Streaming TV is about to get very expensive

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by mr.unnatural, Jul 1, 2019.

  1. Sep 4, 2019 #361 of 781
    Mikeguy

    Mikeguy Well-Known Member

    27,636
    9,210
    Jul 28, 2005

    Advertisements

    For OTA, the Recast gets especially seductive when it is on sale, as it often has been (~$180 for the more-stocked unit). TiVo also especially can be good when on sale--there typically have been sales in the Nov./Dec./Black Friday season, not too far away (when I would expect the Recast to be on sale as well) . . . .
     
  2. Sep 4, 2019 #362 of 781
    Anubys

    Anubys All About Footwork

    30,632
    1,526
    Jul 16, 2004
    Fairfax...
    that's a relief...my receiver does post processing...I assumed something must still get lost (like compressing video and then uncompressing it loses something)...thanks!
     
  3. Sep 4, 2019 #363 of 781
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,684
    5,348
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    The problem I have with TiVo (and it's almost sacrilegious on this site to say it!) Is that it's REALLY expensive to bring into my system, considering I'd have to buy the head unit PLUS a bunch of minis. If I went with the Recast (and it did what TiVo did), I could use very inexpensive firesticks (and I really would only have to buy one or two more) and the head unit and be done with it. Unfortunately it's only for OTA, and that's only about half of what I'd want to record (and I'd also have to invest in an outdoor antenna, as the indoor ones only bring in about half the available channels).
     
  4. Sep 4, 2019 #364 of 781
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,684
    5,348
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    But, is Dolby Surround = to Dolby Digital processing? I could be totally wrong but I always assumed that Dolby Digital content was designed to be broadcast that way, while Dolby Surround just took stereo processing and "simulated" multichannel. So the while DD (or DD+ for streaming services) might have, say a cat meowing coming from the back left speaker in a 5.1 setup, the Dolby Surround simulation might have it coming from a different speaker as it wasn't designed to know where it's supposed to come from. Thus, the sound might not sound as natural as DD might. And of course Atmos takes it all a step further.
     
  5. Sep 4, 2019 #365 of 781
    Rob Helmerichs

    Rob Helmerichs I am Groot! TCF Club

    58,760
    15,339
    Oct 17, 2000
    Minneapolis

    Advertisements

    You are absolutely correct. Dolby Surround fakes surround sound, and really not very well (I believe it just sends the R&L sounds to the surround speakers as well as to the R&L speakers).
     
  6. Sep 4, 2019 #366 of 781
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,637
    1,299
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    That cat would also be coming from the back left speaker. Assumming the 2.0 is encoded properly. This is what I most recently tested with an episode of Killjoys. Audio that came from the back left or back right with the 5.1 broadcast also came from those speakers with the 2.0 audio from my Shield.

    Previously, I've mainly tested with 2.0 audio from Hulu, compared to the 5.1 audio from my TiVo recordings from either OTA or cable.
    I prefer to watch from the streaming services because they have better video quality than FiOS. And better quality than OTA in the DC area has now. And initially I was concerned about the stereo audio from some of the shows with the streaming services I used. Until I did a bunch of comparisons.
     
  7. Sep 4, 2019 #367 of 781
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,637
    1,299
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Not at all. If it just put the FL/FR in the rear speakers, it would sound like utter crap. If the 2.0 broadcast is done correctly, it has all the same audio info as the 5.1 encode. As long as all that info is there, the Dolby post processing can properly place the audio. And my comparison testing over the last nine months has shown that. I'll get the same bass from the subwoofer etc.

    Even if you have a soundfield test with a person speaking from each channel. If the 2.0 track is encoded properly, after post processing is applied, the voice will still come out of each channel properly. (ie. FL, Center, FR, RR, RL, subwoofer)

    Of course, as I mentioned, sometimes the OTA/Cable 5.1 broadcast is messed up. And sometimes the 2.0 streaming broadcast is messed up. In both those cases, post processing cannot be properly applied. And even if you direct play the 5.1 or 2.0 audio in those situations, it still sounds like crap since the audio is not placed in the proper channels.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  8. Sep 4, 2019 #368 of 781
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,684
    5,348
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    From Dolby Laboratory's own documentation:
    And also this:

    https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-digital.pdf

    Your testing might have different results and of course can be subjective, depending on your hearing, your equipment, the sound source, room design and other factors. These are NOT the same technologies, but can sound similar for sure, and in many cases, only a discerning ear can tell the difference.

