Why Satellite?
Dear Gary: Terry Paullin’s column in Issue 44 (December 2000) of Widescreen Review, along with almost everyone else associated with the various home theatre magazines, makes a pitch for installing satellite, proclaiming it dramatically superior to cable. This is simply not my experience. I currently have three input sources for use on my latest generation Mitsubishi HD rear projector: DVD (Sony DVP-S9000ES), AT&T "digital" cable, and DirecTV®. DirecTV is running through a standard receiver, as the long-advertised Mitsubishi HD satellite receiver is still not yet shipping. In this system, DirecTV produces the worst picture quality. The DirecTV channels are universally very soft, and lacking in resolution and detail. The picture delivered appears to have lower resolution than standard VHS. For example, hair is but a soft blur of one color, rather than the strands and subtle color shadings I see on either of the two other sources. I can make comparisons almost instantly with my setup. Much as I hate to admit it, cable is usually and obviously clearer and more detailed, though nowhere near what I see from DVD. It’s only on the cable "digital" channels—mostly the movie channels—that I see the same blurring effect. Even then, it is typically worse on satellite than cable. I’ve spoken both with DirecTV and my cable provider, and it’s evident that I am seeing the effect of compression and bandwidth limitations on their digital signals imposed by their overcrowding of their systems. They seem to adjust this on a day-by-day basis—admitted to by DirecTV engineers—trying to make the most possible use out of the bandwidth available to them. My complaint is that you are not being up front about this and instead simply telling us to buy satellite because it is "so superior." B.S. Perhaps the rare HD signal that I will someday get will justify my purchase of satellite, but for now, I can’t stand watching anything on it, knowing that a simple click to the other source will produce a clearer picture. The only advantage is the lack of noise and ghosting, which weren’t a problem for me on cable anyway. Perhaps there’s a better signal on pay-per-view, but since it’s cheaper to rent DVDs, I’m not interested. Check the Internet sites on home theatre and it will show that people have long complained that the DirecTV signal has deteriorated dramatically since its inception. For the record, my setup is, if anything, biased in favor of satellite. It has the shortest and most direct cable run, using all new Monster Cable® and it maintains a very high signal level. In contrast, my AT&T setup winds through a busy maze of old splitters and cables snaking throughout my house. Both cable and satellite use S-Video connectors as neither receiver has component outputs. But the level of problem here is far worse than what would be corrected by a change to component outputs. It’s time we saw these issues discussed in a column.
M. Delaney
Contributing Editor Terry Paullin
That you for your feedback on cable vs. satellite. I truly respect opinions passionately expressed. Nor do I doubt the veracity of your statements. I am quite certain, ON YOUR SYSTEM, cable is coming off superior to satellite. The question I have is WHY, because... The reason that, in your words, your "local retailer, and almost everyone else associated with the home theatre magazines" advocates satellite, is borne of real life experience. I can’t speak for the other pundits, but I would never make sweeping generalizations based JUST on my own personal experience. I honestly consider the superiority of satellite to cable to be general knowledge. Not all of my roughly 200 theatre installations featured DirecTV® as a source, but probably three-fourth of them did. Truly, yours is the first account I’ve heard expressing that view. If you think about how the laws of physics stack the deck against the cable delivery system, with the multitude of connections between repeater stations and collection of hard wire and fiber optic (maybe) splices, it’s a wonder the signal is watchable at all. Don’t be confused, "digital" cable has more analog bumps in the road than the ones and zeros that carry the signal a portion of the way. Nearly all cable starts with a satellite feed anyway. Having said that, it is undeniably true that satellite "service" has gotten worse, seemingly by the day. The mantra of BOTH the satellite and cable guys seems to be: "squeeze the bandwidth—more channels—more advertising revenue—either they won’t notice or they won’t care." We collectively need to let them know that they are wrong! As to why you might be seeing what you’re seeing, I have two suspicions. The first is that you indeed might have a bad satellite box. That seems the least probable, but if you say you think the "satellite has less resolution than VHS tape" there is a serious anomaly somewhere. Even when delivered with S-Video cabling, magnetic tape can’t compete with true digital video—compression artifacts, sure, but not inferior resolution. The second culprit may be the line doubler built into the Mitsubishi. Their doublers have been known to be problematic from the start, and often produce "soft" (and noisy) images. Your doubler may like the S-Video feed from the tape player better than the "who-knows-what kind of compression" from DirecTV. As you noted, the compression algorithm is subject to change from day to day. If you still doubt DirecTV’s ability to deliver a decent signal, find somebody’s (if you don’t have a decoder) Ch. 199 HD feed—it’s stunning. The point, of course, is they can deliver when they want to. At the end of the day, I still fully expect the satellite guys to win the war with the cable guys, bad marketing not withstanding. It IS possible, however, that greed, too much compression and not enough HD could prevail against the laws of physics. I wouldn’t bet my mortgage against it.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com