DTV reception is much more difficult than analog

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GIl1e.5568$H06.1241@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>> In article <%M21e.4059$gI5.762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>>>>receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>>>>reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>>>>an extremely frustrating experience.
>>>> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>>>>broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>>>>stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>>>>channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>>>>located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>>>>ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>>>
>>>>The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>>>>will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>>>>station which is VERY good news.
>>>>To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>>>>along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>>>>cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>>>>channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>>>>miles away.
>>>>I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>>>>UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>>>>there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>>>>Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>>>>the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>>>>is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>>>>unwatchable during bad weather.
>>>>The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>>>>channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>>>>do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>>>>possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>>>>To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>>>>antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>>>>antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>>>>here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>>>>receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>>>>antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>>>>receive the digital signal!
>>>>
>>>>I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>>>>in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>>>>during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>>>
>>>>All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>>>>receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>>>>HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>>>>is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>>>
>>>>I welcome any constructive advice.
>>>>
>>>>Richard
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
>>>Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
>>>solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in it
>>>was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution. It
>>>is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>>>
>>
>> BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
>> vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
>> a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
>> alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
>> se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
>> issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.
>
> Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
> receivers for less than $60 ------------ nonsense snipped

So, John's intelligent, level-headed discourse went right over your head.

You posted awhile ago that antennas make no difference for 8VSB reception,
so we're not surprised.

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"SATAN" <satan@hell.net> wrote in message
news:ADh1e.461713$w62.116434@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> RCA
>> No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated
>> sets with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This
>> group of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver
>> value to those customers.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically viable
> systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial broadcast TV.

And just think how datacasting advertising could line your pockets, bob.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.63.0503270934210.32574@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy
>> at
>> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup.
>> I
>> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
>> additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
>> newgroup and I hope it stays that way.
>
> There is vast difference between a "lively" debate and repetitive posting
> of lies that have been repeatedly debunked with first-hand information.
>
> Nor do I think that there is any sort of serious consideration of the pros
> and cons of COFDM vs. 8-VSB. Psycho Bob has thoroughly poisoned that
> well.

Bob is not cussing or calling people names. He's well within the boundaries
of good netiquette and easy to kill file if you really don't want him. He
may be full of it but he certainly has opened up some new ground and
information, right or wrong, that would probably not have been discussed on
this for the most part North American frequented newsgroup.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

I am willing to concede that Bob is probably right that we made a
mistake to pick 8-VSB over COFDM, but the point is that decision was
made and we are committed to 8-VSB. Even according to Bob, the best
system in the world now is the new Chinese system, not COFDM. We
should try to make our system better instead of crying about past
history, which is now irreversible.

IB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
> He's well within the boundaries
> of good netiquette

Repetitive restatement of disproven statements is not "good netiquette".

Use of sock puppets is not "good netiquette".

Spreading FUD (which he proudly admits to doing) on an HDTV newsgroup to
discourage people from HDTV is not "good netiquette".

> He
> may be full of it

He is.

> but he certainly has opened up some new ground and
> information, right or wrong, that would probably not have been discussed on
> this for the most part North American frequented newsgroup.

What "new ground"?

Every one of Psycho Bob's postings are gloom and doom about how the rest
of the world is far beyond the US. Yet, upon factual investigation, these
statements are repeatedly and consistantly shown to be false.

Yet he continues to repost the same lies, as if by doing so he can make
them true. That is not a "lively discussion", nor is it "good
netiquette"; that is nothing more than propaganda, straight from Goebbels'
strategy book.

When confronted by facts from individuals with first-hand knowledge,
Psycho Bob trots out out of context statements from press releases.

Psycho Bob's focus is solely on small screen mobile videocasting, and he
sees HDTV as a barrier blocking it. Every one of his postings is aimed at
discrediting HDTV. He has admitted to this.

Psycho Bob's participation on this newsgroup is a negative. We need a
moderated HDTV newsgroup.

By the way, I hope that other people have been forwarding Psycho Bob's
postings to their Congresscritter, especially the parts where Psycho Bob
says that Congress is going to do such-and-such imminently to screw people
who have HDTV.

