HDTV Connection

MarkM

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2004
2
0
18,510
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

There are a lot of different connection options for HDTV's. I know I want
the standard stuff and S-video and component, but what about DVI and HDMI.
Which is required for connection to DirecTV? Is one a new standard that
isn't always available, but if I want future compatibility, I should get?

thanks,

mark
 
G

Guest

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

MarkM wrote:
> There are a lot of different connection options for HDTV's. I know I want
> the standard stuff and S-video and component, but what about DVI and HDMI.
> Which is required for connection to DirecTV? Is one a new standard that
> isn't always available, but if I want future compatibility, I should get?
>
> thanks,
>
> mark

First, composite and S-Video connections will not carry the HD TV
signal. To get HD from your satellite, cable, or external ATSC tuner
box, you must use component, DVI, or HDMI connections (or VGA if so
equipped). HDMI - High Definition Multi-media Interface - is the new
standard digital connector. It is a superset of DVI which carries
digital audio (DVI is video only, has a smaller connector, and provides
for a growth path with 10-bit video and communications between A/V gear
(see www.hdmi.org for the PR stuff). Yo can get a DVI to HDMI adapter
cable so if a TV has a DVI port (with HDCP) you can connect a HDMI set
top box to the TV.

I don't have DirectTV, but I would venture that the vast majority of
HD subscribers use a component cable to the TV, not digital.

Because of increasing copy protection concerns, it is expected that
most if not all upcoming HD-DVD and Blu-Ray HD disk players will only
play HD through the digital connector. Which by then will likely be
mostly HDMI on their boxes. The component will probably only provide
480p. So, if you are getting a new HD TV, I would recommend you get one
with at least 1 HDMI port. DVI should work, but does not provide for a
growth path. Two HDMI ports would be better, but few TVs have those at
the moment (new chip sets in the works should change that).

BTW, if your TV has a built-in ATSC tuner or cable card slot, then the
RF cable from the antenna or cable outlet is the HD input source, so the
RF is a valid HD connector as well.

Alan F
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:12:12 -0400 afiggatt <afiggatt@adelphia.net> wrote:

| BTW, if your TV has a built-in ATSC tuner or cable card slot, then the
| RF cable from the antenna or cable outlet is the HD input source, so the
| RF is a valid HD connector as well.

Any modulators available to make use of this input connection when
providing my own HD video source?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:12:12 -0400 afiggatt <afiggatt@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> | BTW, if your TV has a built-in ATSC tuner or cable card slot, then the
> | RF cable from the antenna or cable outlet is the HD input source, so the
> | RF is a valid HD connector as well.
>
> Any modulators available to make use of this input connection when
> providing my own HD video source?

Why would you want to do that unless you are planning to broadcast it
or run your own cable company? There are obviously modulators to create
an ATSC 8VSB or cable QAM signals, but those are mostly professional
systems for commercial use. If you are using a PC as a HD video source
to a HD TV, then you would likely use a VGA, DVI, or component (if the
PC has a video card with component ports on it) connection to the TV.
Are you asking about the RF path because you are planning to create your
own low power broadcast?

Alan F
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:00:55 GMT, "MarkM" <**mmaze61@hotmail.com**> spewed forth
these words of wisdom:

>There are a lot of different connection options for HDTV's. I know I want
>the standard stuff and S-video and component, but what about DVI and HDMI.
>Which is required for connection to DirecTV? Is one a new standard that
>isn't always available, but if I want future compatibility, I should get?
>
>thanks,
>
>mark
>

The DirecTV H10 receivers have both a component and HDMI output for Hi-Def
signals.

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley
 

MarkM

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2004
2
0
18,510
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thanks for the great response, That helps a lot and I will certainly get the
HDMI for the for the growth path.

