Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5th Generation ATSC tuner

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
September 4, 2004 12:53:18 AM

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

I've read that the newest 5th generation ATSC tuners work the best for
obtaining HDTV signals over the air.

Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??

Will the brand new Samsung DLP's coming out later this year have a built in
tuner that is the same quality that these '5th generation' ATSC tuners??

What changed from 4th to 5th generation that improved the reliability and
functionality of these tuners??

Thanks. --Greg--
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 12:53:19 AM

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

"Anon" <Anon@Anon.com> wrote in message
news:2R4_c.121499$mD.61091@attbi_s02...
> I've read that the newest 5th generation ATSC tuners work the best for
> obtaining HDTV signals over the air.
>
> Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??
>
> Will the brand new Samsung DLP's coming out later this year have a built
> in tuner that is the same quality that these '5th generation' ATSC
> tuners??
>
> What changed from 4th to 5th generation that improved the reliability and
> functionality of these tuners??
>
> Thanks. --Greg--
>
>
>
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_newge...

You may want to be sure you are buying a 5th generation ATSC tuner. It does
solve recption problems.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 1:21:37 AM

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

As far as I know, the 5th generation receivers do not exist, they are just
hype at the moment. They have allegedly been developed, but none can be
purchased anywhere at any price. I don't know why they have been talked
about for so long, using the same "taped to the window" antenna story, yet
never have been sold. I am skeptical.

--Dan

"Anon" <Anon@Anon.com> wrote in message
news:2R4_c.121499$mD.61091@attbi_s02...
> I've read that the newest 5th generation ATSC tuners work the best for
> obtaining HDTV signals over the air.
>
> Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??
>
> Will the brand new Samsung DLP's coming out later this year have a built
in
> tuner that is the same quality that these '5th generation' ATSC tuners??
>
> What changed from 4th to 5th generation that improved the reliability and
> functionality of these tuners??
>
> Thanks. --Greg--
Related resources
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 2:12:30 AM

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

dg wrote:
> As far as I know, the 5th generation receivers do not exist, they are just
> hype at the moment. They have allegedly been developed, but none can be
> purchased anywhere at any price. I don't know why they have been talked
> about for so long, using the same "taped to the window" antenna story, yet
> never have been sold. I am skeptical.
>
> --Dan
>
> "Anon" <Anon@Anon.com> wrote in message
> news:2R4_c.121499$mD.61091@attbi_s02...
>
>>I've read that the newest 5th generation ATSC tuners work the best for
>>obtaining HDTV signals over the air.
>>
>>Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??
>>
>>Will the brand new Samsung DLP's coming out later this year have a built
>
> in
>
>>tuner that is the same quality that these '5th generation' ATSC tuners??
>>
>>What changed from 4th to 5th generation that improved the reliability and
>>functionality of these tuners??
>>
>>Thanks. --Greg--
>
>
>
They will be out in the fourth quarter from Hisense sold in WalMart. In
the first quarter of next year from Zenith/LG.

And Toshiba announced that they have licensed the technology. Expect
most manufacturers to license this technology since they will no be able
to sell an 8-VSB receiver otherwise.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 2:13:19 AM

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

Anon <Anon@anon.com> wrote:
} I've read that the newest 5th generation ATSC tuners work the best for
} obtaining HDTV signals over the air.
}
} Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??

The integrated circuits inside the tuner boxes are 5th
generation technology. So far there are only a few reviews
of prototypes, but they sound like a major advancement.
They should be for sale in 6 months or so.


--

Frank Ball frankb@sonic.net
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 3:15:57 AM

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

Mudd Bug wrote:

>
> No all get great success. I have seen the antenna recommendations and they
> would make it look like your house is part of the SETI project. I have not
> have
> had the great success even though I'm less than 10 miles from ther
> stations
> I am trying to receive. I only get 3, with one of them being PBS! Two I
> receive
> ok but the signal is weak. The other two I receive very sporadically. Phone
> calls
> by me, and a buddy, to engineering of the stations confirm that they are on
> the
> air but reception is poor at best.

Do you really believe that your problem is caused by dynamic multipath?

> I'm going to try the Hisense from WalMart when they start selling them with
> the
> 5th generation technology and hope, man do I hope, that it resolves my
> receiption
> problems.

It might, if your problems are caused by dynamic multipath. If they are
caused by co-channel interference, input overload or low transmitter
power, you are going to be SOL.

> I would love to be able to use a simple indoor loop antenna, I
> don't want
> to have to mount a monster antenna on my roof.

Of course you would, but if your problem isn't due to dynamic
multi-path, then fifth generation isn't going to help you.

> BTW
>
> I was at a high end store today and the sales person said they don't even
> sell
> STB OTA receivers, only as part of a satellite receiver and he had no clue
> about
> the 5th generation technology. This did not supprise me, but he also said
> that on
> some installs the OTA work great but on others they could never get it to
> work!
>

So, what you are telling me is that they have no idea what they are
doing and all of the people who get great reception and report about it
here are liars?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 3:29:10 AM

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

Whats this deal with licensing? Are you saying that manufacturers have to
pay Toshiba to make these receivers? Or that Toshiba paid Zenith?

I am more skeptical than ever about these receivers. Multipath intelligence
is one thing, but to claim that a simple wire loop antenna in any
orientation can pick up weak, distant stations is quite a claim. Does
anybody have any links to real reviews of these devices? Any reviews with
actual data in them?

Thanks,
--Dan

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i%5_c.6647$w%6.5362@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> They will be out in the fourth quarter from Hisense sold in WalMart. In
> the first quarter of next year from Zenith/LG.
>
> And Toshiba announced that they have licensed the technology. Expect
> most manufacturers to license this technology since they will no be able
> to sell an 8-VSB receiver otherwise.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 7:51:58 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Mudd Bug wrote:
>
>>
>> No all get great success. I have seen the antenna recommendations and
>> they
>> would make it look like your house is part of the SETI project. I have
>> not have
>> had the great success even though I'm less than 10 miles from ther
>> stations
>> I am trying to receive. I only get 3, with one of them being PBS! Two
>> I receive
>> ok but the signal is weak. The other two I receive very sporadically.
>> Phone calls
>> by me, and a buddy, to engineering of the stations confirm that they
>> are on the
>> air but reception is poor at best.
>
>
> Do you really believe that your problem is caused by dynamic multipath?

