Ask a question
Search in U-verse Forums

U-verse Forums

Reply
Highlighted
Posted Sep 21, 2013
8:09:01 PM
View profile
Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!
Edited by StotheK on Sep 21, 2013 at 8:26:03 PM

I just got 2 wireless receivers added to my account (replacing wired ones, VIP1200). They are a definite improvement in certain areas. It is a LOT quicker and smoother navigating throughout the guide and especially scrolling the DVR (which was surprising). Basically a night and day difference in that respect. But I do get an occasional hiccup where the screen freezes for a millisecond every couple of hours. It's not a big deal though. 

 

However, I've noticed that the picture quality of the wirelsss receivers are a definite downgrade to the wired ones they replaced. The most noticeable difference is that the picture is a LOT darker and is also less clear/defined. It is definitely noticeable in areas like flesh tones. It's as if the the resolution rating dropped a notch or two.  

 

Just to make sure that I wasn't imagining things, I swapped the wireless for a wired (going back and forth) and the difference again was very apparent to me as well as other family members. Does anybody know why this is? It's happening on both of my wireless receivers so I know it's not just one bad receiver. I'm thinking maybe the wireless transmission is not a solid as a wired one in delivering the picture. But I'm just specualting at this point. 

 

I've got Cisco wireless receivers with the new Motorola brand WAP. Any ideas?

I just got 2 wireless receivers added to my account (replacing wired ones, VIP1200). They are a definite improvement in certain areas. It is a LOT quicker and smoother navigating throughout the guide and especially scrolling the DVR (which was surprising). Basically a night and day difference in that respect. But I do get an occasional hiccup where the screen freezes for a millisecond every couple of hours. It's not a big deal though. 

 

However, I've noticed that the picture quality of the wirelsss receivers are a definite downgrade to the wired ones they replaced. The most noticeable difference is that the picture is a LOT darker and is also less clear/defined. It is definitely noticeable in areas like flesh tones. It's as if the the resolution rating dropped a notch or two.  

 

Just to make sure that I wasn't imagining things, I swapped the wireless for a wired (going back and forth) and the difference again was very apparent to me as well as other family members. Does anybody know why this is? It's happening on both of my wireless receivers so I know it's not just one bad receiver. I'm thinking maybe the wireless transmission is not a solid as a wired one in delivering the picture. But I'm just specualting at this point. 

 

I've got Cisco wireless receivers with the new Motorola brand WAP. Any ideas?

Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

[ Edited ]
5,591 views
15 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(15)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 21, 2013 8:48:12 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert
Edited by texasguy37 on Sep 21, 2013 at 8:52:27 PM

StotheK wrote:

 

However, I've noticed that the picture quality of the wirelsss receivers are a definite downgrade to the wired ones they replaced. The most noticeable difference is that the picture is a LOT darker and is also less clear/defined. It is definitely noticeable in areas like flesh tones. It's as if the the resolution rating dropped a notch or two.  


That's interesting.  I replaced 2 of my wired receivers (Motorola VIP 1200) with 2 of the Cisco wireless receivers, and I would say that reduced picture quality is not the case.  If anything, I would say the opposite has occurred.

 

By the way, I'm not experiencing the occasional freeze of the picture every two hours that you mentioned.  How far are the receivers from the WAP?

 

Once difference that we do have is the WAP.  I have the Cisco WAP.


StotheK wrote:

 

However, I've noticed that the picture quality of the wirelsss receivers are a definite downgrade to the wired ones they replaced. The most noticeable difference is that the picture is a LOT darker and is also less clear/defined. It is definitely noticeable in areas like flesh tones. It's as if the the resolution rating dropped a notch or two.  


That's interesting.  I replaced 2 of my wired receivers (Motorola VIP 1200) with 2 of the Cisco wireless receivers, and I would say that reduced picture quality is not the case.  If anything, I would say the opposite has occurred.

 

By the way, I'm not experiencing the occasional freeze of the picture every two hours that you mentioned.  How far are the receivers from the WAP?

 

Once difference that we do have is the WAP.  I have the Cisco WAP.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

[ Edited ]
2 of 16 (5,573 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 21, 2013 9:06:18 PM
0
(0)
Teacher
Edited by StotheK on Sep 21, 2013 at 9:08:13 PM

They're at the other end of the house, away from the RG. Maybe 40-50 ft. It rarely happens though. Just every now and then. It sometimes happens when I'm watching off the DVR. But again, it's no big deal. I would say it works flawlessly 99.97% of the time.    

