Definitely an option for the future even though I hate having a dish on my roof. At worst, hopefully it gives Shaw enough competition to start doing something meaningful.

Quite a few people have mentioned that the hi def signal on Shaw looks better than Bell. Can anyone confirm this?

As far as I'm concerned, I could care less if Bell has 100 HD channels. PQ is more important than quantity.

...Not that Shaw has an excuse for their ****ty selection.

I would say no it is not better. I say this cause I have viewed HD on both Bell with my own plasma and 46" HDTV RPTV Hitachi and viewed Shaw on a HDTV RPVT by Tosh

PQ is same imho, personally I would go Bell there programming is far better. Yes it is also much nicer to have many more HD stations than Shaw. Bottom line is Bell will always be better. I punted Shaw.

Without a doubt the HD PQ with Shaw is far superior to Bell. I subscribe to both, and have done numerous tests back and forth using the same program/station, on a Pioneer PDP-5040 plasma. Both settop boxes (Shaw 6412 and Bell 6100) are connected with DVI to the plasma.

The best test has been the Tonight Show. On Bell the colours look weak and lack depth - washed out, while on Shaw the colours are strong and brilliant. Another good test is with sports programs that are on both providers. With Bell you will see a lot more macro-blocking during high-motion shots. The Shaw's HD is not as compressed as Bell's, giving a cleaner image.

But of course there is only 6 channels...

Graytek, have you calibrated both your inputs separately? Im just curious as I yet to see a HD feed from any provider that the colours looked washed out.

As for the blocking you may want to get your dish realigned, I found when running bell in the past the I would get blocking happeing after strong storms where the winds/ snow had slightly shifted the dish and the it needed to be realigned to peak the signals again.

As for azmodien question I would say that shaw does have a very slight better pq for hd HOWEVER for every other channel they are not even near the same pq as bell has. Not to mention that on shaw MAYBE 60% is actually HD content and the rest is just upconverted and usually looks worse than the SD counter part. So unless all you plan on watching is just the 6 hd channels that shaw offers and no others then I would not even waste your money.

Im selling my 6412 to change to Bell as soon as the new PVR comes out as shaws hd programing is PITIFULL.
Even on the new sprotsnet hd, I have seen one program in 3 days that was actullally HD, heck the Jays game the other day was in SD and looked so incredibly bad, Or the Indy 500 last week was also SD definatly not HD

BEV uses greater than usual compression to cram their channels onto their satellites. Such compression is "lossy", meaning that data gets dropped as part of the process. The result is that the visual difference between their HD channels and OTA DTV signals on the same calibrated HDTV is stunning, so I would therefore expect that the CATV signal would also be better than the BEV one.

Well, havent done any scientific tests, but, I can tell you this...My buddy has Bell, I have Shaw. He has a Hitachi 57" RPTV, I have a Tosh 57" RPTV. His TV has been calibrated, he has had it a year, my TV is pretty awesome, right out of the box not calibrated other than service level convergence, bought it late Feb this year.
When there is an HD sports broadcast, and Shaw just happens to carry it, we ALWAYS view it at my house. He complains about the signal dropping out, the macro blocking, audio glitches etc, Shaw never seems to have those probs. He also says that even though Bell has all the 'supposed' HD channels, there is not much that is true HD. We talk about the state of HD all the time and he told me that if Shaw offered even 10 HD channels, he would switch right now.

The older Bell 6000 HD rec, had weaker colors than Shaws, but Shaws at times look unrealistic.

Anyone compare the newer Bell receiver to Shaw.

Guess the only comparision that matters is the new Bell HD PVR to Shaws, and we have to wait a couple more weeks for that.

Yes, both inputs have been calibrated separately. When I say colours are washed out, I mean that comparatively. Of course Bell HD still looks much better than any SDTV, but in comparision to the Shaw HD, the colours are less vibrant, and tend to look greyer.

The Bell reveiver that I have is the latest available - the 6100. Of course the real test will be with the new PVR.

Also as far as SDTV goes, with the newest release of the 6412, the anolog performance is way better. I would say at least a 50% improvement. So much in fact that the difference in the Bell SD and the Shaw SD is pretty much equal.

The only real draw back to Shaw (and it is a huge one) is the lack of HD channels. Once Bell releases the HD PVR, and assuming it runs with few bugs, recommending Shaw for anything other than Internet will be a tough sell.

I've compared the Shaw 6208 vs the Bell 6100 on two similar Toshiba 57" RP-CTR (neither have been professionally caibrated). The Bell picture looks poor on DVI but much better on component. When comparing using component inputs, the Bell picture looked far superior in clarity and colors compared to Shaw. This is un-scientific: it's a bunch of amatures comparing. The difference with the Super Bowl feed was night and day: the Bell PQ was far better.