No his problem is most likely static multipath.
>
>> I'm going to try the Hisense from WalMart when they start selling them
>> with the
>> 5th generation technology and hope, man do I hope, that it resolves my
>> receiption
>> problems.
>
>
> It might, if your problems are caused by dynamic multipath. If they are
> caused by co-channel interference, input overload or low transmitter
> power, you are going to be SOL.

The fifth generation does a better job with dynamic multipath but its
major improvement is with static multipath.
>
>> I would love to be able to use a simple indoor loop antenna, I don't want
>> to have to mount a monster antenna on my roof.
>
>
> Of course you would, but if your problem isn't due to dynamic
> multi-path, then fifth generation isn't going to help you.

This receiver is going to solve his problem and the problems of many
others that have been attributed to other BS. For instance we can
receive COFDM mobile at 15 miles from Manhattan mobile using 100 Watts.
Low power is going to be the first piece of BS that the 5th generation
receiver demolishes.
>
>> BTW
>>
>> I was at a high end store today and the sales person said they don't
>> even sell
>> STB OTA receivers, only as part of a satellite receiver and he had no
>> clue about
>> the 5th generation technology. This did not supprise me, but he also
>> said that on
>> some installs the OTA work great but on others they could never get it
>> to work!
>>
>
> So, what you are telling me is that they have no idea what they are
> doing and all of the people who get great reception and report about it
> here are liars?

He didn't say anything about those who get great reception with current
receivers. In fact he said that sales persons told him some installs
"work great". That would cover all the people who report here. No one is
talking about them. He and I are talking about the many who have major
problems.

He is very clear in stating this. How do you manage to twist it so?
>
> Matthew
>
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 11:43:12 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10jicrcq5bdrrb9@corp.supernews.com...
> Mudd Bug wrote:
>
>>
>> No all get great success. I have seen the antenna recommendations and
>> they
>> would make it look like your house is part of the SETI project. I have
>> not have
>> had the great success even though I'm less than 10 miles from ther
>> stations
>> I am trying to receive. I only get 3, with one of them being PBS! Two I
>> receive
>> ok but the signal is weak. The other two I receive very sporadically.
>> Phone calls
>> by me, and a buddy, to engineering of the stations confirm that they are
>> on the
>> air but reception is poor at best.
>
> Do you really believe that your problem is caused by dynamic multipath?

I said nothing about dynamic multipath, but it could be static multipath.
But in
any case it should NOT be this hard to receive the stations. This is 2004
not 1954!
>
>> I'm going to try the Hisense from WalMart when they start selling them
>> with the
>> 5th generation technology and hope, man do I hope, that it resolves my
>> receiption
>> problems.
>
> It might, if your problems are caused by dynamic multipath. If they are
> caused by co-channel interference, input overload or low transmitter
> power, you are going to be SOL.
>
>> I would love to be able to use a simple indoor loop antenna, I don't want
>> to have to mount a monster antenna on my roof.
>
> Of course you would, but if your problem isn't due to dynamic multi-path,
> then fifth generation isn't going to help you.

Is it alright with you if I try one and see if it helps? Why would you
dismiss it
with out giving it a try?

>
>> BTW
>>
>> I was at a high end store today and the sales person said they don't even
>> sell
>> STB OTA receivers, only as part of a satellite receiver and he had no
>> clue about
>> the 5th generation technology. This did not supprise me, but he also said
>> that on
>> some installs the OTA work great but on others they could never get it to
>> work!
>>
>
> So, what you are telling me is that they have no idea what they are doing
> and all of the people who get great reception and report about it here are
> liars?
>
No, he said SOME installations work great, others do work at all. I fall
somewhere
in between. I called nobody a liar.

Maybe you need to read my post again.

> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 11:43:16 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Mudd Bug wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No all get great success. I have seen the antenna recommendations and
>>> they
>>> would make it look like your house is part of the SETI project. I
>>> have not have
>>> had the great success even though I'm less than 10 miles from ther
>>> stations
>>> I am trying to receive. I only get 3, with one of them being PBS! Two
>>> I receive
>>> ok but the signal is weak. The other two I receive very sporadically.
>>> Phone calls
>>> by me, and a buddy, to engineering of the stations confirm that they
>>> are on the
>>> air but reception is poor at best.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you really believe that your problem is caused by dynamic multipath?
>
>
> No his problem is most likely static multipath.
>

ROTFLMAO...

This is why I keep reading your posts! From where you sit, you can tell
exactly why someone is having reception problems. For you, there can
only be one reason. The rest of us know that there are _+MANY+_ possible
causes for reception problems and _+MOST+_ of them have nothing to do
with the modulation scheme.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 11:43:17 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10jjaihektf45b4@corp.supernews.com...
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Mudd Bug wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No all get great success. I have seen the antenna recommendations and
>>>> they
>>>> would make it look like your house is part of the SETI project. I have
>>>> not have
>>>> had the great success even though I'm less than 10 miles from ther
>>>> stations
>>>> I am trying to receive. I only get 3, with one of them being PBS! Two I
>>>> receive
>>>> ok but the signal is weak. The other two I receive very sporadically.
>>>> Phone calls
>>>> by me, and a buddy, to engineering of the stations confirm that they
>>>> are on the
>>>> air but reception is poor at best.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that your problem is caused by dynamic multipath?
>>
>>
>> No his problem is most likely static multipath.
>>
>
> ROTFLMAO...
>
> This is why I keep reading your posts! From where you sit, you can tell
> exactly why someone is having reception problems. For you, there can only
> be one reason. The rest of us know that there are _+MANY+_ possible causes
> for reception problems and _+MOST+_ of them have nothing to do with the
> modulation scheme.
>
> Matthew
>
Yes there can be _+MANY+_ reasons for my reception problems, but being less
than 10 miles from the source, flat terrain no large buildings you would
think I would have
no problems at all. All I want to do is give one of the new receivers a try
before risking
my life installing a large antenna on my roof (I can see myself taking a big
fall).



> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:35:19 PM

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

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:977_c.11315$QJ3.11127@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Whats this deal with licensing? Are you saying that manufacturers have to
> pay Toshiba to make these receivers? Or that Toshiba paid Zenith?

LG is making these chips. Unless others can come up with similarly-good
chips, it makes sense that most box manufacturers would want this chip, if
it is indeed as superior to other chips as early indications seem to
suggest.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:35:20 PM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10jhtp4phan5l75@corp.supernews.com...

> HDTV receivers are selling like hotcakes, fifth generation or not. The
> fifth generation will only improve the situation for those plagued with
> dynamic multipath. Virtually everyone who posts about ATSC reception here
> report great success without fifth generation receivers.

I don't know where you would get the impression that HDTV receivers are
"selling like hotcakes". Everything that I have heard or read seems to
indicate that very, very few people have actually gone out and bought an
HDTV receiver with OTA reception in mind. Most people don't have any kind of
HDTV. Most people who do own HDTV monitors don't even have a source of HD
signals (they don't have an HD tuner or subscribe to HD on cable or
satellite). Most that do have an HD receiver got it through their cable or
satellite provider as part of the subscription package, and there's no
indication that most of them are using them for OTA reception (or have a
suitable antenna to connect to).

Of those who have tried OTA reception (who are likely over-represented in
this newsgroup), my impression is that while some people receive some or all
local channels fine, about as many others are having significant difficulty
on at least some channels. Some of that is due to low signal strength (a
temporary situation), but some of that is likely due to multipath.

I am very hopeful that these new chips really can solve many of the
multipath problems. With an increasing number of HD cable and satellite
channels, increased HD content on local broadcast channels (and those cable
channels that mix HD and SD content, like ESPN), substantially improved
handling of multipath in local reception, at some point an increase in local
broadcast signal strength (plus a gradual increase in carrying these
channels on cable), routine integration of HD tuners into HD monitors, and
at some point the advent of HD DVDs (as well as the maturing and improvement
in quality and price of HD monitor technologies), I think the future of HDTV
is very bright. But not all the pieces are in place yet, and some aspects
aren't really mature enough for those who aren't "early adopters". It all
still seems a year or two away before I think it could be recommended to
most everyone, which is a lot of years since the introduction of HDTV
(almost a decade).
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:35:22 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8nb_c.6951$w%6.2511@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
>
> You could fit a couple of HDTV programs into 6 MHz and with COFDM receive
> them mobile if you were using VC-1, VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 AVC compression.

Quite possibly true, but these types of compression were not available when
DTV standards were finalized, and require significantly more processing and
memory capability to function, which would drive up the price of decoders
and delay adoption of DTV (probably the first HD receivers would just be
coming to the market about now). It might be nice if there were some
optional support in the future, but unlike HD DVD where the DVD Forum's
adopted standard mandates support for several of these from the beginning,
with HDTV there's no guarantee that people would be able to receive signals
compressed with such alternative CODECs.

In a sense I agree that it probably would have been smart to, say, start off
with just EDTV using MPEG2 - probably 75% of Americans would have been
watching DTV routinely today if that were the case, as it could have been so
much more affordable! And then use a more advanced CODEC to provide extended
HD quality (double resolution) when the technology supports it (probably
starting around now). But that's not how it was done, and it's a little late
to go back and do it again. :) 
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:35:23 PM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10jjaihektf45b4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> This is why I keep reading your posts! From where you sit, you can tell
> exactly why someone is having reception problems. For you, there can only
> be one reason. The rest of us know that there are _+MANY+_ possible causes
> for reception problems and _+MOST+_ of them have nothing to do with the
> modulation scheme.

I hate to say it, despite you having a good point that Bob may not really be
able to tell what is causing a given reception problem, at the same time,
you seem to have even more of an agenda than Bob does (appearantly an agenda
of promoting HDTV even to the point of providing propoganda about how great
it is, while attacking anyone who points out areas that need improvement)
and don't really read or respond to his posts. He actually sounded kind of
like an 8-VSB/ATSC cheerleader in the posts in this thread, saying that
these chips will likely finally solve many of the problems that some people
are currently having with receiving HDTV in their homes (yes, problems that
COFDM happened to solve years ago, but now that 8-VSB can do it too,
great -- there he didn't seem to be promoting COFDM that I could tell but
giving an example of how better multipath handling can improve reception in
many cases).

In the past, I believe he complained that "manufacturers claim future chips
will solve all these problems" (or something to that effect) but generation
after generation, they didn't, and now it is 7 years after HD broadcasts
started and FINALLY such a chip legitimately appears to be on the horizon.
In addition, there are other people even here who do report significant
reception problems. It seems you are one of the few people who seem to be
claiming that everyone with an HDTV and an antenna automatically gets great
reception, because you sure seem to get upset when anyone suggests
otherwise. The other part you seemed to miss is that Bob seems happy about
this development -- that people will get truly improved OTA HD reception.
But this doesn't seem to square with your appearant theory that Bob is an
anti-HDTV crusader (which I've never thought from day one -- it's always
been an argument that others put in his mouth).

I actually feel like half the people that respond negatively to Bob's posts
aren't people at all, they are pooly-written scripts set to auto-respond to
his posts...
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:55:56 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Mudd Bug wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No all get great success. I have seen the antenna recommendations
>>>> and they
>>>> would make it look like your house is part of the SETI project. I
>>>> have not have
>>>> had the great success even though I'm less than 10 miles from ther
>>>> stations
>>>> I am trying to receive. I only get 3, with one of them being PBS!
>>>> Two I receive
>>>> ok but the signal is weak. The other two I receive very
>>>> sporadically. Phone calls
>>>> by me, and a buddy, to engineering of the stations confirm that they
>>>> are on the
>>>> air but reception is poor at best.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that your problem is caused by dynamic multipath?
>>
>>
>>
>> No his problem is most likely static multipath.
>>
>
> ROTFLMAO...
>
> This is why I keep reading your posts! From where you sit, you can tell
> exactly why someone is having reception problems. For you, there can
> only be one reason. The rest of us know that there are _+MANY+_ possible
> causes for reception problems and _+MOST+_ of them have nothing to do
> with the modulation scheme.
>
> Matthew
>
There are many reasons for reception problems. When using COFDM it
becomes apparent that most of the ones that are listed as possible for
8-SVB are NOT the cause. When you eliminate multipath both dynamic and
static which COFDM does you find that all other reasons are non existent
or so rare that they just don't come up.