Mark


"afiggatt" <afiggatt@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:aNCdnZ7O14qQSojeRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
>
> First, composite and S-Video connections will not carry the HD TV
> signal. To get HD from your satellite, cable, or external ATSC tuner
> box, you must use component, DVI, or HDMI connections (or VGA if so
> equipped). HDMI - High Definition Multi-media Interface - is the new
> standard digital connector. It is a superset of DVI which carries
> digital audio (DVI is video only, has a smaller connector, and provides
> for a growth path with 10-bit video and communications between A/V gear
> (see www.hdmi.org for the PR stuff). Yo can get a DVI to HDMI adapter
> cable so if a TV has a DVI port (with HDCP) you can connect a HDMI set
> top box to the TV.
>
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:38:21 -0400 afiggatt <afiggatt@adelphia.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:12:12 -0400 afiggatt <afiggatt@adelphia.net> wrote:
|>
|> | BTW, if your TV has a built-in ATSC tuner or cable card slot, then the
|> | RF cable from the antenna or cable outlet is the HD input source, so the
|> | RF is a valid HD connector as well.
|>
|> Any modulators available to make use of this input connection when
|> providing my own HD video source?
|
| Why would you want to do that unless you are planning to broadcast it
| or run your own cable company? There are obviously modulators to create
| an ATSC 8VSB or cable QAM signals, but those are mostly professional
| systems for commercial use. If you are using a PC as a HD video source
| to a HD TV, then you would likely use a VGA, DVI, or component (if the
| PC has a video card with component ports on it) connection to the TV.
| Are you asking about the RF path because you are planning to create your
| own low power broadcast?

I used to have analog modulators and demodulators that cost no more than
about $25 each. These were clearly consumer or experimenter models, but
they did work. I would not expect digital versions to be that cheap
anytime soon. But I'm hoping they will eventually be available in the
$200 range (e.g. the current price of a tuner).

VGA and component outputs from a PC are analog. I want digital.

DVI and HDMI cannot handle the distances to be wired in my house. They
are not designed for that distance. And the expensive cabling they use
is also unwieldy for wiring up through the house.

SDI is a much better digital option for a single stream of video/audio,
but there are no consumer grade implementations or products that I have
found. I do like that fact that it uses coax.

The option that makes most sense is to use ATSC over RF over 75 ohm coax.
That would let me distribute my own video over the same cabling that OTA
is distributed.

I'm not ruling out the use of 64QAM or 256QAM instead of ATSC. What some
people have been saying (and I cannot find any documentation to confirm
or refute these statements) is that the underlying bit stream format the
cable companies send over 64QAM or 256QAM is still ATSC.

I'm not planning to do any broadcasting, but I do also plan to experiment
with TV over ham radio frequencies using ATSC/8VSB or maybe QAM. But even
if I don't do anything over the air like that, I am still looking for a
reasonable way to distribute video that I can process in the bit stream
over my house.

So basically I am looking for:

1. 8VSB receiver (tunable) that gives me the full ATSC bit stream output.
I don't want something that selects a virtual channel and gives me
just that one ... I want the full 19.39265846 mbps bit stream to be
output, ready to be passed as input to a like modulator, or processed
(modified and/or stored) by computer.

2. 8VSB modulator that takes the bit stream above, and remodulates it
back to RF. A fixed channel unit is OK, but an agile/tunable unit
would be nicer. Output would be 75 ohm coax at levels suitable for
combining with OTA signals of different channels.

Here are some things that could be done. Do not assume this is my intent,
but rather, as examples to give you the idea of what the bit stream layer
means:

1. Delay an entire OTA TV broadcast, all subchannels together, for some
number of minutes or hours.

2. Transport the ATSC bit stream(s) over network protocols to somewhere
else, or transport extracted channels that way (see RFC2250 and RFC2343
of internet standards for examples). Think: "remote receiver".

3. Insert my own services into the signals (more complex software would
need to be written to take ATSC apart and put it back together again)
such as class E (emergency) audio.

4. Juggle subchannels around within an ATSC channel, or with multiple
units, between channels.

5. Extraction of MPEG/AC3 video/audio components for use in other formats
that use these same components, or the reverse of this.

