HD Cable or SAT?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Anthony Moore, Dec 9, 2003.

  1. Anthony Moore

    Anthony Moore Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does anyone have a preference? Is one HD dominant over the other in terms of picture quality? Id like to go with cable since its so easy, but if the quality is inferior to sat, ill go with sat..

    anyone?
     
  2. Mike I

    Mike I Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2000
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, picture quality on HD via cable is not inferior to Sat..
    I have both HD cable and Dish network..
    The advantage of Cable hd is you Get your local HD channels thru cable...With Sat you have to get them Over the air as both sat providers do not provide local HD channels..
    One advantage to cable is there is no equipment to buy...The cable co. will charge you the same for it's HD cable box as it does for it's digital cable box which is around 5 per month..
     
  3. RoyGBiv

    RoyGBiv Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2000
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like most other things it is a definite "it depends."

    I am in RI where we have Cox as our local cable company. I would agree with Mike I that the picture quality on HD is no different. I can tell you that with SD, my cable company is greatly inferior to DirecTV. In addition they only just started offering HD, and the grand total of HD they offer is 1 local CBS affiliate, HBO HD, and INHD. They promise they will have more, but who knows what and when.

    With DirecTV I get HBO HD, Show HD, HDNet, HDNet Movies, Discovery HD, and ESPN-HD. With my DirecTV receiver I also get 9 OTA stations broadcasting some or all programming in HD. 8 are from Boston which my local cable company can't show because of "broadcast rules" that require them to show only the local network affiliates. So, I get much more programming from DirecTV.

    In terms of cost they are really not that different. My local cable company would be $10 to $12 more a month than the same programming on DirecTV. Plus, they want an additional $10 per month for the HD receiver. Right now DirecTV is having a special offer where if you commit to 1 year of programming you can get the satellite antenna, 1 HD receiver, and installation for $399. After 20 months you would be ahead with DirecTV. No, I don't work for DirecTV, nor am I their shill, but here in RI there really isn't much choice. DISH is also showing more HD programming and has some good offers for people just getting started in HD as well.

    SMK
     
  4. anthony_b

    anthony_b Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2000
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I went from Directv to cable...I get hd locals plus everything else...with no out of pocket expenses. It all depends what your provider offers..
     
  5. JohnSni

    JohnSni Extra

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I live in the greater ATL area and can tune in a myriad of OTA HD channels, including all the networks. This combined with the expanded offering on Directv made the choice for me easy. The HDNet and Disc HD programming is actually pretty good as well. Its also a great way to show off your system!

    Also, if you are a football faniac as I am you CANNOT LIVE without NFL Sunday Ticket, only available on DirecTV.
     
  6. Cliff Olson

    Cliff Olson Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2002
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was with Directv for 5 years, but last week, I switched back to cable due to new HD Programming. I must say that I am very impressed with the SOUND of cable over Directv. All premium channels (Showtime, HBO, Max, etc) are in DD 2.0 or 5.1. There are also several other cable channels offered in DD. With Directv, only a few HBOs, Showtimes, Starz, etc., were in DD (either 5.1 or 2.0). In terms of picture quality (I'm viewing on a 65" Mitsu W/S), they are about the same. NTSC sucks no matter how it's broadcast. But, some channels over cable are much more grainy than Directv, and others are better. So, cable is very inconsistent, IMO.
    The main reason I went with cable is I didn't have to drop at least $399 for gear. Also, I was tired of Directv dragging their feet on HD. I'm sure there is more to it than I know, but I could care less. IMO, they just don't offer much in HD, to drop that kind of money on gear, and programming (they're about $9/month more in my area for what I currently have).
     
  7. anthony_b

    anthony_b Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2000
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have cable with 11 HD channels, and were added at no additional cost, no gear to buy and no annual comitment..[​IMG]
     

Share This Page