If you are getting a minimum signal strength you will get reception with
5th generation receivers. These receivers will put and end to talk of
all other reception problems. They will become insignificant including
the low power BS. A little power goes a long way if your receiver can
handle multipath.

You say otherwise. You say very few of the reception problems have to do
with modulation meaning 8-VSB with current receivers. I say you will be
proved wrong. Once 5th generation receivers are in the publics hands
sales will skyrocket as most of the problems turn out to have been poor
receivers.

Won't have to wait long to find out.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 7:23:06 PM

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

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10jhtp4phan5l75@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>HDTV receivers are selling like hotcakes, fifth generation or not. The
>>fifth generation will only improve the situation for those plagued with
>>dynamic multipath. Virtually everyone who posts about ATSC reception here
>>report great success without fifth generation receivers.
>
>
> I don't know where you would get the impression that HDTV receivers are
> "selling like hotcakes". Everything that I have heard or read seems to
> indicate that very, very few people have actually gone out and bought an
> HDTV receiver with OTA reception in mind. Most people don't have any kind of
> HDTV. Most people who do own HDTV monitors don't even have a source of HD
> signals (they don't have an HD tuner or subscribe to HD on cable or
> satellite). Most that do have an HD receiver got it through their cable or
> satellite provider as part of the subscription package, and there's no
> indication that most of them are using them for OTA reception (or have a
> suitable antenna to connect to).
>
> Of those who have tried OTA reception (who are likely over-represented in
> this newsgroup), my impression is that while some people receive some or all
> local channels fine, about as many others are having significant difficulty
> on at least some channels. Some of that is due to low signal strength (a
> temporary situation), but some of that is likely due to multipath.
>
> I am very hopeful that these new chips really can solve many of the
> multipath problems. With an increasing number of HD cable and satellite
> channels, increased HD content on local broadcast channels (and those cable
> channels that mix HD and SD content, like ESPN), substantially improved
> handling of multipath in local reception, at some point an increase in local
> broadcast signal strength (plus a gradual increase in carrying these
> channels on cable), routine integration of HD tuners into HD monitors, and
> at some point the advent of HD DVDs (as well as the maturing and improvement
> in quality and price of HD monitor technologies), I think the future of HDTV
> is very bright. But not all the pieces are in place yet, and some aspects
> aren't really mature enough for those who aren't "early adopters". It all
> still seems a year or two away before I think it could be recommended to
> most everyone, which is a lot of years since the introduction of HDTV
> (almost a decade).
>
>
The main point is that this new receiver technology makes business plans
like USDTV valid. It therefore addresses the 300 million analog TV sets
with a simple solution to the digital transition. Up till now it was all
or nothing. You had to buy an HDTV set and a receiver that itself cost
more than your current analog TV set in most cases. Not anymore.

There will be many business plans that will deliver free receivers for
HDTV and subscription services like USDTV is doing. It will make sense
for many to buy into this type of venture. And don't think that the 12
channels that USDTV is what I am talking about. I am talking about cable
killer ventures that offer HBO etc. and up to 50 plus SD program
channels on top of whatever the broadcasters are delivering free.

This is just the start of a new TV age. It could have started in 2000 if
COFDM had been allowed. It is all about the reception all other issues
of the digital transition are insignificant in comparison. This will be
proved as all aspects of the transition now explode.

Mathew can keep suggesting that it ain't so but sales figures don't lie.

The US had just wasted at least 6 years and even the country and company
that instigated this whole mess, LG, has been significantly held back
because of their misguided sticking to 8-VSB.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040903/4/1np0t.html

This article talks to the fact that S. Korea is hurting because of the
debacle called the US digital transition that they so counted on. It is
only the advent of the new 5th generation receiver that allowed for them
to make peace with their broadcasters who had been demanding a switch to
COFDM since 1998. And then only by ALLOWING COFDM for mobile.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 7:38:48 PM

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

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8nb_c.6951$w%6.2511@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
>>
>>You could fit a couple of HDTV programs into 6 MHz and with COFDM receive
>>them mobile if you were using VC-1, VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 AVC compression.
>
>
> Quite possibly true, but these types of compression were not available when
> DTV standards were finalized, and require significantly more processing and
> memory capability to function, which would drive up the price of decoders
> and delay adoption of DTV (probably the first HD receivers would just be
> coming to the market about now). It might be nice if there were some
> optional support in the future, but unlike HD DVD where the DVD Forum's
> adopted standard mandates support for several of these from the beginning,
> with HDTV there's no guarantee that people would be able to receive signals
> compressed with such alternative CODECs.
>
> In a sense I agree that it probably would have been smart to, say, start off
> with just EDTV using MPEG2 - probably 75% of Americans would have been
> watching DTV routinely today if that were the case, as it could have been so
> much more affordable! And then use a more advanced CODEC to provide extended
> HD quality (double resolution) when the technology supports it (probably
> starting around now). But that's not how it was done, and it's a little late
> to go back and do it again. :) 
>
>
We were delivering HD via MMDS real time IP with VP4/5 in 1999. The only
thing missing was real time. What in the hell was the big rush only to
stop everything in its tracks for the next 6 years? There would have
been HDTV receivers in 2001 that cost no more than 8-VSB receivers cost
then using advanced compression if such had been allowed.

Advanced compression is not forbidden with 8-VSB now. The rules say that
MPEG2 must be used for only ONE SD program. USDTV already plans on using
and their current Hisense receivers already support WM9. Market forces
will demand that most broadcast spectrum be used with the more efficient
codecs so we will be stuck with a combo system where MPEG2 is used for
the most minimum SD program to minimize bits WASTED on it.

The whole idea of saddling the US with MPEG2 and 8-VSB is legacy policy
BS. Does anyone in their right mind think that in this age of rapid
change these outmoded standards will last as long as NTSC? If not how
long will they last? They are already 10 years old as you say.