-- Mark --

http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.63.0503271122220.3112@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> He's well within the boundaries
>> of good netiquette
>
> Repetitive restatement of disproven statements is not "good netiquette".
>
> Use of sock puppets is not "good netiquette".
>
> Spreading FUD (which he proudly admits to doing) on an HDTV newsgroup to
> discourage people from HDTV is not "good netiquette".
>
>> He
>> may be full of it
>
> He is.
>
>> but he certainly has opened up some new ground and
>> information, right or wrong, that would probably not have been discussed
>> on
>> this for the most part North American frequented newsgroup.
>
> What "new ground"?
>
> Every one of Psycho Bob's postings are gloom and doom about how the rest
> of the world is far beyond the US. Yet, upon factual investigation, these
> statements are repeatedly and consistantly shown to be false.
>
> Yet he continues to repost the same lies, as if by doing so he can make
> them true. That is not a "lively discussion", nor is it "good
> netiquette"; that is nothing more than propaganda, straight from Goebbels'
> strategy book.
>
> When confronted by facts from individuals with first-hand knowledge,
> Psycho Bob trots out out of context statements from press releases.
>
> Psycho Bob's focus is solely on small screen mobile videocasting, and he
> sees HDTV as a barrier blocking it. Every one of his postings is aimed at
> discrediting HDTV. He has admitted to this.
>
> Psycho Bob's participation on this newsgroup is a negative. We need a
> moderated HDTV newsgroup.

Well, the good part about Usenet is that we can freely disagree with each
other!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

David wrote:
>
> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.
>
>

You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
fictitious names. They knew who I was as Bob Miller. You know who I am
here. Who are you?

I have no need for using other identities to post here. Their is no
censorship here.

Why did they deny me access on AVSForum? I think it was because each
time someone posted a falsehood on AVSForum I answered with facts. Each
time.

They did not want to hear what has become painfully obvious over the
intervening five years. That we need to switch to a COFDM modulation and
we need a better compression system than MPEG2. The same message I held
then and now.

I don't know who David or SATAN is. If I were to have a fictitious
pretense in this newsgroup I would be David first. Such a fictitious
identity would serve my purposes more than SATAN's. But I don't have to
invent a David since there are plenty of them on this forum.

Bob Miller

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David wrote:
> >
>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum,
>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
>> here.
>
> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted entire
> threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access. That is when
> I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other fictitious names.
> They knew who I was as Bob Miller. You know who I am here. Who are you?
>
> I have no need for using other identities to post here. Their is no
> censorship here.
>
> Why did they deny me access on AVSForum? I think it was because each time
> someone posted a falsehood on AVSForum I answered with facts. Each time.
>
> They did not want to hear what has become painfully obvious over the
> intervening five years. That we need to switch to a COFDM modulation and
> we need a better compression system than MPEG2. The same message I held
> then and now.
>
> I don't know who David or SATAN is. If I were to have a fictitious
> pretense in this newsgroup I would be David first. Such a fictitious
> identity would serve my purposes more than SATAN's. But I don't have to
> invent a David since there are plenty of them on this forum.
>
> Bob Miller

Tell us how you used your daughters internet account to sneak back on AVS.
We know how sick you are.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <xCx1e.5217$gI5.3149@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>>>>I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
>>>>>Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
>>>>>solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
>>>>>it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
>>>>>It is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
>>>>vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
>>>>a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
>>>>alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
>>>>se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
>>>>issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.
>>>
>>>Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
>>>receivers for less than $60 that will work in the most extreme multipath
>>>environments such as mobile.
>>>
>>
>> Again -- the problem that I have seen with 8VSB isn't multipath,
>> but poor front end. You keep making up stories about things that
>> aren't the primary problem with existing 8VSB receivers. Given the same
>> lousy front ends, in the extreme signal environments in the US, NO
>> technology will have much fun.
>>
>> AGAIN -- artificial situations that don't eliminate the tuner
>> front end as an issue simply cannot provide a valid comparision.
>
> My mistake. My last post should have read a little different. It should
> have read...
>
> "Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
> receivers WHICH INCLUDE PROPERLY DESIGNED FRONT ENDS for less than $60
> that will work in the most extreme multipath environments such as
> mobile.
>
Again -- the problem that I have seen with 8VSB isn't multipath,
but poor front end. You keep making up distractions about multipath,
but I haven't seen the case where multipath is the primary problem
for reception.