The nice thing about the Bell 6100 that the Shaw 6208/6412 doesn't have is the ability to change the screen shape on the fly with one button - and screen shapes can effect the PQ, specifically the clarity. The the Shaw boxes you have to power it off, enter the boot menu and change it there, or use your TV's screen shape adjustments. Anyone who's seen how quickly and easily you can do this with the Bell 6100 using the page-up button would consider the Shaw approach a huge hassel. Unfortunately, the new 9200 only has this working on the SD outputs, not HD (hopefully to fixed in a future SW upgrade).

The downside for Bell is the sim-subbing which sometimes even occurs on the HD channels.

Graytek:

I have a 6412 which I bought to replace a 6208 in Feb. or Mar., 2005. I don't find the SD quality any better on the 6412. What do you mean by the "newest release of the 6412"? Is there a software update available?

Thanks

No, there is a new 6412, with a new A/D component, that is hardware, not firmware.

Well, after about 2 months of Shaw, I have to post some feedback. I had originally been a Starchoice consumer for many years but HAD to switch to Shaw as my strata wouldn't allow dishes to be setup. Of course, I was very disappointed and was dreading the day I had to swtich to Shaw. However, that day has come and gone and I have to admit...it's not all bad. Yes, there are only 6 HD channels...7 if you count the pay movie HD channel...which I don't. My only gripes with Shaw...things that I didn't know about before I had to sign up are:

1) poor PQ from the analog stations. I knew it would be worse than Starchoice...but I didn't think it'd be this poor. Also the HD PVR from Shaw has a known defect where it processes analog channels with even lower PQ...so during setup, the installer had a cable splitter...one to the HD PVR and one direct to the TV. He told me that if we wanted to watch analog stations, it'd be best to go stright from the TV and bypass the box.
2) The HD PVR is not bad...but not great. It's a little noisy, has somewhat smallish recording capacity and you can't power it off while it's recording, eg., watching letterman, I hit record so I can go to sleep...but I can't power it off once the recording is done...it'll just stay on until I wake up and turn it off.

Some things I like about shaw over starchoice:
1) Price. HD PVR is $748...not that great. But, the monthly fees are pretty good. I get all digital channels plus internet for $85.99...or after taxes, just under $100.
2) No dish...which can be ugly.

Anyway, I'm pretty happy...and to think I was worried...

sw.

I was offered a free 6X00 STB (not sure which model -- it has component, but not DVI/HDMI) by my wife's cousin. Apparently, he used it for a month, then bought a model with DVI or HDMI. I got the impression he upgraded for the sake of upgrading -- he's the kind who must have the latest, no matter how small the incremental gain.

I have an RG6 cable built-in from my roof to my HT, but it doesn't extend elsewhere in the home. I had not previously considered getting BEV, but when opportunity knocks, I think I should at least open the door to see who is there. :-)

I'm in North Vancouver, currently using Shaw but not HD. My HT uses front projection -- a Sanyo Z3 -- and a good surround system. I would like to move up to HD at some point, but I have several questions which I hope someone can answer.

1. How do I know whether I have a clear shot at the transmitter satellite through some of the tall trees a block or so away? Does anyone know the compass bearing and azimuth for BEV from North Vancouver?

2, If I can indeed get a clear shot at the satellite, how likely is it that I would experience bad reception during cloudy and rainy weather? (This IS North Vancouver, after all!)

3. How does HD look/sound over component rather than HDMI? (DVD on my system looks good over component scaled up to 720p, and sounds even better.)

4. If I DO go for BEV, I would like to cancel Shaw altogether. Can I transmit the satellite feed throughout the house by hooking up to my cable lines? And would I need separate STBs to view the feed on all TVs, or just for those on which I want the channels north of 59?

Thanks,

Ricketty

"...to cram their channels onto their satellites..."

In general terms, Satellite TV providers (DBS/FSS) have more bandwidth than Cable TV companies.

The downlink bands (DBS or FSS) are 500 MHz wide each, and they double this to 1 GHz by using two polarities (R/L or H/V). Then they double their bandwidth again by using two satellite locations. So the total bandwidth available to the Canadian satellite companies is as much as 2000 MHz (in the US, they're now using three or more satellite locations). In most cases, the satellites aren't 100% available so it goes down from there. But the starting point is they got up to 2 GHz of bandwidth to play with.

Cable TV isn't as large a pipe as you might think. A 2 GHz signal doesn't go very far in a coaxial cable - the loss is extreme at higher frequencies. They're making their pipeline wider by using fibre optics to put the signal into your neighbourhood, and then using lossy coaxial cable for only the last couple of miles (with repeaters). This allows them to increase the maximum bandwidth, but I don't believe that they're able to use frequencies as high as 2 GHz. I believe that they give up at something like 900 MHz, perhaps higher with some systems. Anyone have data?

Therefore, right from the start, the Cable TV pipeline isn't as large as the Satellite TV pipeline. I believe that Cable TV is starting with something around 1 GHz of bandwidth as compared to Satellite TV having as much as 2 GHz.

