Looks As If Blu Ray Will Win

[Ron61]

Ronbo,

I don't buy my satellite receivers. I lease them and they have a $5.95 a month maintenance agreement which I also get. So far they have changed out two of them for me at no cost. I do have the option to buy but just don't see why I should and then if something goes wrong I have to pay for it. As for all the stuff about Hi DEf and everything, I won't be here when that is finally settled. As for the billions in Coax maintenance and installation, that is why this cable company had to sell to a large one as they did not maintain the cable and the TV was off half the time. Now with their better improved service you can see the talk and buy channels well, but everything else is a pay extra type and the service is just as lousy. As for Fiber optic, the only cables we will ever see here are the ones that they started putting between the computers to link them. I don't believe that people in this area will ever see the day they run fiber to the homes.

Ron

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

...

It's my opinion that Toshiba gave up because there already is a winner ...and it isn't Blu-Ray. Of course there is a lot of hype and banner waving right now; that's marketing.

My thought is that standard DVD is going to be the norm for a long, long time ...that it has already won. Toshiba quit because it's a losing proposition to try to advance high definition video of any kind. Standard DVD is just a little too good.

I suggest that HD video will go the way of HD audio. How many of us have HD audio players or have even heard of them?

I believe one of the main reasons both HD formats have been promoted is that it is too easy to copy the contents of standard CD and DVD. And that is why there is such desperation to ween the public away from them. But I predict that it won't work. Most people will continue to buy standard DVD until there is some kind of underhanded move, if ever, to kill the manufacture of new standard players. Kill the goose that is presently laying a lot of golden eggs for the movie industry. Won't happen IMHO.


...

You guys make some really good arguments about the rise of HD video. I still think that BluRay will not replace standard DVD video the way that DVD has replaced VHS which is what I should have said. In that respect, std DVD wins. I hope they do co-exist and encourage more and more HD programming.

Sony will probably continue promoting the BluRay format but I think they are still losing money over it, at this point anyway. The reason that Toshiba got out.

My 51" 1080i HDTV looks only slightly better on pure HD than it does on 480i DVD or quality 480i digital channels. DVD recordings of 480 digital programming look pretty good also, with little loss, except they are 4:3 aspect. And some dvd S-video copies of PBS HD rival boughten DVDs and are widescreen. The jump up from DVD to HD is a small one to me, and probably many others, in a cost-benefit ratio.

I had forgotten about it but I accidently noted that SACD is available on my Sony DVD jukebox last night. We don't use it that often but the wife wanted to watch "Planet of the Apes" again, since she caught only part of it on TV.

I don't think I've got a SACD music disc to try and I should get one. There was another competing format just called "DVD-Audio" that nothing I have will play unless one of my computers would. I don't think I'd be able to hear the difference. Too many years of locomotive cab noise, I'm afraid.

Ronbo is probably right about bandwidth issues but I would guess that many FM stations won't do it until forced. Our local Off-Air Fox TV station is still a digital holdout here. That was particularily disappointing during NFL HD broadcasts since Fox bid into it this year. But at least their NTSC station is UHF which seems to carry slightly more detail than local VHF, if that makes sense. I hope Fox doesn't fold up locally, over upgrade investment. I live in a relatively small market area.

The rest of the Off-Air HD network channels are not entirely reliable in that they "pixel out" once in a while and take the audio with them. My wife won't willingly watch them because of this, choosing NTSC versions instead. I'm not sure where the problem is. I'm using a multi-element exterior antenna and get an excellent reading on signal strength. Might be my cheap digital tuner but I have seen the same problem across local HD brought in by the cable to the bedroom set which has its own ATSC tuner. But then the bedroom TV is a cheap appliance too.


...

[Ronbo]

Digital HD requires better signal level than analog and the frequencies are almost all in UHF now. the existing channel numbers are basically "place setters" (why the TV has to scan these in on setup).

I changed my antenna out to a true HD antenna, made a world of difference. Try one of these: Antennas Direct | DB4 The Best HDTV Antenna on the Market

They also have an 8 element if your way out in the boonies.

BTW if any of you get flack from your local natzies, I mean housing board. There's an FCC ruling passed in '96 that says you can go up to 12ft above your roof line. They can't tell you to take it down. Here's the rulling: FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

Digital HD requires better signal level than analog and the frequencies are almost all in UHF now. the existing channel numbers are basically "place setters" (why the TV has to scan these in on setup).

I changed my antenna out to a true HD antenna, made a world of difference. Try one of these: Antennas Direct | DB4 The Best HDTV Antenna on the Market

They also have an 8 element if your way out in the boonies.

BTW if any of you get flack from your local natzies, I mean housing board. There's an FCC ruling passed in '96 that says you can go up to 12ft above your roof line. They can't tell you to take it down. Here's the rulling: FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas

Thanks for the link, Ronbo. It might be worth a shot and $69 is not too much to gamble.

I'm fairly close, less than 15 miles from all towers and I get a good signal strength reading, so I have some doubts. Still, I could be losing signal lock to aircraft flyovers and such since I'm about 5 miles from an airport. A better dedicated antenna might resist fluctuations better. It is my understanding that newer tuners are also more resistant to momentary multi-path signals which may present themselves as dropouts instead of ghosts as in analog.