6. Cleanly downconvert channels (clean up the bits, as opposed to an RF
to RF downconversion which would carry the noise accumulation in the
conversion) to a group of channels that is more practical to send as
a group over fiber or laser.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> I used to have analog modulators and demodulators that cost no more than
> about $25 each. These were clearly consumer or experimenter models, but
> they did work. I would not expect digital versions to be that cheap
> anytime soon. But I'm hoping they will eventually be available in the
> $200 range (e.g. the current price of a tuner).
>
> VGA and component outputs from a PC are analog. I want digital.
>
> DVI and HDMI cannot handle the distances to be wired in my house. They
> are not designed for that distance. And the expensive cabling they use
> is also unwieldy for wiring up through the house.
[snip]

Ok, you obviously are looking to build a very complex distribution
setup. However, one of the advantages of HDMI over DVI is allowance for
longer cable lengths. You can buy a 30 meter HDMI cable. Not cheap, but
they are available. I think the spec allows for even longer runs with
fiber optic HDMI cables, but that may be future versions of HDMI.

Alan F
 
G

Guest

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Here are some things that could be done. Do not assume this is my intent,
> but rather, as examples to give you the idea of what the bit stream layer
> means:
>
> 1. Delay an entire OTA TV broadcast, all subchannels together, for some
> number of minutes or hours.
>
> 2. Transport the ATSC bit stream(s) over network protocols to somewhere
> else, or transport extracted channels that way (see RFC2250 and RFC2343
> of internet standards for examples). Think: "remote receiver".
>
> 5. Extraction of MPEG/AC3 video/audio components for use in other formats
> that use these same components, or the reverse of this.

I do these every day, right now with off-the-shelf equipment, as do many,
many other people.

> 4. Juggle subchannels around within an ATSC channel, or with multiple
> units, between channels.

Why would you need to do this? All streams are available directly, so the
assigned channel number is unimportant. But, it's easy enough to do just
by changing the PSIP information...you don't even need to touch the data
streams, nor would you want to, since the channel-number order doesn't have
to relate to the order of data in the packets. In other words, sub-channel
#4 can be the first thing in a packet, while sub-channel #1 is the second,
and sub-channel #3 is the third, and there is no sub-channel #2.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/SportOfKings.gif
 
G

Guest

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

Hi Mark,
You should get HDMI. This will be the standard in the future.

HDMI is newer than DVI. The main differences are:
1) HDMI connector is smaller
2) HDMI carries both video and multi-channel audio on the same cable!
DVI only carries video

So stick with HDMI if you have a choice.
Sou-Pen


--
soupensu, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:56:49 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> Here are some things that could be done. Do not assume this is my intent,
|> but rather, as examples to give you the idea of what the bit stream layer
|> means:
|>
|> 1. Delay an entire OTA TV broadcast, all subchannels together, for some
|> number of minutes or hours.
|>
|> 2. Transport the ATSC bit stream(s) over network protocols to somewhere
|> else, or transport extracted channels that way (see RFC2250 and RFC2343
|> of internet standards for examples). Think: "remote receiver".
|>
|> 5. Extraction of MPEG/AC3 video/audio components for use in other formats
|> that use these same components, or the reverse of this.
|
| I do these every day, right now with off-the-shelf equipment, as do many,
| many other people.

You might want to describe this "off-the-shelf equipment" a little better.
My reference to possibilities involves things that can be done by programming
inside a computer ... once the raw ATSC bit stream is delivered to that
computer. Obviously extraction of MPEG/AC3 video/audio components has no
value if you don't do something with it. I mention the reverse of this so
I could, for example, re-assemble the components back together in different
arrangements.

BTW, I will just this "off-the-shelf equipment" not in terms of whether
or not it can meet that one particular capability, but rather, whether it
lets be do _every_ one of them all in the same box. A computer _can_ do
that, with some programming (of which I have over 33 years experience in).

But I am curious. Does this "off-the-shelf equipment" you refer to actually
do what it does to an incoming ATSC bit stream, and give an ATSC bit stream
output (and thus require the use of a modulator and demodulator), or does
it have the modulator and demodulator intengrated? Or is it really doing
something else entirely different?

