Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV, a very big disappointment - buyers beware..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 4:53:56 PM

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

Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
plunge.

I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...

The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.

I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.

What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.

Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 4:53:57 PM

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

In article <msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com>,
DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote:

> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
> plunge.
>
> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...

Well, the first thing wrong is you used a TV in a "big box" store as a
representation of HDTV. There's nothing to stop people from messing
with the settings on those sets. You also didn't say whether you were
looking at OTA analog, but I'm going to assume you were.

> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.

The picture is great on my Sony HS-32. FWIW, I have 480p upconversion
mode turned on, which makes the picture even better. If the sharpness
was set wrong on the set you looked at, that _will_ mess up the picture.
My Sony (which is the next tier down from the XBR and has similar
settings) has zero sharpness at the middle setting. Setting it to the
far left of the bar actually UNsharpens the picture, making it a smeared
mess, and it really does look bad. Tremendously bad. This is probably
what you saw. (I can't understand why Sony would even _put_ negative
sharpness capability into a TV.)

Or perhaps what you were seeing was due to a bad antenna? Or a bad
tuner? A set with higher resolution is going to show more analog
artifacts than a lower res set.

> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>
> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?

Like I said, you were using a TV that anybody could walk up to and mess
with the controls, and using whatever antenna they had it hooked up to,
which might not have been aimed properly.

For instance, last month I messed with a set in a store which had a
built-in tuner, and set it to one of the weather radar subchannels of an
OTA ATSC station. The picture was blocky as hell, and I don't know why,
because it sure looks a lot better on my own set.
September 18, 2004 5:52:03 PM

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

"DeadEyeXX" <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in message
news:msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com...
>
> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
> plunge.
>
> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>
> I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
> old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
>
> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>
> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?

Sets are usually adjusted to be too blue, too bright, too contrasty, and
have edge enhancement(sharpness, AKA video noise) turned up. Such images are
designed to catch the eye on a showroom floor. Using an adjustment DVD like
AVIA or Video Essentials can go a long way toward a better look. You've
heard the axiom, garbage in, garbage out, I'm sure. A TV that's good enough
to more accurately show the garbage we've been getting for years and then
line double it really demonstrates how bad the old system was. Proper
adjustment can make it bearable though. Heck, Hollywood has been using soft
focus on many "stars" for years because you really don't want to see some of
them in sharp detail.

Pat
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 18, 2004 6:57:00 PM

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

DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in
news:msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com:

>
> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
> plunge.
>
> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>
> I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
> old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
>
> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>
> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
>

Circut city usually has them all conected to one source. How were you able
to change channels?
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 7:24:11 PM

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

HD sets, which are optimized for HD, do not present SD pictures as well as
SD sets do. While part of the difference is objective, part is undoubtedly
subjective, based on an unconscious comparison of the SD picture to HD,
which you never used to do. In any case, I found that, after a week or so
of watching both SD and HD pictures on my HDTV, the slightly lower quality
of the SD picture from what my old TV used to present no longer bothered me.

You can also adjust that quality by using one of your TV's "Picture" modes
just for SD after adjusting it for the best SD picture you can get. I also
found that using my DVD recorder's tuner set to 480p also improved the
quality of the SD picture.

"...with so little HD content..." ? I don't find this at all. Almost
everything we watch on HBO is in HD. Almost every football game we will
watch during the season will be in HD. Of the 4 or 5 network shows we watch
on a regular basis, only 1 is not in HD. My surprise was that there was so
MUCH to watch in HD!

If the quality of SD is extremely important to you but you also want HD,
then keep your old set and continue to watch SD on it!

mack
austin


"DeadEyeXX" <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in message
news:msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com...
>
> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
> plunge.
>
> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>
> I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
> old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
>
> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>
> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
September 18, 2004 7:35:55 PM

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

I forgot to mention, most people prefer to watch SD at 480i rather than
upconvert it as upconversion can hurt the picture. If the recever is set to
output HD, try setting it to output 480i and the TV to receive the 480i
signal when watching SD.

Pat
September 18, 2004 7:43:50 PM

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

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:53:56 GMT, DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote:

>
>Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
>plunge.
>
>I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
>DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
>The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>
>I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
>old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
>
>What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
>With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>
>Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?