    Listen to stereo soundtracks on your discs and compare them to what you get with a DD soundtrack. A couple of suggestions would be The Beatles Love or Alan Parsons Project Eye in The Sky which are both avaialbe in stereo and DD formats.

    https://www.amazon.com/Love-CD-Audio-DVD-Beatles/dp/B000JJS8TM

    https://www.amazon.com/Eye-35th-Ann...=B07D5952LV&psc=1&refRID=0CKAR25XC2BGX6G46HH5
     
  9. Sep 4, 2019 #369 of 781
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,637
    1,299
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    That article is almost twenty years old. It's ancient. I am not talking about what they called DOlby Surround back then.
    What Dolby calls Dolby Surround today works differently. It would be like comparing apples to oranges. (of course it would have helped to make things less confusing if DOlby had not re-used Dolby Surround for their current processing)

    BAck in 2001 I had a 7.1 receiver with the then current DOlby processing, ProLogic II. The DOlby processing available today, is nothing like what they had back then. I thought it did a great job back in 2001. But then in 2005, when I got a newer receiver with PLIIx, it created what seemed like discrete channels in the rear, compared with what they had in 2001. Which worked better. And now, with the current DOlby Surround processing, it works even better.

    As I mentioned, I can play back a test signal. Where a person speaks from one channel and then another, and another etc.. Going through all the channels. With the proper 2.0 signal and the Dolby Surround processing, those voices still come from the same channels when they are speaking. The Front audio is not folded into the back.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  10. Sep 4, 2019 #370 of 781
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,684
    5,348
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Which flavor of Dolby Surround are you using? Are you comparing that to a Dolby Digital soundtrack 5.1? I didn't realize that was an old article. Here's a better description from AVSFoorum (a sister site to this one):

    Broadcast/cable TV is such a bad example of either format because there's often so much compression that content might not be designed to be either true DD or even true stereo. A few shows are good at it but most aren't. What you are suggesting, using post processing is probably fine for that sort of content. I'd never use stereo unpmixed using Dolby Surround if I have a DD stream available.

    Last night i watch Catch 22 on Hulu which was in 2.0 and upconverted it to an upmix (actually DTS Surround), and it sounded decent, but I the sound just wasn't as deep or rich than most DD formatted contented on Netflix. Take a listen to one of those sources I mentioned which have both soundtracks. You can definitely here the difference.
     
  11. Sep 4, 2019 #371 of 781
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,637
    1,299
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    I have the Beatles one. But I also don't typically use DOlby for music. I like the DTS processing better. But I also typically use my nine Echos and two Echo subwoofers when listening to music at home. I don't typically use the audio systems at my TVs. But I'll need to check out the Beatles tracks from my ripped disc.(i haven't listened to an actual CD in many, many years)

    With the TV stuff I was mostly comparing my recordings from my TiVos with 5.1 audio, from both OTA and cable. To 2.0 from Hulu. And as you mentioned we are talking broadcast TV. But it does a great job with it. Like I mentioned with a soundfield test. The voice will still come from the proper channel with the soundfield test using 2.0 output and applying DOlby Surround Post processing.

    For higher quality content it is lossless and is already in 7.1 audio. Or I'll have a 2.0 track with a 96Khz sampling rate. Instead of the normal 48khz that the 7.1 track typically has. And I do have several titles with 192Khz tracks. But i think one of them had a mono 192Khz track. No idea why.