What other format would you be putting the extracted MPEG/AC3 components
into? COFDM? If so, Bob Miller would be so proud :) Somehow I doubt
if that is what you are doing. But maybe you are doing DVB of some sort.
Or maybe RTP?


|> 4. Juggle subchannels around within an ATSC channel, or with multiple
|> units, between channels.
|
| Why would you need to do this? All streams are available directly, so the
| assigned channel number is unimportant. But, it's easy enough to do just
| by changing the PSIP information...you don't even need to touch the data
| streams, nor would you want to, since the channel-number order doesn't have
| to relate to the order of data in the packets. In other words, sub-channel
| #4 can be the first thing in a packet, while sub-channel #1 is the second,
| and sub-channel #3 is the third, and there is no sub-channel #2.

I'm not going to answer the why question, because my list of examples was
intended to illustrate what _could_ be done in a computer that gets the raw
ATSC bit stream, and can output an ATSC bit stream to an 8VSB modulator.
I could add more examples to this list of many things, most, if not all,
being totally useless. But the point you seemed to miss, probably because
you didn't read the disclaimer I put there saying these are not necessarily
my intentions, is that I don't necessarily intend to do any or all of these.

If you are wanting to know what I actually do intend to do, then you will
have to deal with the lack of an answer for two reasons. The first is that
it is none of your damn business (if I want to discuss it openly, you can
be sure I'll post a new thread about it), and the second is that I do not
want to box myself in to a limited set of capabilities, as I will likely have
when buying some "off-the-shelf equipment". I want the wide open capability
afforded by having a raw ATSC bit stream path in to my computer from 8VSB RF
signals, as well as a raw ATSC bit stream path out from my computer going to
an 8VSB RF signal. I have 33 years computer programming experience, 23 of
which is in the C programming language, and much of that working with many
different protocols and data formats (many of which I created for specific
purposes). Thus I know, at least for myself, that having the raw ATSC bit
stream in my computer opens a vast range of possibilities, most of which I
would never need. Who knows, maybe I'll even come up with something really
cool that even you would end up using (via being sold to some manufacturer
that integrates it into some "off-the-shelf equipment" you would buy without
ever knowing it was me who wrote the software inside).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> | I do these every day, right now with off-the-shelf equipment, as do many,
> | many other people.
>
> You might want to describe this "off-the-shelf equipment" a little better.

You might want to do some searches. I've stated what I have numerous
times both here and at AVS Forum.

> My reference to possibilities involves things that can be done by programming
> inside a computer ... once the raw ATSC bit stream is delivered to that
> computer.

Right, I use PCs to grab exactly that. Once it is there, I can feed it
out to other computers or standalone devices.

> If you are wanting to know what I actually do intend to do, then you will
> have to deal with the lack of an answer for two reasons. The first is that
> it is none of your damn business (if I want to discuss it openly, you can
> be sure I'll post a new thread about it), and the second is that I do not
> want to box myself in to a limited set of capabilities, as I will likely have
> when buying some "off-the-shelf equipment".

If you want help, you need to tell people what you want.

More and more it feels like you are trying to use the newsgroup as a free
source of employees who are helping you design your business plan.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/AntiqueOS.gif
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:52:42 -0400 afiggatt <afiggatt@adelphia.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> I used to have analog modulators and demodulators that cost no more than
|> about $25 each. These were clearly consumer or experimenter models, but
|> they did work. I would not expect digital versions to be that cheap
|> anytime soon. But I'm hoping they will eventually be available in the
|> $200 range (e.g. the current price of a tuner).
|>
|> VGA and component outputs from a PC are analog. I want digital.
|>
|> DVI and HDMI cannot handle the distances to be wired in my house. They
|> are not designed for that distance. And the expensive cabling they use
|> is also unwieldy for wiring up through the house.
| [snip]
|
| Ok, you obviously are looking to build a very complex distribution
| setup. However, one of the advantages of HDMI over DVI is allowance for
| longer cable lengths. You can buy a 30 meter HDMI cable. Not cheap, but
| they are available. I think the spec allows for even longer runs with
| fiber optic HDMI cables, but that may be future versions of HDMI.