I don't have a problem with outdoor antenna restrictions, but good point. I'm using one similar to this:
( http://rsk.imageg.net/graphics/produ...rshalt1_dt.jpg )

What do you mean by "place setters"? Is that to say that the current digital channel assignments are temporary? I haven't run across the term before.


...

[Ronbo]

Well the old station channels corresponded to an actual frequency i.e. ch 4 was the same frequency everywhere.

On over the air you have ch4-1, 4-2, ect but they aren't on any specific frequency, it's a VHF channel on the old system on ATSC it's what ever frequency the FCC assigns and likely a UHF frequency. Your TV treats the old channel number like the call sign. (WGBH) Basically makes the transition easier for people ch4 is still displayed as ch 4.x (up to 4 sub channels)

Sorry if this is confusing, it's only because it is. Scary part is it makes sense to me.

To put it briefly the TV doesn't know where ch4 got parked on the new band so on initial setup it scans the whole frequency band. Neat thing is they can re-assign a channel and the info is transmitted to your TV automatically. Your guide will load channels that you can't tune in though. (mine does) Where I'm at it shows channels from Gainsville, FL. because some people are in an over lap area and can pick up both cities. I can't and my TV doesn't know it's actual location. (Sat receivers ask for your zip code)

BTW the antenna your using a lot of people think the "front" is the arrow pattern (the longer VHF rods) it's actually the stubby UHF three prong portion. (short rods) The two offshoots are actually reflectors to the center section. (don't ask, some guy with a lot more grey matter than me designed it)

[Ron61]

The original TV antennas were designed with the longer rods to pick up more of the old analog signals than the short ones that feed the TV would. That way you got better reception and not so many ghosts. When we had antennas here I figured out all the frequencies, we only could receive 6 stations and cut aluminum rods to the exact length of each frequencies wave length. Worked great. No standing wave refractions at all.

Ron

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

Well the old station channels corresponded to an actual frequency i.e. ch 4 was the same frequency everywhere.

On over the air you have ch4-1, 4-2, ect but they aren't on any specific frequency, it's a VHF channel on the old system on ATSC it's what ever frequency the FCC assigns and likely a UHF frequency. Your TV treats the old channel number like the call sign. (WGBH) Basically makes the transition easier for people ch4 is still displayed as ch 4.x (up to 4 sub channels)

Sorry if this is confusing, it's only because it is. Scary part is it makes sense to me.

To put it briefly the TV doesn't know where ch4 got parked on the new band so on initial setup it scans the whole frequency band. Neat thing is they can re-assign a channel and the info is transmitted to your TV automatically. Your guide will load channels that you can't tune in though. (mine does) Where I'm at it shows channels from Gainsville, FL. because some people are in an over lap area and can pick up both cities. I can't and my TV doesn't know it's actual location. (Sat receivers ask for your zip code)

BTW the antenna your using a lot of people think the "front" is the arrow pattern (the longer VHF rods) it's actually the stubby UHF three prong portion. (short rods) The two offshoots are actually reflectors to the center section. (don't ask, some guy with a lot more grey matter than me designed it)

Ronbo,
Thanks for the explanation. It helps make sense why my set-top digital tuner(s) originally tune to a specific UHF frequency and thereafter flips the displayed channel info to read traditional channel numbers for known local networks. At first I thought it odd but apparently they all do it according to plan.

My simple understanding of VHF parallel reflector and director antenna elements are that the reflectors are spaced 180 degrees out of phase, and behind, with the chosen wavelength and the director elements are in phase ahead of the main dipole. Or is it visa-versa? The "tapered" length variation supposedly broadens the band response, I think. A V-shaped UHF array is even more mind boggling.

Originally Posted by Ron61

The original TV antennas were designed with the longer rods to pick up more of the old analog signals than the short ones that feed the TV would. That way you got better reception and not so many ghosts. When we had antennas here I figured out all the frequencies, we only could receive 6 stations and cut aluminum rods to the exact length of each frequencies wave length. Worked great. No standing wave refractions at all.

Ron

I'd like to see that, Ron. I used to wonder if I couldn't place tuned lengths of twin-lead dipoles stapled on my ceiling to match specific local channels. The idea was to paint over them to obscure their presence but my wife wouldn't let me try it in HER house. I wasn't sure how I could mix and match the various 300 ohm feeds.

We used to have only have three VHF channels, PBS, NBC and CBS for years. Somewhere in the '80's we got two UHF channels, ABC and FOX. I don't think the UHF have as much broadcast range, but I think the VHF is good up to about 75 miles. Lucky for me I live close to all.


...

[Ron61]

Wes,

Since the longer rods are just collector or refractors the same as the dish is for the satellite signal, I just took the regular antenna we had and took off the ones that weren't close to anything we could receive way back then and then while at work I made the ones that I used. Way back in the early days when I got my FCC license we had to know all the formulas and stuff to figure out how to build and set up radio and TV stations. Now I can't even remember my name. Now with my very limited mind, I stick to stuff that is built to work. I even gave up on the Mars Robot I was going to build.

Ron