Your experience was an anomaly. My SD picture is at least as
good as it ever was when I go through the HD tuner to view it.

The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:

1. HDTV tuner
2. VCR tuner
3. TV tuner
4. FM receiver

The splitter given to me by Comcast (overall, I'm really very
happy with them) has 3 outlets. The first one is marked "3.5
DB". This is the one the HDTV tuner MUST be connected to or
it doesn't get a strong enough signal. The other two are 7.0
DB taps, which I assume are weaker signals.

Since the splitter only has 3 outputs I had to use the VCR's
RF cable output tap to go to the TV. There are two problems
with this. First, you sometimes have to press the VCR's TV/
VCR button to get the pass-through cable signal (and not the
VCR's output.) Second, the VCR's and TV's signals were both
degraded enough to result in less than optimal (i.e., shitty)
pictures.

I also tried (with very little hope, I admit) adding a 2-way
splitter to one of the outputs of the 3-way splitter given to
me by Comcast to get 4 signals total. This also resulted in
the VCR and TV signals being too weak.

In both of the above cases, the HDTV still got a good enough
signal to work fine.

I tried a 4-output splitter but the HDTV didn't have enough
signal to work properly. This is probably since the splitter
didn't have a 3.5DB tap, not to mention the fact that there
are 4 signals being split off. But I had to try.

Anyway, my current setup does not include a direct RF cable
into the TV, but the VCR's picture is good.

Now I can't surf the SD signals quickly just using my RV (my
HDTV is a dog when it comes to changing channels) and I can't
use my PIP or freeze functions when HDTV is the source.

Should I try one of those RF amplifiers to boost the signal?
I saw one at Radio Hack for about $50.

CB
September 18, 2004 8:30:40 PM

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

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:46:59 -0500, Bruce Tomlin
<bruce#fanboy.net@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>In article <msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com>,
> DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote:
>
>> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
>> plunge.
>>
>> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
>> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
>Well, the first thing wrong is you used a TV in a "big box" store as a
>representation of HDTV. There's nothing to stop people from messing
>with the settings on those sets. You also didn't say whether you were
>looking at OTA analog, but I'm going to assume you were.
>

In my opinion Circuit city does the best job of putting a good signal
on their TVs for comparison shopping of all the Big Box stores.

Sears should just give up selling tTVs. The ones I have been to aren't
willing to spend the few hundred it would cost to provide a good
signal. It amazes me that they sell any at all.
Thumper
>> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>
>The picture is great on my Sony HS-32. FWIW, I have 480p upconversion
>mode turned on, which makes the picture even better. If the sharpness
>was set wrong on the set you looked at, that _will_ mess up the picture.
>My Sony (which is the next tier down from the XBR and has similar
>settings) has zero sharpness at the middle setting. Setting it to the
>far left of the bar actually UNsharpens the picture, making it a smeared
>mess, and it really does look bad. Tremendously bad. This is probably
>what you saw. (I can't understand why Sony would even _put_ negative
>sharpness capability into a TV.)
>
>Or perhaps what you were seeing was due to a bad antenna? Or a bad
>tuner? A set with higher resolution is going to show more analog
>artifacts than a lower res set.
>
>> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
>> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>>
>> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
>
>Like I said, you were using a TV that anybody could walk up to and mess
>with the controls, and using whatever antenna they had it hooked up to,
>which might not have been aimed properly.
>
>For instance, last month I messed with a set in a store which had a
>built-in tuner, and set it to one of the weather radar subchannels of an
>OTA ATSC station. The picture was blocky as hell, and I don't know why,
>because it sure looks a lot better on my own set.

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 4:31:11 AM

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

RR <rr@not.net> wrote (in part):

>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>
>1. HDTV tuner
>2. VCR tuner
>3. TV tuner
>4. FM receiver

[passive splitter trials deleted]

>Should I try one of those RF amplifiers to boost the signal?
>I saw one at Radio Hack for about $50.
>
>CB

Yes. Two things to look for. Make sure the amp is intended for cable
rather than OTA antenna. The frequency ranges are different. Also,
if you think you ever might want cable Internet service, get a
bidirectional amp (probably also necessary for Video on Demand). The
Radio Shack 15-2506 ($49.99) should work well. If you add more
tuners, you can add passive splitters to the outputs and probably
still have enough signal to work with.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
September 19, 2004 8:19:18 AM

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

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:31:11 GMT, Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>RR <rr@not.net> wrote (in part):
>
>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>>
>>1. HDTV tuner
>>2. VCR tuner
>>3. TV tuner
>>4. FM receiver
>
>[passive splitter trials deleted]
>
>>Should I try one of those RF amplifiers to boost the signal?
>>I saw one at Radio Hack for about $50.
>>
>>CB
>
>Yes. Two things to look for. Make sure the amp is intended for cable
>rather than OTA antenna. The frequency ranges are different. Also,
>if you think you ever might want cable Internet service, get a
>bidirectional amp (probably also necessary for Video on Demand). The
>Radio Shack 15-2506 ($49.99) should work well. If you add more
>tuners, you can add passive splitters to the outputs and probably
>still have enough signal to work with.
>
>Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>

I already DO have cable Internet service (Comcast). They installed a
little filter box WAY WAY in front of my cable TV tap. I'll check
out the amplifier you noted. And post the results when I get around
to doing it!

Thanks.
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 1:02:00 PM

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

DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in message news:<msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com>...
> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
> plunge.
>
> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>
> I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
> old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
>
> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>
> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?


There are a few reasons for this. In short, sets capable of displaying
HD (1080i/1080p/720p) have to do something with the SD signal before
it displays on a high resolution set. This is because the technology
for DTV is so much different from analog. If the set doesn't offer a
quality upcoverter (which by most reviews, it appears the KD-34XBR960
does not) then HD is going to look bad. On my website I compare this
to putting a magnifying glass up to newspaper print, the ugly details
that were always there just become that much more apparent.

This is why you can't just go with a brand name and expect that the
HDTV you're looking at will do everything you want. If the set has a
quality 1080i/720p upconverter SD will look better than it did on your
old analog set. But proper setup is also required (on some models the
component video input bypasses the upconverter. On some models
upconversion must be enabled though a menu).

If you want the set to do everything you want with easy, buy an
Hitachi. Even their low-end models have all the bells and wistles.
With other makers you just have to pay attention to the model number
and the feature list.
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 8:46:37 PM

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

Could you (or anyone) recomend an Hitachi 34" 16:9 CRT HDTV that has
good performance in both SD and HD modes ?

The new TV will be using Cablevision with "SA Explorer 4200HD" cable
box.

TIA...


On 19 Sep 2004 09:02:00 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:

>DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in message news:<msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com>...
>> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
>> plunge.
>>
>> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
>> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>>
>> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>>
>> I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
>> old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
>>
>> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
>> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>>
>> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
>
>
>There are a few reasons for this. In short, sets capable of displaying
>HD (1080i/1080p/720p) have to do something with the SD signal before
>it displays on a high resolution set. This is because the technology
>for DTV is so much different from analog. If the set doesn't offer a
>quality upcoverter (which by most reviews, it appears the KD-34XBR960
>does not) then HD is going to look bad. On my website I compare this
>to putting a magnifying glass up to newspaper print, the ugly details
>that were always there just become that much more apparent.
>
>This is why you can't just go with a brand name and expect that the
>HDTV you're looking at will do everything you want. If the set has a
>quality 1080i/720p upconverter SD will look better than it did on your
>old analog set. But proper setup is also required (on some models the
>component video input bypasses the upconverter. On some models
>upconversion must be enabled though a menu).
>
>If you want the set to do everything you want with easy, buy an
>Hitachi. Even their low-end models have all the bells and wistles.
>With other makers you just have to pay attention to the model number
>and the feature list.
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 8:46:38 PM

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

The smallest Hitachi 16:9 CRT-RPTV is their 46" table top model. Sears
has it on sale right now for $1300.


DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in message news:<iavtk0t84eb872q0phb920aj145bjb14hi@4ax.com>...
> Could you (or anyone) recomend an Hitachi 34" 16:9 CRT HDTV that has
> good performance in both SD and HD modes ?
>
> The new TV will be using Cablevision with "SA Explorer 4200HD" cable
> box.
>
> TIA...
>
>
> On 19 Sep 2004 09:02:00 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>
> >DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in message news:<msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com>...
> >> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
> >> plunge.
> >>
> >> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> >> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
> >>
> >> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
> >>
> >> I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
> >> old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
> >>
> >> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
> >> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
> >
> >
> >There are a few reasons for this. In short, sets capable of displaying
> >HD (1080i/1080p/720p) have to do something with the SD signal before
> >it displays on a high resolution set. This is because the technology
> >for DTV is so much different from analog. If the set doesn't offer a
> >quality upcoverter (which by most reviews, it appears the KD-34XBR960
> >does not) then HD is going to look bad. On my website I compare this
> >to putting a magnifying glass up to newspaper print, the ugly details
> >that were always there just become that much more apparent.
> >
> >This is why you can't just go with a brand name and expect that the
> >HDTV you're looking at will do everything you want. If the set has a
> >quality 1080i/720p upconverter SD will look better than it did on your
> >old analog set. But proper setup is also required (on some models the
> >component video input bypasses the upconverter. On some models
> >upconversion must be enabled though a menu).
> >
> >If you want the set to do everything you want with easy, buy an
> >Hitachi. Even their low-end models have all the bells and wistles.
> >With other makers you just have to pay attention to the model number
> >and the feature list.
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 8:54:33 PM

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

Ironically, I have an ATI HDTV Wonder in this computer and the SD
channels look fine.

Using the little antenna that comes with the card, I get about 5
channels from New York City.

Another reason I was surprised with the XBR's lousy display of SD.


On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:46:59 -0500, Bruce Tomlin
<bruce#fanboy.net@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>In article <msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com>,
> DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote:
>
>> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
>> plunge.
>>
>> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
>> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
>Well, the first thing wrong is you used a TV in a "big box" store as a
>representation of HDTV. There's nothing to stop people from messing
>with the settings on those sets. You also didn't say whether you were
>looking at OTA analog, but I'm going to assume you were.
>
>> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.
>
>The picture is great on my Sony HS-32. FWIW, I have 480p upconversion
>mode turned on, which makes the picture even better. If the sharpness
>was set wrong on the set you looked at, that _will_ mess up the picture.
>My Sony (which is the next tier down from the XBR and has similar
>settings) has zero sharpness at the middle setting. Setting it to the
>far left of the bar actually UNsharpens the picture, making it a smeared
>mess, and it really does look bad. Tremendously bad. This is probably
>what you saw. (I can't understand why Sony would even _put_ negative
>sharpness capability into a TV.)
>
>Or perhaps what you were seeing was due to a bad antenna? Or a bad
>tuner? A set with higher resolution is going to show more analog
>artifacts than a lower res set.
>
>> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
>> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>>
>> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
>
>Like I said, you were using a TV that anybody could walk up to and mess
>with the controls, and using whatever antenna they had it hooked up to,
>which might not have been aimed properly.
>
>For instance, last month I messed with a set in a store which had a
>built-in tuner, and set it to one of the weather radar subchannels of an
>OTA ATSC station. The picture was blocky as hell, and I don't know why,
>because it sure looks a lot better on my own set.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 2:26:53 AM

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

DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in
news:msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com:

> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.

The TV probably needs to be tweaked.


--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 2:28:32 AM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote
in news:vqY2d.4472$1d6.3503@fe1.texas.rr.com:

> "...with so little HD content..." ? I don't find this at all. Almost
> everything we watch on HBO is in HD. Almost every football game we
> will watch during the season will be in HD. Of the 4 or 5 network
> shows we watch on a regular basis, only 1 is not in HD. My surprise
> was that there was so MUCH to watch in HD!

You're quite optimistic.

But I have to agree with the OP... there's is much in HD yet. A&E,
Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc are not broadcasting in HD.

Unless you're a fan of primetime TV, there's not much to watch on HD

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 2:31:50 AM

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

DeadEyeXX <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in
news:ij2uk0drku9rstac7vvupl7luq07bq56i0@4ax.com:

> Another reason I was surprised with the XBR's lousy display of SD.

Very strange... I have a 36" XBR and a 60" Grand Wega, both display SD
fine.

You may notice artifacts on some SD channels due to the clarity of these
sets, but this can be fixed with adjustments to the PQ.

Also, the screen size of the TV you saw is probably larger than your
computer monitor... so any flaws would be magnified.
September 22, 2004 3:37:52 AM

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

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:28:32 GMT, Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com>
wrote:

>"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote
>in news:vqY2d.4472$1d6.3503@fe1.texas.rr.com:
>
>> "...with so little HD content..." ? I don't find this at all. Almost
>> everything we watch on HBO is in HD. Almost every football game we
>> will watch during the season will be in HD. Of the 4 or 5 network
>> shows we watch on a regular basis, only 1 is not in HD. My surprise
>> was that there was so MUCH to watch in HD!
>
>You're quite optimistic.
>
>But I have to agree with the OP... there's is much in HD yet. A&E,
>Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc are not broadcasting in HD.
>
The discovery channel is.
Thumper
>Unless you're a fan of primetime TV, there's not much to watch on HD

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 9:36:34 AM

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

Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in
news:lje1l05h92v2gvibrdidsc1cp07hf1c6nu@4ax.com:

>>But I have to agree with the OP... there's is much in HD yet. A&E,
>>Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc are not broadcasting in HD.
>>
> The discovery channel is.

Ooops... you're right.

But there's not much on the Discovery Channel... hardly anything is in HD.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 12:28:59 AM

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

> The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
> too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>
> 1. HDTV tuner
> 2. VCR tuner
> 3. TV tuner
> 4. FM receiver

I haven't used a VCR for about 6 years now. Quality is just too bad to
warrant use.

The best bet is to switch to DirecTV, then get a HD TiVo. Your top 3
then all convert to a single tuner -- the TiVo.

Additional advantages of a TiVo are far too numerous to go into here.
Visit alt.video.ptv.tivo if you want more info on that option.
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 8:29:08 PM

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

"DeadEyeXX" <DeadEyeXX@home.org> wrote in message
news:msbok0tmol2lg3m0epd0fnvjkidid1vjdc@4ax.com...
>
> Stopped by my local Circuit City yesterday, itching to take the HDTV
> plunge.
>
> I started with a Sony KD-34XBR960 which was connected to it's own
> DirectTV HD Tuner and started channel surfing from channel 2 up...
>
> The picture was absolutely horrible on all of the SD channels.

My samsung dlp is poor on sd content. I think you have to believe the
future is coming fast, even though that may be a delusion.

>
> I was expecting the NTSC channels to look as good, or better, than my
> old Toshiba 32FX48B set and the HD channels to kick ass.
>
> What a rude awakening, HDTV's cannot resolve NTSC signals properly.
> With so little HD content, at this point, this is a BIG problem.
>
> Does anyone know what the actual technical reasons are for this ?
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 8:31:53 PM

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

"Burt Johnson" <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote

> I haven't used a VCR for about 6 years now. Quality is just too bad to
> warrant use.
>
> The best bet is to switch to DirecTV, then get a HD TiVo. Your top 3
> then all convert to a single tuner -- the TiVo.
>
> Additional advantages of a TiVo are far too numerous to go into here.
> Visit alt.video.ptv.tivo if you want more info on that option.

VCR's are history. To be thrown away. If you want high quality
time-shifts, get a DVR with a hard drive. TIVO is one way to go, but not
the only way.

We have a Panasonic E-80 DVD/DVR. Records to DVD in DVD-RAM or DVD-R or to
the internal 80-gig HD. At "XP", the highest setting, it will record about
15 hours of programming @ 10mbps. The resulting picture is so close to the
original signal it is very hard to tell the difference. In fact, the 5mbps
"SD" setting is just fine for most purposes. Up to 80 hours at a low
quality setting you would never use.

If you like, you can start recording a program, wait a few minutes, then
"chase" it, skipping through the commercials. And you can record one
program on the HD while watching another. Plays back to your HDTV set in
480p.