You keep on trying to change the subject away to an almost non-problem.
Most interestingly, 5th generation receivers seem also to have interesting
troubles when the front end isn't properly designed. Perhaps the CATV
mentality has de-emphasized front end design too seriously.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> David wrote:
> >
>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.
>>
>>
>
> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
> fictitious names.
>
Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
is consistent with your behavior here.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:d26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
> In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>> David wrote:
>> >
>>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum,
>>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
>> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
>> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>> fictitious names.
>>
> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
> is consistent with your behavior here.
>
> John

I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
newgroup and I hope it stays that way. When threads break down to name
calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...to my knowledge Bob has
never stooped to that level so I welcome his right to post and shake things
up a bit with different ideas and conversation.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:EdednW9QL-fgW9vfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:d26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>> David wrote:
>>> >
>>>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>>>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>>>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS
>>>> forum, yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent
>>>> behavior here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
>>> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
>>> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>>> fictitious names.
>>>
>> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
>> is consistent with your behavior here.
>>
>> John
>
> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
> additional research about it without his persistence.


That is true. Because of bob, I've spent a lot of time reading foreign
newsgroups and DTV/DVB forums, finding out how amazingly, consistently wrong
he is.

>This is a lively newgroup and I hope it stays that way. When threads break
>down to name calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...to my
>knowledge Bob has never stooped to that level so I welcome his right to
>post and shake things up a bit with different ideas and conversation.

Bob's "different ideas" have been proven to be nothing but lies.

He's one of the 10-20 ATSC/8VSB bashers in this country. Simply because it
doesn't support datacasting/advertising business schemes.

>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
> I'm not saying I agree with him but if he is stifled it presents a very bad
> precedent.

Not at all. The problem is not new, and there are well-established
mechanisms in place for dealing with individuals who abuse a public forum.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you surrender your freedom from
speech. He has every right to create his own alt.tv.tech.psycho-bob
newsgroup where he can pontificate to a willing audience.

That does not give him the right to harass (and what he is doing *is*
harassment) a newsgroup by repetitively posting the same falsehoods and
forcing others to debunk them, lest some innocent newcomer be misled into
believing them.

And they are lies. I spent a fair amount of time in my most recent trip
to Japan specifically researching his claims and determining that they
were false.

Furthermore, his postings are completely off-topic for alt.tv.tech.hdtv.
It is up to the membership of alt.video.digital-tv to decide if his
postings are on-topic for that group.

> I'll take a thousand Bob's over what I imagine the Chinese
> version of the Usenet provides.

What you don't realize is what he is doing *is* what happens in Red China.
The truth is available to the average Chinese; the bamboo curtain isn't
soundproof. However, the average Chinese is overwhelmed by the relentless
broadcasting of lies, to the point that even though he knows that he is
being told lies, he still ends up believing some of the lies.

It is possible for someone to advocate COFDM intelligently; but that is
not what he does. When confronted with technical facts, he asserts
conspiracy theories or even resorts to racism.

-- Mark --

http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:
>
> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
> is consistent with your behavior here.
>
> John

I am not dishonest here John nor do I have other identities. On AVSForum
I had one identity until they denied that identity access. I had broken
none of their rules. The only thing they admonished me for in private
was posting to much and riling up the natives. But they offered no
remedy to my complaint that if I did not answer post that consistently
offered the same lies about our plans or the truth about COFDM then
those lies and my non-response could be taken as my acceptance of them.

I then re-joined with a new email address and a new screen name which
they surprisingly accepted. I think using other identities is a pretty
standard practice there and here. If everybody understands that is the
practice it is not dishonest. The only dishonesty would have been on the
part of AVSForum if they suggest that I broke any of their published rules.

Basically they got pressure from some of their sponsors that I was
hurting the cause. The cause was pushing a bankrupt 8-VSB modulation and
receivers that did not, do not meet minimal reception standards, that is
they were and are junk, overpriced junk.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <dUy1e.5246$gI5.2577@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>>
>> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
>> is consistent with your behavior here.
>>
>> John
>
> I am not dishonest here John nor do I have other identities. On AVSForum
> I had one identity until they denied that identity access.
>
Again, you clipped your admission of using other identities on AVS Forum.
Effectively, you were being dishonest (and effectively being dishonest
here by clipping the quote.)