    I do know my favorite is the Akira Blu-ray Disc. With a 5.1, 192Khz, Dolby True HD Japanese track.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  12. Sep 4, 2019 #372 of 781
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,684
    5,348
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Some interesting discussion on this here:

    https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...584-dolby-surround-vs-dolby-digital-plus.html

    AVSForum is great for this stuff. Learning a lot just trying to understand what you are doing here. Thanks for this. It's interesting that there's an even newer format (and I have it on my receiver, just didn't understand what it does) that takes your DD soundtrack, and upmixes it using Dolby Surround to Atmos. So they've really taken it even a step further. This stuff really fascinates me.
     
  13. Sep 4, 2019 #373 of 781
    Mikeguy

    Mikeguy Well-Known Member

    27,636
    9,210
    Jul 28, 2005
    Of course, that's one reason why the Recast proves so attractive.

    Options for the TiVo cost issue: buy used, or wait and see what happens with Black Friday, etc. sales.

    Also, TiVo announced earlier this year that it was working on streaming device apps, due to come out right about now; they would allow a TiVo box's output to be played wirelessly on a television through a streaming device (Fire, Roku, and Apple TV devices/technology), rather than requiring a Mini. TiVo stated that the use of the apps would be no-cost. Of course, this is highly anticipated, and would lessen the cost of TiVo multi-device viewing. (Note that it is unlikely that a TiVo app would provide as high quality (including resolution)/full an experience as a Mini would, and TiVo has suggested or stated as such. But it all remains to be seen.)
     
  14. Sep 4, 2019 #374 of 781
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,684
    5,348
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Once that is release, TiVo would be a much more attractive option. I'll have to pay attention!!
     
  15. Sep 4, 2019 #375 of 781
    Mikeguy

    Mikeguy Well-Known Member

    27,636
    9,210
    Jul 28, 2005
    I had edited my post to note that TiVo is working on its apps for Roku, Fire, and Apple TV devices/technology--already having Fire sticks, you would already be covered in that regard. :) I would expect lots of chatter here when/if the apps issue.
     
  16. Sep 4, 2019 #376 of 781
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,684
    5,348
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Also have Roku too, so I'm covered there as well. I will keep my eyes open. That might be the time I jump ship from DirecTV
     
  17. Sep 4, 2019 #377 of 781
    gschrock

    gschrock Active Member

    870
    32
    Dec 27, 2001
    holt, mi
    Since dropping cable, I've actually had offers from them for as little as $80/month for their "Extra" level of tv channels, their 250Mbps speed internet, free dvr for 24 months, free showtime for 24 months. I have to pay $80/month just for the (150Mbps) internet right now. In a way, that's almost tempting to go back to, but it's really more like $100-$110 by the time you add fees in, and part of the reason I left comcast was I was getting disappointed by their picture quality. But it's laughable in a way, because when I commented on offers like these to new customers when I went to turn in my equipment, they wouldn't do anything at all for me.

    Also interesting that they now seem to actually offer gigabit service in my area, for $90/month for 12 months. Not really worth upgrading from 150Mbs a month for my purposes, especially with 1T caps in my area.
     
  18. Sep 4, 2019 #378 of 781
    astrohip

    astrohip Well-Known Raconteur TCF Club

    15,574
    5,381
    Jan 6, 2003
    Houston/Bren...
    No Internet. That's why I have DirecTV.
     
  19. Sep 4, 2019 #379 of 781
    jr461

    jr461 Well-Known Member

    2,638
    538
    Jul 9, 2004
    Northern NJ
    I have my receiver set to decode when the source is stereo and when it's true 5.1 it uses that.

    It's used mostly for Hulu which is a great improvement over the dopey stereo they insist on providing on many platforms (Android TV in my case). I do hear sounds from behind that are not in the front and of course dialog from the center, however, as you mention, there is a definite loss in depth.

    My receiver is a few years old and it uses Pro Logic II. I don't know if it has IIx or if that would be better. I'll check later.
     
  20. Sep 4, 2019 #380 of 781
    MikeMar

    MikeMar Go Pats

    46,075
    1,144
    Jan 7, 2005
    Boston...
    I really need to check out my reciever and make sure my settings are good

     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements