My experience with U-Verse (HD)

jlt1984 · ‎12-08-2009

I've been reading all of the arguments and discussion regarding U-Verse HD as compared to other services, and I though I would chime in with my two experiences wtih U-Verse and its HD programming.

I think the one thing we can all agree about is that additional features of U-verse -- remote DVR programming, multi-room DVR access, iPhone DVR app -- make it a "better" choice than cable (though this can depend on who your cable provider is, I suppose) in terms of usability. Here in Houston, the alternative is Comcast.

I have had U-Verse service in two locations. The first time I had U-Verse installed was in the summer of 2008. I switched from Comcast, but at the time did not have HD -- only DVR. I then scheduled an install (and waited 7 weeks for it) for U-Verse HD with service in two rooms. This was prior to the implementation of the whole-home DVR service in our market.

I was blown away by U-verse upon my switch. The programming packages are pretty much the right mix, and I loved the remote DVR access feature and utilized it pretty much every day. The HD quality didn't yield any complaints, though I had nothing to compare it to other than OTA locals (which is, of course, the best quality available) - so I knew and accepted there would be degredation.

In September of this year, I relocated. For whatever reason, ATT was never able to coordinate a transfer of service. I finally became frustrated and opted to cancel and go to Comcast at my new place, then create a new order for U-verse. Comcast offered a great promotional price -- 16 meg internet and digital cable starter pack with HDDVR for about $85/month with all taxes.

Although it pained me to admit it, the HD PQ on Comcast was a big improvement over what I had been experiencing on U-Verse for the past year. I kept Comcast for about a month, as I was really enjoying their internet service and the HD picture quality was an improvement. However, the major downfall for Comcast is their equipment -- I can not believe their HD DVR is essentailly the same Scientific-Atlanta DVR they have been issuing since at least 2003, just with an HD tuner added. I would have expected something to progress within 6 years...but it is still the same attrocious program guide paired with the same feature-less DVR device.

This device paired with no remote access was the breaking point for me and, even though it's going to cost me $40 more/month and half the internet speed, I switched back to U-Verse this past Saturday.

The difference in HD quality was noticable as soon as the tech tuned to the HD tier. The picture quality on U-verse is good during still images, but the amount of pixelation is quite high when scenes involve a lot of motion and quick variations in color. It kind of reminds me of the days when the web utilized progressive-load JPEG files on websites. It is pixelated during motion, then clears back up as things "calm down." Comcast's HD has its own problems as well, but overall I do feel buyers remorse in terms of HD quality.

Whether or not U-verse is for you depends how much the whole-home DVR and other features mean to you. If HD quality is your main concern, sticking with cable or satellite if possible is probably going to make you happier. My personal opinion is that the features and advanced equipment/program guide make the HD disappointment easier to accept. If you're one of the people still using SD sets, I don't really see any reason to not consider U-verse.

I still have not decided if the features will be enough to justify the extra $40 and keep me from going back to Comcast. Dish Network with Comcast HSI is another option, though expensive. The thought of a two year contract and annoyance of dealing with an apartment installation do not thrill me...but I do know that the best HD experience I've had was on sets running on satellite.

Message Edited by jlt1984 on 12-08-2009 11:06 AM

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

jlt1984 wrote:

The difference in HD quality was noticable as soon as the tech tuned to the HD tier. The picture quality on U-verse is good during still images, but the amount of pixelation is quite high when scenes involve a lot of motion and quick variations in color. It kind of reminds me of the days when the web utilized progressive-load JPEG files on websites. It is pixelated during motion, then clears back up as things "calm down." Comcast's HD has its own problems as well, but overall I do feel buyers remorse in terms of HD quality.

Message Edited by jlt1984 on 12-08-2009 11:06 AM

On my 42" Panasonic plasma that generally is not the case, the plasma making the difference. LCDs

w/less than 120 HZ motion help will probably show what you see. The biggest problem I see is the

difference in HD PQ across different channels and differences on an individual channel.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

jlt1984 wrote:
I've been reading all of the arguments and discussion regarding U-Verse HD as compared to other services, and I though I would chime in with my two experiences wtih U-Verse and its HD programming.

I think the one thing we can all agree about is that additional features of U-verse -- remote DVR programming, multi-room DVR access, iPhone DVR app -- make it a "better" choice than cable (though this can depend on who your cable provider is, I suppose) in terms of usability. Here in Houston, the alternative is Comcast.

I have had U-Verse service in two locations. The first time I had U-Verse installed was in the summer of 2008. I switched from Comcast, but at the time did not have HD -- only DVR. I then scheduled an install (and waited 7 weeks for it) for U-Verse HD with service in two rooms. This was prior to the implementation of the whole-home DVR service in our market.

I was blown away by U-verse upon my switch. The programming packages are pretty much the right mix, and I loved the remote DVR access feature and utilized it pretty much every day. The HD quality didn't yield any complaints, though I had nothing to compare it to other than OTA locals (which is, of course, the best quality available) - so I knew and accepted there would be degredation.

In September of this year, I relocated. For whatever reason, ATT was never able to coordinate a transfer of service. I finally became frustrated and opted to cancel and go to Comcast at my new place, then create a new order for U-verse. Comcast offered a great promotional price -- 16 meg internet and digital cable starter pack with HDDVR for about $85/month with all taxes.

Although it pained me to admit it, the HD PQ on Comcast was a big improvement over what I had been experiencing on U-Verse for the past year. I kept Comcast for about a month, as I was really enjoying their internet service and the HD picture quality was an improvement. However, the major downfall for Comcast is their equipment -- I can not believe their HD DVR is essentailly the same Scientific-Atlanta DVR they have been issuing since at least 2003, just with an HD tuner added. I would have expected something to progress within 6 years...but it is still the same attrocious program guide paired with the same feature-less DVR device.

This device paired with no remote access was the breaking point for me and, even though it's going to cost me $40 more/month and half the internet speed, I switched back to U-Verse this past Saturday.

The difference in HD quality was noticable as soon as the tech tuned to the HD tier. The picture quality on U-verse is good during still images, but the amount of pixelation is quite high when scenes involve a lot of motion and quick variations in color. It kind of reminds me of the days when the web utilized progressive-load JPEG files on websites. It is pixelated during motion, then clears back up as things "calm down." Comcast's HD has its own problems as well, but overall I do feel buyers remorse in terms of HD quality.

Whether or not U-verse is for you depends how much the whole-home DVR and other features mean to you. If HD quality is your main concern, sticking with cable or satellite if possible is probably going to make you happier. My personal opinion is that the features and advanced equipment/program guide make the HD disappointment easier to accept. If you're one of the people still using SD sets, I don't really see any reason to not consider U-verse.

I still have not decided if the features will be enough to justify the extra $40 and keep me from going back to Comcast. Dish Network with Comcast HSI is another option, though expensive. The thought of a two year contract and annoyance of dealing with an apartment installation do not thrill me...but I do know that the best HD experience I've had was on sets running on satellite.
Message Edited by jlt1984 on 12-08-2009 11:06 AM

Very nice, factually post. Thank you for being honest and non-biased.

Some of us "fanboys" tend to get defensive when the detractors show up and start blasting UV. (It's probably a subconcious thing where we want to reaffrim ourselves we have made the "right" choice.) I personally can't tell the difference between my old DISH service versus UV when it comes to HD. I know I am no where near the videophile quite a few of my fellow posters are. (They could probably take one look at my TV picture and point out numerous issues). I do know the SD picture is definitely "crisper" than when I had DISH. You post IMHO is very level-headed and factual.

Thanks for a breath of fresh air !!!

Message Edited by Dead_Terrorist on 12-08-2009 01:43 PM

Message Edited by Dead_Terrorist on 12-08-2009 01:44 PM

jlt1984 · ‎12-08-2009

mibrnsurg wrote:
jlt1984 wrote:
The difference in HD quality was noticable as soon as the tech tuned to the HD tier. The picture quality on U-verse is good during still images, but the amount of pixelation is quite high when scenes involve a lot of motion and quick variations in color. It kind of reminds me of the days when the web utilized progressive-load JPEG files on websites. It is pixelated during motion, then clears back up as things "calm down." Comcast's HD has its own problems as well, but overall I do feel buyers remorse in terms of HD quality.
Message Edited by jlt1984 on 12-08-2009 11:06 AM

On my 42" Panasonic plasma that generally is not the case, the plasma making the difference. LCDs
w/less than 120 HZ motion help will probably show what you see. The biggest problem I see is the
difference in HD PQ across different channels and differences on an individual channel.

Chris
Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

Right. I forgot to mention that this is based upon my 46" Toshiba LCD 1080p 120hz. Connected using component cables.