The pressure to switch to a better modulation will not diminish as more
5th generation receivers are sold and they will be in record numbers. No
the pressure will BUILD to change modulation as FTA TV makes a comeback
and broadcasters find themselves competing with COFDM and advanced
codecs on other spectrum.

The pain will be just be too great and the current idiots in the
broadcast industry that allowed this to happen to OTA broadcasting will
be gone. A new modulation will be proposed and implemented in record
time when we reach this point. There will be no controversy and very
little worry over all those 8-VSB receivers sold.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 7:53:08 PM

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

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10jjaihektf45b4@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>This is why I keep reading your posts! From where you sit, you can tell
>>exactly why someone is having reception problems. For you, there can only
>>be one reason. The rest of us know that there are _+MANY+_ possible causes
>>for reception problems and _+MOST+_ of them have nothing to do with the
>>modulation scheme.
>
>
> I hate to say it, despite you having a good point that Bob may not really be
> able to tell what is causing a given reception problem, at the same time,
> you seem to have even more of an agenda than Bob does (appearantly an agenda
> of promoting HDTV even to the point of providing propoganda about how great
> it is, while attacking anyone who points out areas that need improvement)
> and don't really read or respond to his posts. He actually sounded kind of
> like an 8-VSB/ATSC cheerleader in the posts in this thread, saying that
> these chips will likely finally solve many of the problems that some people
> are currently having with receiving HDTV in their homes (yes, problems that
> COFDM happened to solve years ago, but now that 8-VSB can do it too,
> great -- there he didn't seem to be promoting COFDM that I could tell but
> giving an example of how better multipath handling can improve reception in
> many cases).
>
> In the past, I believe he complained that "manufacturers claim future chips
> will solve all these problems" (or something to that effect) but generation
> after generation, they didn't, and now it is 7 years after HD broadcasts
> started and FINALLY such a chip legitimately appears to be on the horizon.
> In addition, there are other people even here who do report significant
> reception problems. It seems you are one of the few people who seem to be
> claiming that everyone with an HDTV and an antenna automatically gets great
> reception, because you sure seem to get upset when anyone suggests
> otherwise. The other part you seemed to miss is that Bob seems happy about
> this development -- that people will get truly improved OTA HD reception.
> But this doesn't seem to square with your appearant theory that Bob is an
> anti-HDTV crusader (which I've never thought from day one -- it's always
> been an argument that others put in his mouth).
>
> I actually feel like half the people that respond negatively to Bob's posts
> aren't people at all, they are pooly-written scripts set to auto-respond to
> his posts...
>
>
I have thought as much myself. There are billions of $ on the line with
8-VSB and you can't help wondering if the posters who have been the same
ones in many cases for years are not in the employ of one or another of
those entities who would benefit. They sure know the concept because
they constantly accuse me of being in the employ of Sinclair for example.

From the start I have said that I was not against HDTV or even 8-VSB.
My crusade started when FALSE press releases from Motorola and Nextwave
in 1999 MISLED me and others into thinking that ALL mobile and multipath
problems had been solved with promised 2nd generation chips. I wanted
this to be true. I believed and went to a demonstration in New York
where twelve vendors using these chips could NOT get ANY reception only
10 blocks from the Empire State Building.

The gall of these companies and others to outright lie about something
they knew to be untrue was way too much. The lieing has continued to
this day about COFDM.

I said then that I would welcome any improvement in 8-VSB and as soon as
I heard that there was REAL improvement in Linx I contacted them and
asked to be able to test, they declined. As soon as I heard that LG had
an improved 5th generation receiver I called them and they sent a
receiver DHL.

We tested and reported accurately that this was a far far better
receiver and the first to be plug and play which is essential to any
real DTV transition.

But the truth still is that, as admitted by LG engineers who accompanied
the 5th gen receiver, 8-VSB cannot touch COFDM in performance.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 12:52:30 AM

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

Mudd Bug wrote:

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10jjaihektf45b4@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mudd Bug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No all get great success. I have seen the antenna recommendations and
>>>>>they
>>>>>would make it look like your house is part of the SETI project. I have
>>>>>not have
>>>>>had the great success even though I'm less than 10 miles from ther
>>>>>stations
>>>>>I am trying to receive. I only get 3, with one of them being PBS! Two I
>>>>>receive
>>>>>ok but the signal is weak. The other two I receive very sporadically.
>>>>>Phone calls
>>>>>by me, and a buddy, to engineering of the stations confirm that they
>>>>>are on the
>>>>>air but reception is poor at best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you really believe that your problem is caused by dynamic multipath?
>>>
>>>
>>>No his problem is most likely static multipath.
>>>
>>
>>ROTFLMAO...
>>
>>This is why I keep reading your posts! From where you sit, you can tell
>>exactly why someone is having reception problems. For you, there can only
>>be one reason. The rest of us know that there are _+MANY+_ possible causes
>>for reception problems and _+MOST+_ of them have nothing to do with the
>>modulation scheme.
>>
>>Matthew
>>
>
> Yes there can be _+MANY+_ reasons for my reception problems, but being less
> than 10 miles from the source, flat terrain no large buildings you would
> think I would have
> no problems at all. All I want to do is give one of the new receivers a try
> before risking
> my life installing a large antenna on my roof (I can see myself taking a big
> fall).

Given your description of your situation, multipath problems are quite
unlikely. Have you called the stations and asked about power levels,
possible directions broadcast or interference that might contribute to
your reception problems?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
September 5, 2004 6:59:19 AM

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

In article <Hok_c.12008$54.167087@typhoon.sonic.net>,
"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:

> "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:977_c.11315$QJ3.11127@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > Whats this deal with licensing? Are you saying that manufacturers have to
> > pay Toshiba to make these receivers? Or that Toshiba paid Zenith?
>
> LG is making these chips. Unless others can come up with similarly-good
> chips, it makes sense that most box manufacturers would want this chip, if
> it is indeed as superior to other chips as early indications seem to
> suggest.

Where does it improve reception, in urban multipath environments?

