for digital cable subscribers (except for HD versions of channels, of course).
Typically all the channels below 100 are analog, which includes your local channels. But I'm sure this varies by cable company, too.

Because the locals are analog and often some of the worst analog channels they supply, I'd never consider cable (with the current situation) without having HDTVs. In contrast, the HD locals from cable companies are often excellent, and better than what the sat companies can provide, so far.

Since the poll was on HD content, I actually voted cable. Although I am a DirecTV customer.
Old 02-14-06 | 02:20 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Parts, Unknown
Based on what I've seen cable is generally better than satellite for HD. Both Directv and Dish get a lot of complaints about picture quality, and for good reason in my opinion. Dish has been ahead of Directv for a while in that area, but recently downrezzed their resolution on the Voom channels to 1280 x 1080 (they were 1920 x 1080 at one point). I haven't seen these complaints at all with cable. If the NFL season package ever becomes available to cable I'll happily drop satellite. Hopefully things will change for the better when Directv gets more bandwidth when their new satellites become operational though.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.