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

jlt1984 wrote:

mibrnsurg wrote:
jlt1984 wrote:
The difference in HD quality was noticable as soon as the tech tuned to the HD tier. The picture quality on U-verse is good during still images, but the amount of pixelation is quite high when scenes involve a lot of motion and quick variations in color. It kind of reminds me of the days when the web utilized progressive-load JPEG files on websites. It is pixelated during motion, then clears back up as things "calm down." Comcast's HD has its own problems as well, but overall I do feel buyers remorse in terms of HD quality.
Message Edited by jlt1984 on 12-08-2009 11:06 AM

On my 42" Panasonic plasma that generally is not the case, the plasma making the difference. LCDs
w/less than 120 HZ motion help will probably show what you see. The biggest problem I see is the
difference in HD PQ across different channels and differences on an individual channel.

Chris

Right. I forgot to mention that this is based upon my 46" Toshiba LCD 1080p 120hz. Connected using component cables.

Know here I'm connected by HDMI and also have component hooked up at the same time. The

component connection is not as good as the HDMI connection, it's loses the crispness being a

bit 'softer'.

I also use 4 different picture settings, Custom for many programs, Standard for mild

lightening of dark scenes on HDMI, Game for heavier lightening on HDMI (these 3 I've customized)

and Cinema (not customized) for a 'richer' look.

I also sit at 3 X Diagonal Measure from the TV (listed as far viewing measure on CNET, amazon and

Kim Komando; 1.5-2 X is close viewing measure) to ameliorate many of the compression artifacts.

Only artifacts I see are backgrounds and grass on football (ESPNs hardly none) moving slightly.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

jlt1984 · ‎12-08-2009

Yeah, I've used HDMI as well but that gives me the audio dropout issue. The differnece in PQ wasn't really a discernable amount - definitely not enough to make me put up with the audio loss every 5 or 10 minutes.

kjk77 · ‎12-05-2009

When I had uverse I had issues with both hdmi and component cables. I liked the channels but could not let of pq

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

Alot of users w/LCDs don't see much difference between the 2 and just have sound from the TV in my

small apartment so no worry about the drop-out problem ATT should be ashamed about.

Edit kjk77 ha ha, you never had Uverse.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

Message Edited by mibrnsurg on 12-08-2009 03:25 PM

hpmsrm · ‎09-14-2009

The "fan-boy" reference does make me bristle. You bet I'm a big supporter. Because, no matter how closely I watch, no matter how critical I am, I don't see the multitude of picture defects that some of you do. I've done A/B comparisons with live OTA HD and see no difference in picture quality. We've been subscribers since December of 2007 and early on, it is true, no one burned up the phone lines between us and AT&T as often as I did. But after a few months everything smoothed out.....resulting either from improvements from upgrades or corrections made by the prem techs who came to the house......sometimes even on Sunday mornings. I have no doubts that some folks have problems.....the audio drop outs being the most common.....but we don't have them so of course we are fans of the service. I certainly have never made any derogatory references to any of the folks who DO have problems. On this forum we TRY to help those who are asking for it. But ranters and fakes I don't have much use for.

Recently we did have a problem. DVR locked up and could not be booted up no matter what we tried. Result? After my first call, AT&T thought they had solved the problem on THEIR end. But it did not help so I called again and the very next morning a tech showed up with a new DVR. All is well now and we got the larger hard drive. Yep.....I guess I am a "fan-boy".

Need help? Call AT&T at: 1-800-288-2020 then follow recorded instructions.
A Veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve – is someone who, at a one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to ‘The United States of America’, for an amount of “up to and including his/her life.” ...Author Unknown

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

I hear ya H... I was tagged almost immediately as a "fanboy" .. because I am an optimist and look at the glass half-full. I figure that a company that's been around 100 yrs will eventually get it all worked out.

Message Edited by Dead_Terrorist on 12-08-2009 03:06 PM

innajnod · ‎12-06-2009

I switched from DirecTV to UV a couple of months ago upon moving to a new home. Saved some money by bundling and had high hopes for U-Verse. Unfortunately, UV's poor picture/audio quality is a major disappointment.

For me, the single biggest issue with UV's picture quality is motion blur and a loss of crispness.

Personally, I wish AT&T would focus all their efforts on increasing their bitrates which would translate into improved picture/audio. Three HD feeds would be nice but every single time I turn on the TV I see the picture quality and the disappointment returns.

Maybe UV is better than cable, at least that's what I hear from those who switched from cable but compared to DTV... Well, there's no comparisons in picture quality. DTV wins hands down!!!

I like being able to set up a recording from any TV and I like the bundled pricing. Other than that, there's not too much to like.