Does it do anything about gain or say a big mass of high-rise buildings
between you and the transmitters?
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 9:59:22 AM

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

In article <poldy-9C2B5B.19592004092004@netnews.comcast.net>,
poldy <poldy@kfu.com> writes:
> In article <Hok_c.12008$54.167087@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:977_c.11315$QJ3.11127@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> > Whats this deal with licensing? Are you saying that manufacturers have to
>> > pay Toshiba to make these receivers? Or that Toshiba paid Zenith?
>>
>> LG is making these chips. Unless others can come up with similarly-good
>> chips, it makes sense that most box manufacturers would want this chip, if
>> it is indeed as superior to other chips as early indications seem to
>> suggest.
>
> Where does it improve reception, in urban multipath environments?
>
> Does it do anything about gain or say a big mass of high-rise buildings
> between you and the transmitters?
>
In the cases where dynamic multipath is a problem for HDTV reception,
then the new chipsets can help. I have found that in almost every
instance, in my real world, non ideal environment, that signal
problems that would superifically be attributed as 'multipath' are by far,
most often, problems with overload, front end design and interference.
In certain environments (e.g. Bob's infamous cherry
picked site, where NTSC would be often problematical also), the new
chipsets will help alot. Multipath is only one kind of problem,
and not the problem that has sometimes made reception tricky for me.

There are numerous impairments beyond multipath, and those seem to
be much more generally troublesome than multipath. If the alleged
multipath problems were totally solved, my overload, front end or
interference problems would persist. Fixing multipath wouldn't
fix my initial reception problems :-). 8VSB certainly hadn't changed
when I started successfully receiving the stations that I had
troubles with :-).

Cases where people are justifying a modulation scheme (or chipset) for
truly mobile HDTV are totally specious and are likely a stealth attempt
to usurp the transport capability for misguided unidirectional data
(or blasting SDTV ads on mass transit, e.g. tampon commercials everywhere.)

John
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 7:28:38 PM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <poldy-9C2B5B.19592004092004@netnews.comcast.net>,
> poldy <poldy@kfu.com> writes:
>
>>In article <Hok_c.12008$54.167087@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:977_c.11315$QJ3.11127@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>Whats this deal with licensing? Are you saying that manufacturers have to
>>>>pay Toshiba to make these receivers? Or that Toshiba paid Zenith?
>>>
>>>LG is making these chips. Unless others can come up with similarly-good
>>>chips, it makes sense that most box manufacturers would want this chip, if
>>>it is indeed as superior to other chips as early indications seem to
>>>suggest.
>>
>>Where does it improve reception, in urban multipath environments?
>>
>>Does it do anything about gain or say a big mass of high-rise buildings
>>between you and the transmitters?
>>
>
> In the cases where dynamic multipath is a problem for HDTV reception,
> then the new chipsets can help. I have found that in almost every
> instance, in my real world, non ideal environment, that signal
> problems that would superifically be attributed as 'multipath' are by far,
> most often, problems with overload, front end design and interference.
> In certain environments (e.g. Bob's infamous cherry
> picked site, where NTSC would be often problematical also), the new
> chipsets will help alot. Multipath is only one kind of problem,
> and not the problem that has sometimes made reception tricky for me.
>
> There are numerous impairments beyond multipath, and those seem to
> be much more generally troublesome than multipath. If the alleged
> multipath problems were totally solved, my overload, front end or
> interference problems would persist. Fixing multipath wouldn't
> fix my initial reception problems :-). 8VSB certainly hadn't changed
> when I started successfully receiving the stations that I had
> troubles with :-).
>
> Cases where people are justifying a modulation scheme (or chipset) for
> truly mobile HDTV are totally specious and are likely a stealth attempt
> to usurp the transport capability for misguided unidirectional data
> (or blasting SDTV ads on mass transit, e.g. tampon commercials everywhere.)
>
> John
>
Most of John's problems will disappear with the arrival of 5th gen
receivers. And it is static multipath not dynamic that 5th gen receivers
are doing the most for. They seem to help some with dynamic but if they
had solved dynamic 8-VSB would work mobile wouldn't it and it does not.

In fact 5th gen receivers while much better and can truly be called plug
and play they are still easily defeated by both static and dynamic
multipath if you try. Something that COFDM has no problem with.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 9:25:15 PM

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

In article <GgG_c.8007$w%6.4224@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>> In article <poldy-9C2B5B.19592004092004@netnews.comcast.net>,
>> poldy <poldy@kfu.com> writes:
>>
>>>In article <Hok_c.12008$54.167087@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:977_c.11315$QJ3.11127@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Whats this deal with licensing? Are you saying that manufacturers have to
>>>>>pay Toshiba to make these receivers? Or that Toshiba paid Zenith?
>>>>
>>>>LG is making these chips. Unless others can come up with similarly-good
>>>>chips, it makes sense that most box manufacturers would want this chip, if
>>>>it is indeed as superior to other chips as early indications seem to
>>>>suggest.
>>>
>>>Where does it improve reception, in urban multipath environments?
>>>
>>>Does it do anything about gain or say a big mass of high-rise buildings
>>>between you and the transmitters?
>>>
>>
>> In the cases where dynamic multipath is a problem for HDTV reception,
>> then the new chipsets can help. I have found that in almost every
>> instance, in my real world, non ideal environment, that signal
>> problems that would superifically be attributed as 'multipath' are by far,
>> most often, problems with overload, front end design and interference.
>> In certain environments (e.g. Bob's infamous cherry
>> picked site, where NTSC would be often problematical also), the new
>> chipsets will help alot. Multipath is only one kind of problem,
>> and not the problem that has sometimes made reception tricky for me.
>>
>> There are numerous impairments beyond multipath, and those seem to
>> be much more generally troublesome than multipath. If the alleged
>> multipath problems were totally solved, my overload, front end or
>> interference problems would persist. Fixing multipath wouldn't
>> fix my initial reception problems :-). 8VSB certainly hadn't changed
>> when I started successfully receiving the stations that I had
>> troubles with :-).
>>
>> Cases where people are justifying a modulation scheme (or chipset) for
>> truly mobile HDTV are totally specious and are likely a stealth attempt
>> to usurp the transport capability for misguided unidirectional data
>> (or blasting SDTV ads on mass transit, e.g. tampon commercials everywhere.)
>>
>> John
>>
> Most of John's problems will disappear with the arrival of 5th gen
> receivers.
>
As usual, you misconstrue and misinterpret. I really have no reception
problems, but did before I fixed the overload/matching problems. If
the 5th generation receivers fix the front end problems, then the
problems will go away -- but it has little (nothing) to do with
multipath. (My reception problems WERE not fixed by improving the
multipath situation, yet Bob continues to dishonestly or misguidedly
interpret the situation.)

