That is how I have it set up. For whatever reason, and I set it to HDMI Control, which is supposed to sync up all that stuff, and it still wasn't working. The only thing that did work initially was bypassing the receiver and hooking up the ps3 directly to the tv, but I didn't want to not have my sound system for all the blu rays, so that doesn't really work for me.

 

However, now it seems to have corrected itself somehow.

 

Very odd that it just corrected itself.

The video is probably compressed more than the audio, causing it [the audio stream] to process faster.

 

You can solve this by using your receiver as the A/V hub, which is especially easy with HDMI cables. Connect all of your devices to the receiver, and connect the receiver to the TV, this way all the audio/video streams run through the receiver, and the receiver controls not only audio output, but video output, too.

This is what I do - there shouldn't be any inefficiency or signal desynchronization or anything. That's weird.

This is what I do - there shouldn't be any inefficiency or signal desynchronization or anything. That's weird.

 

It should be impossible, but it seems it was only happening with one specific show, and it later fixed itself? It had to be some sort of compression issue, maybe the AV processor in his receiver was crashing or something, and eventually "rebooted" and fixed the issue. These things are more like computers every passing year and they're prone to crashes now, just like anything else we use.

Sprint. Best prices anywhere. Everything 450 plan cannot be beaten.

 

If you don't have 4G LTE in your area Sprint f***ing blows since they put you on 3G. Not HSPA+, but 3G.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by chw42

If you don't have 4G LTE in your area Sprint f***ing blows since they put you on 3G. Not HSPA+, but 3G.

I think we're talking big cities, are we not?

I think we're talking big cities, are we not?

 

Sprint doesn't have 4G LTE in every major city though.

Sprint doesn't have 4G LTE in every major city though.

 

And even then, when they say "Chicago", there are huge areas of Chicago that have no such coverage, dropping to 3G. I've found areas of AT&T that claim to have coverage and had none at all. Those coverage maps are exaggerated a lot of the time.

I've never had a problem with AT&T 4G in Chicago.

I've never had a 4G device so I was unaware that 3G sucked???

I've never had a problem with AT&T 4G in Chicago.

 

Are you taking about AT&T "4G" or LTE?! In either case, there are areas where AT&T absolutely sucks. Such as at any sporting event. Hell, in the middle of downtown I often had data issues.

 

Also, true 4g is LTE, which is a data only network. Voice calls and text messages go through their older 3G net.

 

I had AT&T for about 6 years, and always seemed to have issues whenever I actually needed coverage. I finally got sick of making excuses for them and jumped to Verizon, same prices, better coverage as far as I'm concerned.

 

They (AT&T) don't have the poor network ratings and dropped call percentages they have for no reason. Though their LTE data coverage is a lot more solid then their fake "4G"/3G network was, I'll give them that.

Edited April 24, 201312 yr by Y2HH

Are you taking about AT&T "4G" or LTE?! In either case, there are areas where AT&T absolutely sucks. Such as at any sporting event. Hell, in the middle of downtown I often had data issues.

 

Also, true 4g is LTE, which is a data only network. Voice calls and text messages go through their older 3G net.

 

I had AT&T for about 6 years, and always seemed to have issues whenever I actually needed coverage. I finally got sick of making excuses for them and jumped to Verizon, same prices, better coverage as far as I'm concerned.

 

They (AT&T) don't have the poor network ratings and dropped call percentages they have for no reason. Though their LTE data coverage is a lot more solid then their fake "4G"/3G network was, I'll give them that.

 

Sometime LTE pops up. Just never had a problem, unless I'm inside Ogilvie.

I've never had a 4G device so I was unaware that 3G sucked???

3G is around 5-7 mbps. Even T-Mobile's HSPA+ gets me 15 mbps.

 

Verizon's LTE gets you 20 mbps easy. In good areas, you can get up to 50 mbps.

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by chw42

I've never had issues with ATT other than Sox opening day, not sure what it is data overload or something? Other than that it works fine.

I've never had issues with ATT other than Sox opening day, not sure what it is data overload or something? Other than that it works fine.

 

For the most part I've found AT&T works fine, just has its problem areas, dropped calls, etc. I've never been able to get a very good connection with AT&T at sporting events with big crowds...that always annoyed me. I had that same problem at Hawks, Sox and Cubs games.

 

I have none of those problems with Verizon...so far anyway. Verizon being CDMA has issues of it's own, as their "3G" sucks really bad.

For the most part I've found AT&T works fine, just has its problem areas, dropped calls, etc. I've never been able to get a very good connection with AT&T at sporting events with big crowds...that always annoyed me. I had that same problem at Hawks, Sox and Cubs games.

 

I have none of those problems with Verizon...so far anyway. Verizon being CDMA has issues of it's own, as their "3G" sucks really bad.

I think that is a general limitation of wireless technology for now. Everyone complains about that. Have to do your "checkin" at a sporting event early, if you want to Instagram a picture you take, forget it.

I think that is a general limitation of wireless technology for now. Everyone complains about that. Have to do your "checkin" at a sporting event early, if you want to Instagram a picture you take, forget it.