>
> Basically they got pressure from some of their sponsors that I was
> hurting the cause. The cause was pushing a bankrupt 8-VSB modulation and
> receivers that did not
>
Again again, your characterization of 8VSB is contrary to my REAL WORLD
experience. Even claiming that multipath is the actual REAL WORLD
problem with current (even early) HDTV receivers is misguided. I have
found that proper matching to the front end of the receiver mitigates
most (for me, ALL) of the problems.

Perhaps, you'd have more credibility if it was consistent with the
real world experience of those who actually use 8VSB (and know the
limitations of RF.) There will certainly be cases where 8VSB doesn't
work, but I have seen that most are real world RF limitations, and not
directly related to 8VSB itself.

COFDM cannot compensate for big fat notches due to bad matching either,
unless you have enough redundancy to cover up the losses. Intermod
along with the notches has to make for 'challenging' decoding to say
the least.

(For those who don't understand the reason for the 'notches' (in
non technical paralance), think about the premium channel filters --
they are either stubs or in-line coax that are carefully mismatched
and of carefully adjusted length.) The nasty mismatches due to
lousy front end design (poor match to 75ohms) can cause really strange
freq response problems. It isn't just manifest as reflections, but
also act like a filter. Once a signal is essentially cancelled out
and then replaced by intermod components, reception of the data represented
by that mess will be lost.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I am very late to this discussion. What is the difference between
"8VSB" and "COFDM?" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

I have a Samsung receiver, presumably 8VSB, connected to a rather large
rotating antenna mounted in my attic and I am quite surprised at how
good DTV reception is compared to what I get from analog. I am also
pleased that digital seems to work 100% or not at all instead of getting
fuzzy as analog does. The one problem I have is that certain digital
channels seem not always to be working at 100% or even at all. However,
when they are up, I get them.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"It would really be quite easy to switch now. Most OTA people are worn
out by the current stagnation." -Bob Miller
--------------------------------
I think all the people who bought 8-VSB receivers for between $200. and
$600. might disagree with your assessment. In any case, the FCC
controls that, not the people you are talking to on this newsgroup.

IB

 

[Ivan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:EdednW9QL-fgW9vfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:d26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
> > In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> >> David wrote:
> >> >
> >>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
> >>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
> >>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS
forum,
> >>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
> >>> here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
> >> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
> >> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
> >> fictitious names.
> >>
> > Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
> > is consistent with your behavior here.
> >
> > John
>
> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
> additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
> newgroup and I hope it stays that way. When threads break down to name
> calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...to my knowledge Bob
has
> never stooped to that level so I welcome his right to post and shake
things
> up a bit with different ideas and conversation.
>

Agreed, I can't help noticing that when Bob's not involved this newsgroup
can go as quiet as the grave for days on end.

Ever seen the Python sketch, "Excuse me, but is this the right room for an
argument ?".

Perhaps it could be brought up to date, by exchanging the room for a
newsgroup!


> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>
>

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David wrote:
> >
>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum,
>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
>> here.
> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post,

No, the AVS *members* complained [VERY LOUDLY] about your nonstop lies, so
the forum owners listened and complied. Thank God.

>then they deleted entire threads that they disagreed with.

I remember threads that consisted of nothing but posts, mostly lies, from
YOU.
Again, 'twas the AVS MEMBERS who demanded that your worthless horseshit be
deleted.

>Then they denied me access.

No....come on now ...... really?

>That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>fictitious names. They knew who I was as Bob Miller.

That's right, whenever there were strange, suspicious and non-sensical
pro-cofdm rantings. There were remarks from members like, "I smell a
BM....".

>I have no need for using other identities to post here. Their is no
>censorship here.

That's why you're here and not on other forums where you've been asked to
leave.

> Why did they deny me access on AVSForum? I think it was because each time
> someone posted a falsehood on AVSForum I answered with facts. Each time.

They denied you access because you were a liar. Each time.
Your "facts" have been disproven over and over as lies.

