Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Impressions on HD Time-Warner Cable

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
January 29, 2005 8:19:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hi all,

Last month I cancelled Dish and went back to Time-Warner. Got a Scientific
Atlanta 8000 HD High-Def DVR with no upfront fees. First one crashed in one
day so went back and got a new one still in the box and it has worked
flawlessly. The quality of HD or SD recordings is just awesome, you cannot
tell it was a recording. It has about 160 Gigabyte space for about 20 hours
HD or 180 hours of SD programming or a mix. (10 hours HD means only 90 hours
SD left, and so on). DirecTV wants $1000 for a similar box. Might have a
better interface like TiVo, I don't know, but it won't be worth $1000 to me.
Cable offers INHD (2 channels) which are not available from Satellite. Those
channels show IMAX movies converted to HD and many are superb. I recorded
"The Living Sea" narrated by Meryl Streep with Sting's music, and it is a
program I'll not erase! Public TV and ABC are available in SD digital and HD
digital as well as analog from our local TV stations. Weather channel has
local updates every 8 minutes which you don't get on satellite.
But...there's no VCR recording capability (yet) so what's on the hard drive
cannot be transferred out...yet. They say they will update..whenever.

The 811 High-Def receiver from Dish was good, but to watch Standard-def
programming I had to use an S-Video input of the TV whereas with the Cable
box I can use the HD input of the TV with an excellent reception. So
overall, I'm very pleased with Time-Warner at this time. It costs $65 a
month (one digital HD box and expanded cable for 2 other TVs) and they have
a 6 month promotion of all Showtime channels including HD for $0.95 a month.
I'll likely continue it after the promotion also. (They also had a promotion
for high speed Internet for $29 a month for a year if I switched from
Earthlink which I did...Earthlink was spam-ridden) There are no HD channels
on demand that I know of, but perhaps in future there will. Its convenient
not to have a telephone line attached as digital cable sends signals back to
the company from the box for pay per view.

Good work, Time-Warner.

Roger
January 29, 2005 8:19:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Roger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Last month I cancelled Dish and went back to Time-Warner. Got a
Scientific
> Atlanta 8000 HD High-Def DVR with no upfront fees. First one crashed
in one
> day so went back and got a new one still in the box and it has worked

> flawlessly. The quality of HD or SD recordings is just awesome.

I have TimeWarner cable in Houston and I'm very happy with their
service. The High Definition quality is good, but it doesn't compare to
what I pull out of air with my OTA (8VSB) tuner. If satellite quality
is much worse than TimeWarner's HD then I would find it unacceptable
all togeather, from what I've seen at showrooms (often DirectTV) I'm
unimpressed with sat. Satellite companies don't quite no how to handle
to DVR, I don't want to turn into a evangelist here (a la Bob Miller),
but I see DishNetwork, DirectTV and VOOM having a hard time competing
with cable because of the rate at which the hardware is going to be
changing over the next few years.

Satellite equipment is typically purchased not leased, so as new
standards come forth (e.g. MPEG-4 or WM9) that allow 10 HD channels in
the brandwidth it takes to put out 3 now. Cable companies will be well
suited to adapt, satellite service providers will be forced the change
thier model (begin leasing) or be left behind.

In the past eleven months that I've had TimeWarners HD service I've
switched HD boxes three times. I first started with a non-DVR Motorolla
box (excellent HD quality) then transitioned to the SA 8000HD, now I'm
running a 8300HD. All of this at no cost to me (other than my normal
monthly service charges).

-Jeremy
January 30, 2005 3:03:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy W wrote:

> Some months back i was using a Pioneer 3510HD converter then
> replaced it with an SA8000HD. HD picture quality was noticeably
> better on the 3510HD than it is on the SA8000HD. It's now a little
> washed out, colors aren't as vibrant, and is a little softer than it
> was on the 3510HD. It just lost some of that WOW factor that it
> had with the regular HD converter. Several other SA8000HD owners
> have noted the same thing so your observation that HD looked better
> on DISH is validated. I'm disappointed in the SA8000HD's HD PQ but
at
> least now i can record it as lots of HD shows are on at inconvenient
> times so i'd just have to miss them.
>

Randy,

Just wanted to further validate what you have said. When I switched
from a Motorolla HD box to the SA8000HD box I was a bit upset with the
picture quality as well. I've grown to accept it, but every time I
switch over to watch WB or UPN in HD though my OTA tuner I'm reminded
of what my set is capable of.