I still think HDMI is entirely impractical for a home distribution network.
ATSC/8VSB (or QAM) has many advantages over HDMI, save for the protected
content issue (which _will_ eventually get cracked and become moot).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

In article <df9ncs02nu6@news1.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>I'm not going to answer the why question, because my list of examples was
>intended to illustrate what _could_ be done in a computer that gets the raw
>ATSC bit stream, and can output an ATSC bit stream to an 8VSB modulator.
>I could add more examples to this list of many things, most, if not all,
>being totally useless. But the point you seemed to miss, probably because
>you didn't read the disclaimer I put there saying these are not necessarily
>my intentions, is that I don't necessarily intend to do any or all of these.

It kind of beggars belief as to why you'd want to shun HDMI in favour of
a modulated ATSC 8VSB/COFDM/whatever anyway. At best, you could keep up
with current US OTA broadcasts and maybe time shift them, but it certainly
won't be future proof.

An MPEG-2 stream at 19Mb/s, which is what these modulated ATSC stream can
provide, is barely enough for fast moving scenes as it is. It isn't enough
even for D-Theater tapes. It certainly won't be able to handle raw streams
from Blu-ray or HD-DVD which will probably use closer to 50Mb/s, coupled
with MPEG-4, which would anyway be incompatible with current OTA tuners.

I cannot understand why would you want to choose this over HDMI, offering
5Gbps of uncompressed data; enough to handle 1920x1080p100, or even
3840x2160p24 should consumer display technologies ever get good enough,
other than ease of cable running and cost per metre.

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
 
G

Guest

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

On 02 Sep 2005 21:42:22 GMT Ranulf Doswell <usenet-2005-08@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
| In article <df9ncs02nu6@news1.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
|>I'm not going to answer the why question, because my list of examples was
|>intended to illustrate what _could_ be done in a computer that gets the raw
|>ATSC bit stream, and can output an ATSC bit stream to an 8VSB modulator.
|>I could add more examples to this list of many things, most, if not all,
|>being totally useless. But the point you seemed to miss, probably because
|>you didn't read the disclaimer I put there saying these are not necessarily
|>my intentions, is that I don't necessarily intend to do any or all of these.
|
| It kind of beggars belief as to why you'd want to shun HDMI in favour of
| a modulated ATSC 8VSB/COFDM/whatever anyway. At best, you could keep up
| with current US OTA broadcasts and maybe time shift them, but it certainly
| won't be future proof.
|
| An MPEG-2 stream at 19Mb/s, which is what these modulated ATSC stream can
| provide, is barely enough for fast moving scenes as it is. It isn't enough
| even for D-Theater tapes. It certainly won't be able to handle raw streams
| from Blu-ray or HD-DVD which will probably use closer to 50Mb/s, coupled
| with MPEG-4, which would anyway be incompatible with current OTA tuners.
|
| I cannot understand why would you want to choose this over HDMI, offering
| 5Gbps of uncompressed data; enough to handle 1920x1080p100, or even
| 3840x2160p24 should consumer display technologies ever get good enough,
| other than ease of cable running and cost per metre.

For the high end (above OTA) you might be right. Maybe a combination
of HDMI and RF would work out. The house will be built with lots of
spare empty PVC conduits, so I could pull new stuff later on, anyway.
I just hope the HDMI is not that hard to attach connected to cable.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:41:22 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> | I do these every day, right now with off-the-shelf equipment, as do many,
|> | many other people.
|>
|> You might want to describe this "off-the-shelf equipment" a little better.
|
| You might want to do some searches. I've stated what I have numerous
| times both here and at AVS Forum.

Still on that kick, eh? You could have simply identified a manufacturer
and mode in the same bandwidth needed to generically say "off-the-shelf
equipment". But I guess you approach in life is to always keep people
just a little less informed than other people do.