But it is worse than that! Cable TV is further encumbered by the following:
1) Cable TV typically has dozens and dozens and dozens of legacy analog channels that inefficiently consume vast swaths (most) of the available bandwidth.
2) Some of these analog channels are for scrolling TV guide channels, local access channels, real estate channels, and other similar garbage.
3) Most Cable TV systems have dedicated bandwidth for Internet access, local telephone service, backhaul signals, and (inexplicably) analog video of spectrum analyzer displays (2 such channels in Dartmouth, NS). Satellite TV has similar data (for TV guide and control), but Cable TV seems to waste more bandwidth.

I'm not sure about the other dimension (the signal to noise ratio) of the Shannon's Law data pipeline; I assume that both systems in the same ballpark. Cable TV might be able to use a slightly more efficient modulation scheme for their digital channels, but I'm not sure if they do...

The net result of all this is that I believe (I'm open to corrections) that Satellite TV has an inherent bandwidth advantage over Cable TV. This is in addition to the inherent inefficiency of the legacy analog channels on Cable TV.

This is why it seems that Satellite TV seems to offer more normal channels, more PPV channels, more HD channels than Cable TV. Is there a Cable TV system that offers as much content as a Satellite TV provider?

The wild card is IPTV ("TV" by Internet Protocol) where every channel is basically VOD. And Cable TV is an excellent medium for Internet access (better than satellite).

So, sign-up for Satellite TV, but invest in Cable TV companies...

Anyone know how to get Bell's signal to STOP COMPRESSING the AUDIO so da** much?

The only thing that is keeping me in the Shaw camp, is their audio is far less compressed (well , I also hate the lousy customer service of Bell and their costlier channel lineup, but that's another story)

I run Toslink out from a 6208 and Toslink out on my 5900 (yes I know it's not an HD box like the 6208, but it does support 5.1 digital audio just the same) and the flaky, small hard drive 6208 sounds WAY BETTER than the Bell signal. I send both into my THX Receiver via Toslink.

Indeed, in the menu setup for both boxes, only the Shaw box offers pure PCM option - no added compression. Switching back and forth between the 2 boxes on the same music channel is like night and day! Shaw sound is bigger, fatter and fuller, no comparison.

Graytek .... I also notice recently a considerable improvement with Shaw's Analog channels. Amazingly, they are on a par, and sometime better than SD Satellite - I think/hear rumour that Shaw has been upgrading some lines somewhere, as they rroll out the VOIP and ramp up more HD in various areas.

(No, I don't work for Shaw)

I'm getting BEV installed on Monday (Oct 3). I have to admit, I've been having a bit of buyers remorse since ordering in September. I don't know why, especially if BEV is adding more HD channels!!! I was going to post this reply to see if anyone could talk me off the BEV ledge, but it's ok, I'm jumping now.

It would appear to me that Bell will continually have more HD content than Shaw ever will.

Yes, it is a little more expensive but it's all apples and oranges to me now. Shaw has to offer the movie package much cheaper to remotely compete w/ BEV's HD offerings.

I'll take crappy customer service and unbelievable content over what I have now.

Mark

Hi there - i'm not "up to speed" re digital, HDTV & all that and it doesn't interest me all that much these days - can't afford alot of fancy gadgets, etc.

I disconnected my Shaw cable in Feb' because i was fed up with paying almost $50/mth for a lot of channels I didn't want. Now i've only got a couple channels i receive OTA and the reception isn't great. I'm really missing some of my old familiar channels (Showcase, CBC, Bravo, Discovery) and was thinking of going the BEV route. It seems like it's a lot cheaper and will give me more choices as far as packages go. Right now, with their intro offer, I can rent the dish for $2.50/mth, plus $25/mth for a basic pkg and then add on any smaller bundles i want for $2.50 each (and get free installation if i do a 2-year contract on the rental). So i'm looking at ~$30/mth to get the channels i want - is this too good to be true (am i going to get caught somewhere with lousy reception or hidden costs), or is BEV really better?

I have been a sat user since 02 and will never go back to cable. For me the time shift is a large selling point. the cost of set top boxes when I got on the sat band wagon were quite different also. I have been with SC , made a call to bell yesterdayto switch. Plain and simple...I WANT The hockey package. I will say shaw internet rocks... :p

So i'm looking at ~$30/mth to get the channels i want - is this too good to be true (am i going to get caught somewhere with lousy reception or hidden costs), or is BEV really better?

No, it's not too good to be true....in fact it's better than that. Rental charges are waived if you sign a two year contract. My 4 receivers, including one 6100, are all no charge. All I pay is for my package. As long as you don't mind a dish on your roof or side of your house, you're good to go. I also received PPV credits, and the picture quality is better than Shaw in most circumstances IMHO.

Mark