I hope they're listening.

brothy83 · ‎12-10-2009

Does anyone have U-verse service in San Antonio,TX. How has your experience been so far? I have a good sound system and am having it installed next Saturday. I have heard in these posts of HD pixelation. Should I be concerned or is it in only certain part of the US?

CGI_1 · ‎07-29-2008

mibrnsurg wrote:
jlt1984 wrote:
The difference in HD quality was noticable as soon as the tech tuned to the HD tier. The picture quality on U-verse is good during still images, but the amount of pixelation is quite high when scenes involve a lot of motion and quick variations in color. It kind of reminds me of the days when the web utilized progressive-load JPEG files on websites. It is pixelated during motion, then clears back up as things "calm down." Comcast's HD has its own problems as well, but overall I do feel buyers remorse in terms of HD quality.
Message Edited by jlt1984 on 12-08-2009 11:06 AM

On my 42" Panasonic plasma that generally is not the case, the plasma making the difference. LCDs
w/less than 120 HZ motion help will probably show what you see. The biggest problem I see is the
difference in HD PQ across different channels and differences on an individual channel.

Chris
Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

I disagree. a plasma is not going to hide the compression issues. Its all subjective, but claiming your tv is the right tv for U-Verse and LCD's are not meant for U-Verse is a pathetic excuse. The original poster got it right, the picture looks good until there is motion, and I dont care if your Plasma or LCD has 10000HZ feature the compression artifacts will show through especially if you have a large tv.

IMHO

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

brothy83 wrote:

Does anyone have U-verse service in San Antonio,TX. How has your experience been so far? I have a good sound system and am having it installed next Saturday. I have heard in these posts of HD pixelation. Should I be concerned or is it in only certain part of the US?

Please do not post the same message in multiple threads.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&message.id=34228#M34228

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Programming&message.id=43857#M43857

Dead_Terrorist · ‎09-11-2009

brothy83 wrote:
Does anyone have U-verse service in San Antonio,TX. How has your experience been so far? I have a good sound system and am having it installed next Saturday. I have heard in these posts of HD pixelation. Should I be concerned or is it in only certain part of the US?

I do live in the San Antonio area and I love it. There are some issues with the HD PQ especially with fast-action "sports" but the features, WHDVR, Web Remote Access, etc. (to me personally) outweigh (IMHO) the minor PQ issues. I've stated in the past that some of my peers could probably point out more than I personally see, but I am also someone who's first TV was black & white (do they even make B/W sets anymore?)..

I have seen a side by side comparison between UV and Direct .. exact same TV's, purchased at the same time, connected with the same type of cables, watching the exact same show and could not tell the difference between DirecTV and UV. I really thought I would based on what I have read here. Not saying the others are wrong, just I personally could not tell the difference.

I would go with UV based on the simple fact they do not require a contract. With the promotions they are running right now, you can get a great deal on rebates and they DO NOT require a contract. Therefore, if you don't like the quality, you can switch back to DirecTV. (But be fair and give UV an honest try especially if you get the rebates)..

I set mine up with HDMI and Toslink fiber optic for the audio to my surround sound (both purchased from Monoprice.com for 1/10 of what the local stores wanted) and I don't experience any of the audio drops others post.. again, that is just me personally.. I went to a lot of rock concerts in my younger years so don't take my opinion as gospel..

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

CGI wrote:

mibrnsurg wrote:
jlt1984 wrote:
The difference in HD quality was noticable as soon as the tech tuned to the HD tier. The picture quality on U-verse is good during still images, but the amount of pixelation is quite high when scenes involve a lot of motion and quick variations in color. It kind of reminds me of the days when the web utilized progressive-load JPEG files on websites. It is pixelated during motion, then clears back up as things "calm down." Comcast's HD has its own problems as well, but overall I do feel buyers remorse in terms of HD quality.
Message Edited by jlt1984 on 12-08-2009 11:06 AM

On my 42" Panasonic plasma that generally is not the case, the plasma making the difference. LCDs
w/less than 120 HZ motion help will probably show what you see. The biggest problem I see is the
difference in HD PQ across different channels and differences on an individual channel.

Chris
Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more
I disagree. a plasma is not going to hide the compression issues. Its all subjective, but claiming your tv is the right tv for U-Verse and LCD's are not meant for U-Verse is a pathetic excuse. The original poster got it right, the picture looks good until there is motion, and I dont care if your Plasma or LCD has 10000HZ feature the compression artifacts will show through especially if you have a large tv.

IMHO