I did a search for "Jeff Rife" and "wevsr@nabs.net" on Google Groups a
while back. What I found was disgusting so I stopped reading.


|> My reference to possibilities involves things that can be done by programming
|> inside a computer ... once the raw ATSC bit stream is delivered to that
|> computer.
|
| Right, I use PCs to grab exactly that. Once it is there, I can feed it
| out to other computers or standalone devices.

Well, at least you're not saying it can't be done. So the quest continues.


|> If you are wanting to know what I actually do intend to do, then you will
|> have to deal with the lack of an answer for two reasons. The first is that
|> it is none of your damn business (if I want to discuss it openly, you can
|> be sure I'll post a new thread about it), and the second is that I do not
|> want to box myself in to a limited set of capabilities, as I will likely have
|> when buying some "off-the-shelf equipment".
|
| If you want help, you need to tell people what you want.

I have. Apparently you even know what I want, as you claim to already
have such yourself.


| More and more it feels like you are trying to use the newsgroup as a free
| source of employees who are helping you design your business plan.

More and more it feels like you are biggest troll of not just the video
newsgroups, but quite possibly every newsgroup I have ever read. Simple
questions that could be answered simply, end up being endless threads
and a waste of bandwidth.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> More and more it feels like you are biggest troll of not just the video
> newsgroups, but quite possibly every newsgroup I have ever read. Simple
> questions that could be answered simply, end up being endless threads
> and a waste of bandwidth.

I'm just tired spoonfeeding you simple answers to your stupid questions. If
what you want to do was unusual or not being done right now by many, many
people, then your questions would be more interesting as "research
assignments".

There have been many, many new posters here who did actual research before
posting and their questions get answered politely and completely. Until you
show that you can do enough research to ask a coherent question, you'll get
pretty much nothing from anyone here.

A post like this will result in quick responses:

"Here are the 4 pieces of already existing hardware I have looked at, and
here is what I want to do with them. Which do you guys think would do
the job best?"

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/TokenRing.gif
 
G

Guest

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

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:35:15 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> More and more it feels like you are biggest troll of not just the video
|> newsgroups, but quite possibly every newsgroup I have ever read. Simple
|> questions that could be answered simply, end up being endless threads
|> and a waste of bandwidth.
|
| I'm just tired spoonfeeding you simple answers to your stupid questions. If
| what you want to do was unusual or not being done right now by many, many
| people, then your questions would be more interesting as "research
| assignments".

Maybe you should just quit reading my questions. You obviously skim over
them and skip the important details in many cases, anyway. It wouldn't
take much more effort on your part to just skip it entirely.


| There have been many, many new posters here who did actual research before
| posting and their questions get answered politely and completely. Until you
| show that you can do enough research to ask a coherent question, you'll get
| pretty much nothing from anyone here.

I have done the research. Maybe I didn't do it as well as you did, or
maybe I'm actually looking for something different than you think I am
looking for. Since there are many cases where you simply did not read
what I posted at all, and just make assumptions, I therefore tend to
believe it is a matter of you simply not understanding what it is I am
really looking for. If you were to actually reveal the model of "8VSB to
bit stream" demodulator you have, then perhaps I can examine the
specification for it to see if it is what I am looking for. If it is
what I am looking for, then I could backtrack to see why it is I was
unable to find it. But if not, then I'll know for sure you have no clue.

When someone asks for something to do a particular thing, it is rather
typical for people who have something just like that to answer and relate
their experience, either suggesting that model to buy, or as the case may
be, to avoid. You have shown no tendency to ever do anything like that.

If a normal person were to announce they have such a device, I might also
ask them other questions about how it works, is used, its features, etc.
I'm sure it would be pointless to ask you about yours, since you are loath
to ever be helpful.


| A post like this will result in quick responses:
|
| "Here are the 4 pieces of already existing hardware I have looked at, and
| here is what I want to do with them. Which do you guys think would do
| the job best?"