 

However, the picture downgrade is real. It's definitely NOT better than a wired connection. No freakin way. Definitely worse.

 

I thought maybe I should try to swap a wired with the wireless receiver and connect it with Cat5 instead of using it wirelessly. I haven't tried that yet.

 

Do you think maybe it has to do with the new Motorla WAP?

 

 

They're at the other end of the house, away from the RG. Maybe 40-50 ft. It rarely happens though. Just every now and then. It sometimes happens when I'm watching off the DVR. But again, it's no big deal. I would say it works flawlessly 99.97% of the time.    

 

However, the picture downgrade is real. It's definitely NOT better than a wired connection. No freakin way. Definitely worse.

 

I thought maybe I should try to swap a wired with the wireless receiver and connect it with Cat5 instead of using it wirelessly. I haven't tried that yet.

 

Do you think maybe it has to do with the new Motorla WAP?

 

 

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

[ Edited ]
3 of 16 (5,555 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 21, 2013 9:21:00 PM
0
(0)
Teacher
Edited by StotheK on Sep 21, 2013 at 9:22:54 PM

Texasguy, I see that you're in the DFW area. I'm in Frisco.

 

Do you happen to know when exactly we should see the higher 45/6 internet speed option other areas of the country are now getting? And also, do you know if there are any future plans for a larger hard drive for the DVR? I have the 250gb VIP1225 and I know there's a 500gb model as well, but do you know if there are any plans for a 1tb+ model and timetable for release?

Texasguy, I see that you're in the DFW area. I'm in Frisco.

 

Do you happen to know when exactly we should see the higher 45/6 internet speed option other areas of the country are now getting? And also, do you know if there are any future plans for a larger hard drive for the DVR? I have the 250gb VIP1225 and I know there's a 500gb model as well, but do you know if there are any plans for a 1tb+ model and timetable for release?

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

[ Edited ]
4 of 16 (5,536 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 21, 2013 11:12:41 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

No, I haven't seen any rumors as to when the 45/6 internet package will abe available in our area.  My guess would be soon.

 

Also, I have seen nothing on plans to offer a DVR with larger than a 500 GB hard drive.

No, I haven't seen any rumors as to when the 45/6 internet package will abe available in our area.  My guess would be soon.

 

Also, I have seen nothing on plans to offer a DVR with larger than a 500 GB hard drive.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

5 of 16 (5,489 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 22, 2013 9:37:52 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

Looks like the new 45/6 internet package will be rolled out in our region on 9/30:

 

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28674305-faster-Uverse-speeds-Project-VIP-coming-soon-

Looks like the new 45/6 internet package will be rolled out in our region on 9/30:

 

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28674305-faster-Uverse-speeds-Project-VIP-coming-soon-

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

6 of 16 (5,450 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 23, 2013 7:38:31 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

This may sound silly, but did you confirm the aspect ratio is set the same on both boxes?

This may sound silly, but did you confirm the aspect ratio is set the same on both boxes?

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

7 of 16 (5,418 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 23, 2013 9:20:35 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert
StotheK - Two more suggestions on your quality of picture problem -

Adjusting the TV picture settings can make a big difference in your viewing pleasure.

I believe that an HDMI connection is more susceptible to variation driven by the source. You might try component cables instead of HDMI to even out the differences. THe quality of component should be equal to the HDMI, but you will not see some shows as better than others.
StotheK - Two more suggestions on your quality of picture problem -

Adjusting the TV picture settings can make a big difference in your viewing pleasure.

I believe that an HDMI connection is more susceptible to variation driven by the source. You might try component cables instead of HDMI to even out the differences. THe quality of component should be equal to the HDMI, but you will not see some shows as better than others.
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

8 of 16 (5,398 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 23, 2013 10:59:01 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

texasguy37 wrote:

Looks like the new 45/6 internet package will be rolled out in our region on 9/30:

 

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28674305-faster-Uverse-speeds-Project-VIP-coming-soon-


If that is actually accurate information, from my understanding, I would need to upgrade to a new RG (have 3800 now) and would have to have somebody come out and install twisted pair to that RG? or homerun as I heard it's called in the forums ...to able to have the faster, 45/6mbps speeds? WIll I be charged $100 for the service call?