Bob, your dishonesty continues to confound me, because you have the
ability to be 'honest', and people would accept you better.

John
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 10:12:05 PM

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

"Anon" <Anon@Anon.com> wrote in message news:<2R4_c.121499$mD.61091@attbi_s02>...

> Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??

A tuner built around LG'd 5th generation 8VSB receiver chipset.

> Will the brand new Samsung DLP's coming out later this year have a built in
> tuner that is the same quality that these '5th generation' ATSC tuners??

You will have to check for the receiver chipset supplier with the
salesperson. While LG does supplies its chipset to other 8VSB
licensees, the licensees are free to choose their own receiver
chipsets and may not opt for the LG chipset. The only sure bets are LG
and Zenith brand TV sets with integrated tuner...

> What changed from 4th to 5th generation that improved the reliability and
> functionality of these tuners??

A new signal decoding algorithm that has largely eliminated the
multipath problems of past.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 1:23:34 AM

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

"IHATEF15" <pikachumanager@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
news:881bb407.0409051712.5fd05c87@posting.google.com...
> "Anon" <Anon@Anon.com> wrote in message
> news:<2R4_c.121499$mD.61091@attbi_s02>...
>
>> Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??
>
> A tuner built around LG'd 5th generation 8VSB receiver chipset.
>
>> Will the brand new Samsung DLP's coming out later this year have a built
>> in
>> tuner that is the same quality that these '5th generation' ATSC tuners??
>
> You will have to check for the receiver chipset supplier with the
> salesperson. While LG does supplies its chipset to other 8VSB
> licensees, the licensees are free to choose their own receiver
> chipsets and may not opt for the LG chipset. The only sure bets are LG
> and Zenith brand TV sets with integrated tuner...

Be careful, follow up on anything a salesperson says. He may not know and
just tell you what you want to hear.

>
>> What changed from 4th to 5th generation that improved the reliability and
>> functionality of these tuners??
>
> A new signal decoding algorithm that has largely eliminated the
> multipath problems of past.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 6:39:36 AM

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

Mudd Bug wrote:

> "IHATEF15" <pikachumanager@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message
> news:881bb407.0409051712.5fd05c87@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Anon" <Anon@Anon.com> wrote in message
>>news:<2R4_c.121499$mD.61091@attbi_s02>...
>>
>>
>>>Just exactly what is a 5th generation ATSC tuner??
>>
>>A tuner built around LG'd 5th generation 8VSB receiver chipset.
>>
>>
>>>Will the brand new Samsung DLP's coming out later this year have a built
>>>in
>>>tuner that is the same quality that these '5th generation' ATSC tuners??
>>
>>You will have to check for the receiver chipset supplier with the
>>salesperson. While LG does supplies its chipset to other 8VSB
>>licensees, the licensees are free to choose their own receiver
>>chipsets and may not opt for the LG chipset. The only sure bets are LG
>>and Zenith brand TV sets with integrated tuner...
>
>
> Be careful, follow up on anything a salesperson says. He may not know and
> just tell you what you want to hear.
>
>
>>>What changed from 4th to 5th generation that improved the reliability and
>>>functionality of these tuners??
>>
>>A new signal decoding algorithm that has largely eliminated the
>>multipath problems of past.
>
>
>
Once 5th gen receivers hit the market no other receivers will sell IMO.
Any other manufacturer either has to quickly come up with new technology
or license LG tech. Toshiba and Hisense already have made deals. Others
probably will. The hype on the 5th gen will be intense.

Hisense already has the lowest cost receiver at $198.76 at WalMart and
also has the desire to enter the US market in a big way with their DTV
sets. Expect them and others to be very aggressive as soon as they can
deliver 5th gen receivers.
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 7:16:44 AM

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

> Once 5th gen receivers hit the market no other receivers will sell IMO.
> Any other manufacturer either has to quickly come up with new technology
> or license LG tech. Toshiba and Hisense already have made deals. Others
> probably will. The hype on the 5th gen will be intense.

Bob you or someone else said earlier that since LG/Zenith licenses the
patents necessary for "8-VSB", any company *already* building an ATSC
tuner-IC must be licensing those patents from LG/Zenith. The
'5th-gen' stuff is covered under the current licensing arrangement,
so it's not as if a tuner-IC will choose to continue building a 4th
gen-tuner since the manufacturer automatically receives manufacturing
rights for the latest (5th) gen material.

> Hisense already has the lowest cost receiver at $198.76 at WalMart and
> also has the desire to enter the US market in a big way with their DTV
> sets. Expect them and others to be very aggressive as soon as they can
> deliver 5th gen receivers.

Based on your own ranting postings, ATSC tuners weren't selling at all.
And they're still not selling, seeing how several mfgs decided to
exit the market (due to the FCC's ATSC tuner mandate.)

All that matters is price. The 5th-gen is just 'icing on the cake.'

....But for once, it's nice to see that the most affordable ATSC tuner
also happens to have the best tuner-technology available. (Whether
any of the buyers sign up for USDTV, is a whole other debate.)

It's good to see *reasonably affordably* ATSC tuners (<$200) finally hit
the market.

I bought one of these from ebay, and I can honestly say it's a fair
value. I see no fatal product flaws, just several minor quibbles.
The user-interface has no front panel controls; if you lose the remote,
you can't do *anything*. The firmware doesn't allow arbitrary channel#s
-- the 'auto-scan' must find them first, otherwise the box just ignores
your manual attempt to change the channel.