The SA8300 is better, but it's still not the same quality as OTA.
-Jeremy
Related resources
January 30, 2005 8:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hi Jeremy,
What's the advantage/s of the 8300 over the 8000 which I have? By the way,
re. picture quality: For HD channels, Dish was distintly sharper, the colors
more bright. For SD, it is about the same as cable, in fact cable is better
and more convenient for me as I can watch SD on my HD input whereas with my
Dish 811 I had to use an S-Video out into the TV for the best picture...SD
from the 811, watched on my DTV component input, was just awful.
Roger
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:44:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:00:04 GMT, "Roger" <nospam@world.com> wrote:

>What's the advantage/s of the 8300 over the 8000 which I have? By the way,
>re. picture quality: For HD channels, Dish was distintly sharper, the colors
>more bright. For SD, it is about the same as cable, in fact cable is better
>and more convenient for me as I can watch SD on my HD input whereas with my
>Dish 811 I had to use an S-Video out into the TV for the best picture...SD
>from the 811, watched on my DTV component input, was just awful.
>Roger

The big difference is that the 8300 has all outputs active, where
the SA8000HD only utilizes it's component output. It also has
pass-through and some other stuff i can't remember (i can't
get one yet so i haven't paid much attention to the threads).
Users report that SD and HD Picture Quality is improved over
the SA8000HD which is a little on the poor side. There are
some informative threads in the HDTV Recorder forum at
www.AVSForum.com

Find out which software your SA8000HD is running (Passport Pioneer
is better than SARA). The two operating systems are quite different
with different features and capabilities so it's good to know which
one you have when asking questions or seeking info about it.

Some months back i was using a Pioneer 3510HD converter then
replaced it with an SA8000HD. HD picture quality was noticeably
better on the 3510HD than it is on the SA8000HD. It's now a little
washed out, colors aren't as vibrant, and is a little softer than it
was on the 3510HD. It just lost some of that WOW factor that it
had with the regular HD converter. Several other SA8000HD owners
have noted the same thing so your observation that HD looked better
on DISH is validated. I'm disappointed in the SA8000HD's HD PQ but at
least now i can record it as lots of HD shows are on at inconvenient
times so i'd just have to miss them.

SD quality is also worse on the SA8000HD than on my regular SA8000
i have right next to it. The SA8000HD just doesn't do a good job with
SD via the component input (both the lower analog channels and the
digital non-HD channels). My regular SA8000 connected via composite
looks better on the same SD channels so i decided to keep it just for
SD and use the SA8000HD just for HD :-)

Randy

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/504/60995DVRs_with_Pan...
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:29:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Voom and Cablevision are under the same ownership for now. Voom has been
eyed by Echostar however and they are in a deal to take it over. WHat
happens to voom, god only knows.

Phil

<jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:1107031827.234724.121440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roger wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Last month I cancelled Dish and went back to Time-Warner. Got a
> Scientific
>> Atlanta 8000 HD High-Def DVR with no upfront fees. First one crashed
> in one
>> day so went back and got a new one still in the box and it has worked
>
>> flawlessly. The quality of HD or SD recordings is just awesome.
>
> I have TimeWarner cable in Houston and I'm very happy with their
> service. The High Definition quality is good, but it doesn't compare to
> what I pull out of air with my OTA (8VSB) tuner. If satellite quality
> is much worse than TimeWarner's HD then I would find it unacceptable
> all togeather, from what I've seen at showrooms (often DirectTV) I'm
> unimpressed with sat. Satellite companies don't quite no how to handle
> to DVR, I don't want to turn into a evangelist here (a la Bob Miller),
> but I see DishNetwork, DirectTV and VOOM having a hard time competing
> with cable because of the rate at which the hardware is going to be
> changing over the next few years.
>
> Satellite equipment is typically purchased not leased, so as new
> standards come forth (e.g. MPEG-4 or WM9) that allow 10 HD channels in
> the brandwidth it takes to put out 3 now. Cable companies will be well
> suited to adapt, satellite service providers will be forced the change
> thier model (begin leasing) or be left behind.
>
> In the past eleven months that I've had TimeWarners HD service I've
> switched HD boxes three times. I first started with a non-DVR Motorolla
> box (excellent HD quality) then transitioned to the SA 8000HD, now I'm
> running a 8300HD. All of this at no cost to me (other than my normal
> monthly service charges).
>
> -Jeremy
>
January 31, 2005 3:36:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thanks Randy for the suggestion. I'll see if they'll let me get an 8300.
Roger
!