 

I'm still kinda upset that the original At&T installer installed my Uverse service using coax to the RG as well as all of the stb's, especially when my home was actually NEW construction and already had Cat5 prewired THROUGHOUT the house. But he chose to go with the coax route. I know from reading here as well as DSL Reports that a good Coax install is just as good as Cat5, but I wish I had known more about Uverse at the very beginning. I would have requested for a Cat5 install at that time. Oh well...

 

 

 

 


texasguy37 wrote:

Looks like the new 45/6 internet package will be rolled out in our region on 9/30:

 

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28674305-faster-Uverse-speeds-Project-VIP-coming-soon-


If that is actually accurate information, from my understanding, I would need to upgrade to a new RG (have 3800 now) and would have to have somebody come out and install twisted pair to that RG? or homerun as I heard it's called in the forums ...to able to have the faster, 45/6mbps speeds? WIll I be charged $100 for the service call?

 

I'm still kinda upset that the original At&T installer installed my Uverse service using coax to the RG as well as all of the stb's, especially when my home was actually NEW construction and already had Cat5 prewired THROUGHOUT the house. But he chose to go with the coax route. I know from reading here as well as DSL Reports that a good Coax install is just as good as Cat5, but I wish I had known more about Uverse at the very beginning. I would have requested for a Cat5 install at that time. Oh well...

 

 

 

 

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

9 of 16 (5,364 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 23, 2013 11:09:39 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

bri_man_65 wrote:

This may sound silly, but did you confirm the aspect ratio is set the same on both boxes?


Yes, the receiver automatically set it at 720p (have older Panasonic 720p plasma for office), which is different than the VIP1200 it replaced. That particular wired receiver only had a HD or nothing setting, if I recall correctly. You had to set it manually. I also tried force-switching to 1080i to see if it made any difference, but much of a difference. Picture is still pretty dark compared to the wired receiver.   


bri_man_65 wrote:

This may sound silly, but did you confirm the aspect ratio is set the same on both boxes?


Yes, the receiver automatically set it at 720p (have older Panasonic 720p plasma for office), which is different than the VIP1200 it replaced. That particular wired receiver only had a HD or nothing setting, if I recall correctly. You had to set it manually. I also tried force-switching to 1080i to see if it made any difference, but much of a difference. Picture is still pretty dark compared to the wired receiver.   

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

10 of 16 (5,362 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 23, 2013 11:33:53 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

aviewer wrote:
StotheK - Two more suggestions on your quality of picture problem -

Adjusting the TV picture settings can make a big difference in your viewing pleasure.

I believe that an HDMI connection is more susceptible to variation driven by the source. You might try component cables instead of HDMI to even out the differences. THe quality of component should be equal to the HDMI, but you will not see some shows as better than others.

Thanks, but I don't own component cables. I know technically if I really wanted to rig it, I could use A/V cables in the component input, but I should not have to go that route. I've tried changing the picture settings on my tv and I think it may have helped some. The tv I'm using for this receiver is an older Panasonic plasma in an office type setting. I'm the only one watching it. Picture quality isn't as important as if it were in the family room or bedroom. The wireless functionality of this new receiver is working great, and that is I guess what's most critical at this point.

 

I've tried using a very long Cat5 cable from the RG to the receiver, but same result. I'm just going to live with it at this point. The picture still looks pretty decent, but it is a definite downgrade from the wired receiver it replaced.

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

 


aviewer wrote:
StotheK - Two more suggestions on your quality of picture problem -

Adjusting the TV picture settings can make a big difference in your viewing pleasure.

I believe that an HDMI connection is more susceptible to variation driven by the source. You might try component cables instead of HDMI to even out the differences. THe quality of component should be equal to the HDMI, but you will not see some shows as better than others.

Thanks, but I don't own component cables. I know technically if I really wanted to rig it, I could use A/V cables in the component input, but I should not have to go that route. I've tried changing the picture settings on my tv and I think it may have helped some. The tv I'm using for this receiver is an older Panasonic plasma in an office type setting. I'm the only one watching it. Picture quality isn't as important as if it were in the family room or bedroom. The wireless functionality of this new receiver is working great, and that is I guess what's most critical at this point.