At the moment, it doesn't work with the Los Angeles area -- the
channel-scan hangs at KNBC/36 (you have to unplug the antenna cable to
'unstuck' the box.) And for 3 stations (Fox, WB, CBS), the box has no
audio. I'm sure this is easily fixed by a firmware update.
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 10:45:57 AM

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

"hahahaha" <hahahaha@hahaha.com> wrote in message
news:wWP%c.17495$L%5.12267@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> > Once 5th gen receivers hit the market no other receivers will sell IMO.
> > Any other manufacturer either has to quickly come up with new technology
> > or license LG tech. Toshiba and Hisense already have made deals. Others
> > probably will. The hype on the 5th gen will be intense.
>
> Bob you or someone else said earlier that since LG/Zenith licenses the
> patents necessary for "8-VSB", any company *already* building an ATSC
> tuner-IC must be licensing those patents from LG/Zenith. The
> '5th-gen' stuff is covered under the current licensing arrangement,
> so it's not as if a tuner-IC will choose to continue building a 4th
> gen-tuner since the manufacturer automatically receives manufacturing
> rights for the latest (5th) gen material.
>
> > Hisense already has the lowest cost receiver at $198.76 at WalMart and
> > also has the desire to enter the US market in a big way with their DTV
> > sets. Expect them and others to be very aggressive as soon as they can
> > deliver 5th gen receivers.
>
> Based on your own ranting postings, ATSC tuners weren't selling at all.
> And they're still not selling, seeing how several mfgs decided to
> exit the market (due to the FCC's ATSC tuner mandate.)
>
> All that matters is price. The 5th-gen is just 'icing on the cake.'
>
> ...But for once, it's nice to see that the most affordable ATSC tuner
> also happens to have the best tuner-technology available. (Whether
> any of the buyers sign up for USDTV, is a whole other debate.)
>
> It's good to see *reasonably affordably* ATSC tuners (<$200) finally hit
> the market.
>
> I bought one of these from ebay, and I can honestly say it's a fair
> value. I see no fatal product flaws, just several minor quibbles.
> The user-interface has no front panel controls; if you lose the remote,
> you can't do *anything*. The firmware doesn't allow arbitrary channel#s
> -- the 'auto-scan' must find them first, otherwise the box just ignores
> your manual attempt to change the channel.
>
> At the moment, it doesn't work with the Los Angeles area -- the
> channel-scan hangs at KNBC/36 (you have to unplug the antenna cable to
> 'unstuck' the box.) And for 3 stations (Fox, WB, CBS), the box has no
> audio. I'm sure this is easily fixed by a firmware update.
>

I haven't seen any 5th generation tuners on the market yet. I've google
searched and Walmart is selling a 4th generation for $198 at this time.
While it's probably pretty good the third generation in my set gets all the
channels but one and another channel with sound dropouts at certain times of
the day. Both of those problems would be fixed with a 4th generation tuner
( I tried one).
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 6:04:41 PM

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

hahahaha wrote:
>> Once 5th gen receivers hit the market no other receivers will sell
>> IMO. Any other manufacturer either has to quickly come up with new
>> technology or license LG tech. Toshiba and Hisense already have made
>> deals. Others probably will. The hype on the 5th gen will be intense.
>
>
> Bob you or someone else said earlier that since LG/Zenith licenses the
> patents necessary for "8-VSB", any company *already* building an ATSC
> tuner-IC must be licensing those patents from LG/Zenith. The
> '5th-gen' stuff is covered under the current licensing arrangement,
> so it's not as if a tuner-IC will choose to continue building a 4th
> gen-tuner since the manufacturer automatically receives manufacturing
> rights for the latest (5th) gen material.

I believe there is a difference between having the right to use patents
owned by LG in producing chip sets and buying chip sets made by LG.
USDTV is going to use LG chipsets before LG uses them themselves.
>
>> Hisense already has the lowest cost receiver at $198.76 at WalMart and
>> also has the desire to enter the US market in a big way with their DTV
>> sets. Expect them and others to be very aggressive as soon as they can
>> deliver 5th gen receivers.
>
>
> Based on your own ranting postings, ATSC tuners weren't selling at all.
> And they're still not selling, seeing how several mfgs decided to
> exit the market (due to the FCC's ATSC tuner mandate.)
>
> All that matters is price. The 5th-gen is just 'icing on the cake.'

Price is very important but if the receiver doesn't work well they will
not (are not) being advertised or made in quantity. Price is a function
of quantity also. Manufacturers and retailers have shown NO faith in
current 8-VSB receivers thru the 4th generation. MORE important no
entrepreneurial venture except USDTV and certainly no broadcaster has
shown enthusiasm for current receivers. The Mandate speaks volumes about
the state of current receivers.

The fact that a percentage of early adopters have good reception does
not change any of the above.

With 5th generation receivers that all changes. It will increase the
production of receivers lowering the price. More manufacturers will
start production. Broadcasters like Sinclair already has will start to
pay attention to OTA broadcasting. Retailers will be more interested in
selling such receivers and will advertise.

But most important new ventures like USDTV can now see a future in
broadcasting OTA that has not existed except in the world of current
broadcasters and their reliance on must carry over cable. For example we
are now interested in OTA where we have not had any interest since 8-VSB
was re-affirmed in 2001. We were in interested (are interested) in COFDM
because it worked and were NOT interested in 8-VSB because it did NOT
work. That is now changing at least for fixed reception.
>
> ...But for once, it's nice to see that the most affordable ATSC tuner
> also happens to have the best tuner-technology available. (Whether
> any of the buyers sign up for USDTV, is a whole other debate.)
>
> It's good to see *reasonably affordably* ATSC tuners (<$200) finally hit
> the market.

Don't know what the 5th gen Hisense receiver will cost yet. The $200
current one is the best? I don't know.
>
> I bought one of these from ebay, and I can honestly say it's a fair
> value. I see no fatal product flaws, just several minor quibbles.
> The user-interface has no front panel controls; if you lose the remote,
> you can't do *anything*. The firmware doesn't allow arbitrary channel#s
> -- the 'auto-scan' must find them first, otherwise the box just ignores
> your manual attempt to change the channel.
>
> At the moment, it doesn't work with the Los Angeles area -- the
> channel-scan hangs at KNBC/36 (you have to unplug the antenna cable to
> 'unstuck' the box.) And for 3 stations (Fox, WB, CBS), the box has no
> audio. I'm sure this is easily fixed by a firmware update.
>
!