 

I don't have this issue with Verizon. It's the primary driver of why I switched. My friend had Verizon and I had AT&T for years, and every time we were at a sporting event, his phone worked fine throughout the game, regardless of how crowded it was...and mine did exactly what you described, early checkin or nothing. Needless to say, I no longer have that problem. My phone works fine. AT&T simply has piss poor back loading, or whatever technical term they describe it with. Though, they're much better in areas where they have LTE.

I don't have this issue with Verizon. It's the primary driver of why I switched. My friend had Verizon and I had AT&T for years, and every time we were at a sporting event, his phone worked fine throughout the game, regardless of how crowded it was...and mine did exactly what you described, early checkin or nothing. Needless to say, I no longer have that problem. My phone works fine. AT&T simply has piss poor back loading, or whatever technical term they describe it with. Though, they're much better in areas where they have LTE.

Verizon is, by far, the most difficult to get pricing for because they make you jump through hoops online but they are looking like the winner right now. Galaxy S4 (which comes out today) for $250 plus mail-in rebate.

 

I pay roughly $100 right now, T-Mobile's unlimited talk+data for $59.99 plus a 2 GB data plan for $20, after insurance and various fees that's ~$100. It's $89 with my discount of 10% or whatever it is.

Verizon's same plan (2 GB of data) is $60 per month plus whatever their dumb "smartphone line access" fee is of $40 so that bill will be about $106.99 if I'm ordering the same of everything I get on T-Mobile (plus whatever assorted fees they have). I think Verizon also gives a 20% discount for my job too.

 

I always knew T-Mobile had an inferior network to AT&T and Verizon but the prices were always better, but now that the pricing isn't? Nah... what's my incentive to stay? Phone upgrades were part of that, now they're not.

Verizon is, by far, the most difficult to get pricing for because they make you jump through hoops online but they are looking like the winner right now. Galaxy S4 (which comes out today) for $250 plus mail-in rebate.

 

I pay roughly $100 right now, T-Mobile's unlimited talk+data for $59.99 plus a 2 GB data plan for $20, after insurance and various fees that's ~$100. It's $89 with my discount of 10% or whatever it is.

Verizon's same plan (2 GB of data) is $60 per month plus whatever their dumb "smartphone line access" fee is of $40 so that bill will be about $106.99 if I'm ordering the same of everything I get on T-Mobile (plus whatever assorted fees they have). I think Verizon also gives a 20% discount for my job too.

 

I always knew T-Mobile had an inferior network to AT&T and Verizon but the prices were always better, but now that the pricing isn't? Nah... what's my incentive to stay? Phone upgrades were part of that, now they're not.

 

I also get a 19% discount from Verizon and AT&T. For me, it's one or the other...the sub-carriers just aren't an answer for me considering how much I find myself on back roads in the middle of no where throughout the summer...cell phone service can be a life saver. Only Verizon and AT&T have the coverage necessary.

I also get a 19% discount from Verizon and AT&T. For me, it's one or the other...the sub-carriers just aren't an answer for me considering how much I find myself on back roads in the middle of no where throughout the summer...cell phone service can be a life saver. Only Verizon and AT&T have the coverage necessary.

You get service with T-Mobile, it's just the kind of service you'd have gotten in 2007.

You get service with T-Mobile, it's just the kind of service you'd have gotten in 2007.

 

So, no service then?

So, no service then?

haha... just reeeaaally slow data

Checked out my T-Mobile bill to see the new plans, and they are actually cheaper. Then looked into it some more. I've completely reversed my decision. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/mon...s_good_for.html

 

 

Checked out my T-Mobile bill to see the new plans, and they are actually cheaper. Then looked into it some more. I've completely reversed my decision. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/mon...s_good_for.html

 

If T-Mobile or one of the other cheaper carriers had the coverage I needed, I would go with them in a heartbeat. But their out of city coverage just doesn't exist. Hell, from the people I know that have Sprint, their IN city coverage isn't all that spectacular, either.

If T-Mobile or one of the other cheaper carriers had the coverage I needed, I would go with them in a heartbeat. But their out of city coverage just doesn't exist. Hell, from the people I know that have Sprint, their IN city coverage isn't all that spectacular, either.

I've never had any problems with T-Mobile's coverage except the stadium issue. Speed is decent enough, similar technology to AT&T I guess. They're trying to add LTE to their network and this is how they'll do that, since they can't compete with the two giants.

 

The thing is that businesses like to say "we'll be able to lower our costs if..." but they never do it, I didn't realize T-Mobile changed their entire pricing structure to accommodate this since it's something you need to proactively do on the site. I actually did lower my bill. So the idea of paying $20 a month for 2 years isn't that bad, if my bill will just go up to slightly more than it was before PLUS now I have unlimited data again.

If T-Mobile or one of the other cheaper carriers had the coverage I needed, I would go with them in a heartbeat. But their out of city coverage just doesn't exist. Hell, from the people I know that have Sprint, their IN city coverage isn't all that spectacular, either.

 

There's usually less traffic on T-Mobile, so data speeds are usually good if you have a device that can use their HSPA+42 network.

 

I've had no issues with T-Mobile in Chicago suburbs or in Champaign-Urbana. The only thing that really sucked about T-Mobile is that I couldn't get signal in my office at work since I worked in a big steel/glass building. T-Mobile's higher frequencies are bad for building penetration.