> They did not want to hear what has become painfully obvious over the
> intervening five years. That we need to switch to a COFDM modulation and
> we need a better compression system than MPEG2. The same message I held
> then and now.

You have Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder and I guess you must be a nightmare
of concerns to your family.

> I don't know who David or SATAN is. If I were to have a fictitious
> pretense in this newsgroup I would be David first. Such a fictitious
> identity would serve my purposes more than SATAN's. But I don't have to
> invent a David since there are plenty of them on this forum.

That's right, I need to change my screen name.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Robert Peirce wrote:
> I am very late to this discussion. What is the difference between
> "8VSB" and "COFDM?" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
>
> I have a Samsung receiver, presumably 8VSB, connected to a rather large
> rotating antenna mounted in my attic and I am quite surprised at how
> good DTV reception is compared to what I get from analog. I am also
> pleased that digital seems to work 100% or not at all instead of getting
> fuzzy as analog does. The one problem I have is that certain digital
> channels seem not always to be working at 100% or even at all. However,
> when they are up, I get them.
>
Better late than never.

Both are digital TV modulations. The way a signal is "modulated" so that
it can be carried over an analog TV signal. If that is not confusing
enough I will go on.

COFDM stands for Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing and it
is not a modulation actually. It is used to refer to QAM modulation that
has been multiplexed using COFDM. By now you should have a mild
headache. The core of COFDM, OFDM, was developed at Bell Labs many years
ago and was updated in Europe with the addition of the "C". Its design
direction was to solve the main problem of TV analog broadcasting which
was multipath signal interference. Europe had already had a
mis-adventure in their even more frenzied response to the Japanese
taking over the world of TV when they developed and quickly abandoned
the HD-MAC system so they were burned by HD and retreated to developing
a digital system that would allow more programming to be delivered via
multicasting. Their success in dealing with multipath reflections of DTV
signals, both dynamic (airplanes, traffic dogs and people moving) and
static (buildings), created a benefit they didn't design for, mobile and
portable reception with omni antennas.

8-VSB is a modulation developed at breakneck speed in fear and loathing
of all things Japanese in a contest to see you could develop a digital
replacement for our current NTSC analog TV over the air broadcast system
that has lost as much as 90% of its customers to cable and satellite if
you count households who buy or steal cable or satellite. Its design
parameters included, match the coverage and receive characteristics of
NTSC and be able to deliver enough bits to carry an HDTV signal
compressed with MPEG2 compression. It had to be receivable using a 30 ft
directional antenna. It did not address any of the receive problems of
NTSC and it did not try to advance the state of the art as to reception.
And it didn't.

One major difference with digital reception using COFDM or 8-VSB is that
if you have interference of a certain amount you will lose the picture
totally unlike analog reception where snow or lines in the picture do
not totally kill the reception. So with digital you don't want to have
these drop outs at all where with analog you can tolerate interference
more since you may still be able to follow the game or story line.

The big benefit of COFDM is that it does a very good job of handling
multipath as is demonstrated in this video of mobile reception in the
most hostile RF environment you can devise, Manhattan. We are using
simple 3 inch and 12 inch omni antennas and the broadcast is coming from
a single transmitter with only one kW of power.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

There are three receivers. The one on the back of the seat is using two
antennas connected to two tuners that combine the signals of both
antennas in what is called diversity reception. The other two receivers
include a USB receiver attached to a laptop and an STB with an internal
screen that works off the cigarette lighter.

There are six programs being broadcast using MPEG2 though you only see
three since we do not change the channels in the video. With MPEG4 we
could deliver up to 16 programs in a year or two. France is going with
COFDM using MPEG4.

The other advantage of COFDM is that it allows for the use of more than
one transmitter in a diverse transmitter version of the diverse antenna
concept. It is called and SFN or Single Frequency Network. It allows for
each transmitter to be low powered with a much shorter tower and offers
much better reception than a single stick high powered transmitter while
using much lower power and being more reliable. If one transmitter fails
for any reason the network would hardly notice.

We have seen a large number of big stick fires, collapses and terrorist
hits in just the last few years which have taken OTA broadcasting off
the air in such places as Moscow, New York and other large populated
areas. Neither New York or Moscow have totally recovered even after years.

there is more.

Bob Miller