 

I've tried using a very long Cat5 cable from the RG to the receiver, but same result. I'm just going to live with it at this point. The picture still looks pretty decent, but it is a definite downgrade from the wired receiver it replaced.

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

 

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

11 of 16 (5,356 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 23, 2013 11:37:36 PM
0
(0)
Employee
*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

12 of 16 (5,352 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Sep 24, 2013 10:54:54 AM
0
(0)
Voyager

I have the same problem with my wireless receiver.  I just had UVerse installed, and the picture quality on the wired receiver is great.  However, the picture from the wireless receiver is noticably darker and grainer.  In fact, you can see flickering on channels like CNBC that contain static boxes and graphics.  There is no way this is the same quality ATT expects.  

 

Does this sound like a hardware issue?  

 

Thanks

I have the same problem with my wireless receiver.  I just had UVerse installed, and the picture quality on the wired receiver is great.  However, the picture from the wireless receiver is noticably darker and grainer.  In fact, you can see flickering on channels like CNBC that contain static boxes and graphics.  There is no way this is the same quality ATT expects.  

 

Does this sound like a hardware issue?  

 

Thanks

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

13 of 16 (5,289 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 16, 2013 3:43:58 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

I'm a week in with Uverse.....  I also have the flickering issue on the wireless receivers.  I curently have ethernet cables ran directly to them from the modem/router and it's the same thing..No cure at all. It still has that flicker in the screen.

 

I've also moved the main receiver into the living room where I had a wireless receiver and it worked perfect..No flicker..No pixelating..  All the TVs work perfect if the main receiver is connected to them instead of the wireless receivers.  AT&T has been to my home 4 times in a week trying to cure the problem.  I'm pretty much convinced that the wireless receivers are junk.  

 

Have you came up with a solution to this problem after a few months?  There is no way I will live with this issue.  AT&T will be gone just as quick as they came.

I'm a week in with Uverse.....  I also have the flickering issue on the wireless receivers.  I curently have ethernet cables ran directly to them from the modem/router and it's the same thing..No cure at all. It still has that flicker in the screen.

 

I've also moved the main receiver into the living room where I had a wireless receiver and it worked perfect..No flicker..No pixelating..  All the TVs work perfect if the main receiver is connected to them instead of the wireless receivers.  AT&T has been to my home 4 times in a week trying to cure the problem.  I'm pretty much convinced that the wireless receivers are junk.  

 

Have you came up with a solution to this problem after a few months?  There is no way I will live with this issue.  AT&T will be gone just as quick as they came.

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

14 of 16 (4,698 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 16, 2013 7:19:43 PM
0
(0)
Employee
Replace the wiress receivers with hardwired....if Ethernet cables to each location, just plug in and unplug power to WAP.
If on coax will need two set top receivers and return wireless, another tech visit as coax ends, splitter, etc will need to be changed.
Replace the wiress receivers with hardwired....if Ethernet cables to each location, just plug in and unplug power to WAP.
If on coax will need two set top receivers and return wireless, another tech visit as coax ends, splitter, etc will need to be changed.
*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

15 of 16 (4,687 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Feb 12, 2014 10:04:59 AM
0
(0)
Contributor

It is physically impossible to transimit a true HD signal qualtiy equal to or better than a signal sent via proper hard connection. If your wireless picture improved over your previous cable connection, then you had inferior cable connections previousy! The person that advised the wireless picture quality is not as good as the wired connection is 100% correct. If true HD high quality TV signal (equal to or better than wired) can be transmitted wireless, why doesn't Dish, Direct, At&t and ALL do it 100% of the time and save all the $$$ on cable cost. Why, because it is impossible! Think about it!Smiley Happy

It is physically impossible to transimit a true HD signal qualtiy equal to or better than a signal sent via proper hard connection. If your wireless picture improved over your previous cable connection, then you had inferior cable connections previousy! The person that advised the wireless picture quality is not as good as the wired connection is 100% correct. If true HD high quality TV signal (equal to or better than wired) can be transmitted wireless, why doesn't Dish, Direct, At&t and ALL do it 100% of the time and save all the $$$ on cable cost. Why, because it is impossible! Think about it!Smiley Happy

Re: Wireless Receivers - Picture Quality NOT As Good As Wired!?!

16 of 16 (4,242 Views)
Advanced
You must be signed in to add attachments
Share this post
Share this post