I wish I could satisfy you by posting something like that. But I will not
post something false. I did the research and found ZERO items matching my
criteria. One person has since suggested one product that may possibly do
the job. He even provided a URL. Unfortunately, the web site lack enough
specifications to determine if it was suitable (which I replied about). So
the search continues. I'm certainly not going to stop looking just because
one "maybe" shows up. And since you have claimed to have such a thing, it
sure would imply at least one actually exists, so it would make sense to
continue the search.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> | There have been many, many new posters here who did actual research before
> | posting and their questions get answered politely and completely. Until you
> | show that you can do enough research to ask a coherent question, you'll get
> | pretty much nothing from anyone here.
>
> I have done the research.

No, you haven't. You keep saying you refuse to read AVS Forum, and I can
guarantee that every answer you want is right there, either in the HTPC
or the HDTV Recorders sections. I know it is, because I learned how to do
what I do from those sections, and I also know how much more is available
that I don't do, but you seem to want to.

> If you were to actually reveal the model of "8VSB to
> bit stream" demodulator you have, then perhaps I can examine the
> specification for it to see if it is what I am looking for.

There are easily 10 different PCI boards that do this, and at least one
has open source drivers. One person has written a filter that allows
a programmer to grab the stream as it comes in and alter it in any way
before it is passed on. Others have written code that allows multiple
clients to easily access the same stream at the same time. Put these two
together, and you probably have the basis for most of what you have stated
you want. All of this info (including source code downloads) is available
at AVS Forum.

I can't say if this code will suit your purposes, since other people have
paved the way and written programs with user-friendly interfaces, I don't
need to re-invent the wheel...I can do everything I want with what is
already "finished". If you want to do more than has already been done,
just get the source and add to it however you want.

> I wish I could satisfy you by posting something like that. But I will not
> post something false. I did the research and found ZERO items matching my
> criteria.

No, you have refused to go to the place where the you have been repeatedly
told that answers are freely available.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/BrokenInternet02.gif
 
G

Guest

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

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:32:04 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> | There have been many, many new posters here who did actual research before
|> | posting and their questions get answered politely and completely. Until you
|> | show that you can do enough research to ask a coherent question, you'll get
|> | pretty much nothing from anyone here.
|>
|> I have done the research.
|
| No, you haven't. You keep saying you refuse to read AVS Forum, and I can
| guarantee that every answer you want is right there, either in the HTPC
| or the HDTV Recorders sections. I know it is, because I learned how to do
| what I do from those sections, and I also know how much more is available
| that I don't do, but you seem to want to.

Google indexes AVS Forum. I've entered a lot of appropriate keywords and
keyword combinations in Google. What I am looking for never came up.
Lots of noise did.


|> If you were to actually reveal the model of "8VSB to
|> bit stream" demodulator you have, then perhaps I can examine the
|> specification for it to see if it is what I am looking for.
|
| There are easily 10 different PCI boards that do this, and at least one
| has open source drivers. One person has written a filter that allows
| a programmer to grab the stream as it comes in and alter it in any way
| before it is passed on. Others have written code that allows multiple
| clients to easily access the same stream at the same time. Put these two
| together, and you probably have the basis for most of what you have stated
| you want. All of this info (including source code downloads) is available
| at AVS Forum.

So explain why Google searches come up empty.


| I can't say if this code will suit your purposes, since other people have
| paved the way and written programs with user-friendly interfaces, I don't
| need to re-invent the wheel...I can do everything I want with what is
| already "finished". If you want to do more than has already been done,
| just get the source and add to it however you want.
|
|> I wish I could satisfy you by posting something like that. But I will not
|> post something false. I did the research and found ZERO items matching my
|> criteria.
|
| No, you have refused to go to the place where the you have been repeatedly
| told that answers are freely available.

You have told me to go to a place that has massive linear threads, which
means hours and hours of wasted time reading things sequentially to find
stuff. I do know Google indexes AVS Forum because I've gotten lots of
links to there from Google. I do read those. So far, not what I am
looking for.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------