STLCompGuy
join:2003-01-11
Chesterfield, MO
| why does HD on ATT UVerse seem so much better
I recently got ATT Uverse (all 3 services) and on my main tv in my living room....it seems that my HD picture is much better than what I was getting with my cable HD. Is this because of better equipment that ATT gave me (better component cables instead of the standard cables I was using with Cable) |
|
Ken
Premium,MVM
join:2003-06-16
Brownsburg, IN | What do you mean standard cables? Sounds almost like your cable wasn't hooked up correctly. |
|
STLCompGuy
join:2003-01-11
Chesterfield, MO
| by standard cables...I mean...the non "HD" thicker component type cables
said by Ken  :What do you mean standard cables? Sounds almost like your cable wasn't hooked up correctly. |
|
Ken
Premium,MVM
join:2003-06-16
Brownsburg, IN
| There is no such thing as HD or non HD component cables. A cable is either a component or it's not. Not to say the cables AT&T provided you might not be a higher quality cable, but they would still show HD the same as a lower quality cable unless there was something wrong with the lower quality cable. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to STLCompGuy
U-verse HD isn't the greatest, but it's still a LOT better than what we get from Time Warner Cable in our area.
Time Warner in this area is trying to compete with AT&T, DirecTV and DISH, but are trying to cram too many MPEG-2 HD channels without making enough space for them. Whenever there's a lot of activity on the screen or there are rapid scene changes, the picture pixelates and the colors wash out. Maybe your cable company is making the same mistake.
Both suffer from over-compression. In AT&T's case, they have to use a low bitrate on MPEG-4 to fit two HD streams into the relatively small data pipe going to homes. It looks good most of the time, with some strange motion artifacts (rolling fog doesn't move smoothly, backgrounds like grass on a football field shifts). Still, MPEG-4 seems to maintain a pleasant picture without completely losing its composure. It seems AT&T plans on addressing this by increasing the bandwidth per home.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
heat84
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by djrobx :It seems AT&T plans on addressing this by increasing the bandwidth per home. Which isn't possible unless they either take bandwidth away from the internet side or go FTTP. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by heat84 :said by djrobx :It seems AT&T plans on addressing this by increasing the bandwidth per home. Which isn't possible unless they either take bandwidth away from the internet side or go FTTP. AT&T actually has other moves they can make before going FTTH. They can upgrade to VDSL2 (which is apparently in trial now -- people have posted they are seeing 32 up/5 down in a new profile), and they can implement pair bonding (to increase the possible distance from the VRAD.
VDSL2 can get them about a 50% increase over the same copper. |
|
uversehmm
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to djrobx
I totally disagree that Uverse HD is better than cable HD. They had just installed Uverse service in my house and I tell you that Comcast cable's HD picture quality is better than Uverse. At least, from what I have experienced so far. The HD picture looks pixalated; in fact, it is very noticeable on the Network's Logo. I am dissapointed because I expected an opposite outcome reading all the good reviews about Uverse. I have 2 HD boxes in my house plus Uverse internet 6.0 installed. By the way, I have a nice Samsung 52 inch TV, therefore, I will capture all defects.
The quality of HD in Comcast was crisp and clear. |
|
texasguy37
join:2009-05-18
Grand Prairie, TX | Well, I can only state what is happening in my house. I switched from Dish Network to U-verse. The U-verse HD quality is good and compares favorably to the quality I received with Dish. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to uversehmm
said by uversehmm :
I totally disagree that Uverse HD is better than cable HD.
I'm sure that's true in your area. When we had Comcast, the picture was far superior to U-verse and locals were bit-for-bit equivalent to OTA, but they didn't offer that many channels. When Time Warner took over, they started further compressing the channels to fit more in, and the result was absolutely disastrous to quality. U-verse is easily better than the crap we get from Time Warner now. Don't assume just because your cable is good that everyone else's is, it varies a lot by area!
Which isn't possible unless they either take bandwidth away from the internet side or go FTTP. Not true. AT&T is running VDSL at 25/2 (or 19/2 for far customers) now. They're testing a 32/5 profile with 3HD and higher quality streams. Pair bonding/VDSL2 has been on AT&T's radar for a long time which is supposed to extend the reach for customers further out.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
