On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:
dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 09:46:10 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
Tell us why you
have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?
It was the top end a couple of years ago, but you're wrong about it
being the "absolute bottom of the line".
Here's Dishnets current line of receiver offerings.
The 111 is the only one listed that doesn't at least support S-video.
http://www.dishnet.dishontheweb.com/technology.jsp
Its clearly bottom of the line.
So let me quess Dave... when you signed up for dishnet you took the
"free" equipment package...didn't you?
If things have improved, then
my wishes have been fulfilled. However, I'm not willing to take the
word of someone who quotes another person on the internet or tries to
compare disparate systems (even your friend's system isn't analogous
to mine, since he has HD *and* is on a different network - if he has
no artifacting, then that's great and is good news.
Maybe if you could do some research and understand you'd find that
dishnet with their 500 channel offering is often described as the worst
of the sat suppliers. Of course this has nothing to do with the
content sourcing networks or digital TV in general as you would have us
believe. Its your crappy equipment on your crappy sat service
provider.
Plus, I'm not sure
that you even know what to look for, since you seem to be more
concerned about how video looks on a cell phone.
Spin spin spin..... Just pointing out that I do get to see highly
compressed video that looks pretty good... coming to a cell phone near
you before the end of this year.
Now, why don't you have live pause capabilities? One would think that
someone who finds sports so important to the video medium would be
able to use it.
Never felt the need to relive history... I might like to record but
live pause and being stuck in the past never appealed to me. But rest
assured Dave, if I went that route I wouldn't be doing it with obsolete
technology like you are.. and then complaining about the results.
Plus, considering how constipated you come off on this
forum, it comes in handy during your extended bathroom visits.
Now Dave, try to control your envy. It isn't my fault you shell out
good money for ****ty video.
Well, now I can reveal the truth...OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
recorder.
I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
into. You didn't disappoint.
Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
fit your hypothesis.
Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
with.
Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
"real time" broadcasting. And no, I can't seem to find a single
channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
good, for example).
It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
quite important to me at this point.
I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).
Now, I hope that you're able to get past your anger and have a
constructive day...