Panasonic doesn't make that model anymore, but they have others -- in the
$500 range. Toss that VCR and buy one, or something similar.

mack
austin
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 8:31:54 PM

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

A DISADVANTAGE of harddrive recorders that I have found is that they
make it extremely difficult to transport the recorded media to other
devices or outside the recorder itself.For instance,if I want to record
something and then show it to a friend or family member,I HAVE to use a
conventional VCR.I have not seen an AFFORDABLE STACKED harddrive storage
array yet,with easily removable drives.And even if I had such a
device,the party whom I want to show the recorded material to more than
likely does not have an imputable harddrive array either.
Until THAT problem is solved,I think VCR's will be around for awhile.
Anonymous
September 26, 2004 11:48:28 PM

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

"SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3623-415701DE-55@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net...
>A DISADVANTAGE of harddrive recorders that I have found is that they
> make it extremely difficult to transport the recorded media to other
> devices or outside the recorder itself.For instance,if I want to record
> something and then show it to a friend or family member,I HAVE to use a
> conventional VCR.I have not seen an AFFORDABLE STACKED harddrive storage
> array yet,with easily removable drives.And even if I had such a
> device,the party whom I want to show the recorded material to more than
> likely does not have an imputable harddrive array either.
> Until THAT problem is solved,I think VCR's will be around for awhile.
>
========================
The models that have a DVD-R in them make it REAL easy to transport.
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 12:06:45 AM

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

Richard C. wrote:
----"The models that have a DVD-R in them
make it REAL easy to transport."----

Reply:
Perhaps,but I don't find them in the range of AVERAGE affordability for
the mass market yet.And,there are so FEW models available.
There are still more people (at this time) who have VCR's than those who
have hybrid DVR/DVD machines.
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 3:20:40 AM

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

"SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3623-415701DE-55@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net...
>A DISADVANTAGE of harddrive recorders that I have found is that they
> make it extremely difficult to transport the recorded media to other
> devices or outside the recorder itself.For instance,if I want to record
> something and then show it to a friend or family member,I HAVE to use a
> conventional VCR.I have not seen an AFFORDABLE STACKED harddrive storage
> array yet,with easily removable drives.And even if I had such a
> device,the party whom I want to show the recorded material to more than
> likely does not have an imputable harddrive array either.
> Until THAT problem is solved,I think VCR's will be around for awhile.

Some have built-in DVD burners, but these models are still quite expensive.
September 28, 2004 3:44:10 AM

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

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:31:53 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>Panasonic doesn't make that model anymore, but they have others -- in the
>$500 range. Toss that VCR and buy one, or something similar.

I've used S-VHS for the past five years for timeshifting DirecTV.
It's not too bad. I think you can get an S-VHS machine for about a
$100 these days...
September 29, 2004 5:31:05 AM

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

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:31:11 GMT, Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>RR <rr@not.net> wrote (in part):
>
>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>>
>>1. HDTV tuner
>>2. VCR tuner
>>3. TV tuner
>>4. FM receiver
>
>[passive splitter trials deleted]
>
>>Should I try one of those RF amplifiers to boost the signal?
>>I saw one at Radio Hack for about $50.
>>
>>CB
>
>Yes. Two things to look for. Make sure the amp is intended for cable
>rather than OTA antenna. The frequency ranges are different. Also,
>if you think you ever might want cable Internet service, get a
>bidirectional amp (probably also necessary for Video on Demand). The
>Radio Shack 15-2506 ($49.99) should work well. If you add more
>tuners, you can add passive splitters to the outputs and probably
>still have enough signal to work with.
>
>Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>

OK. I tried one. I am one very happy camper. I replaced my 3-way
splitter with the 15-2506 and now have 4 very strong outputs. This
thing is designed to go in the attic, so the aplifier is strong. I
have it set on minimum and I still have beautiful pictures on all 3
of my video sources, and the FM is great.

Thanks Del for the tip.

I'll bet the problem reported by the original message in this thread
is simply due to a weak signal getting to the TV in question.

I couldn't be happier with both the analog and HDTV digital picture
quality on my Samsung Tantus now.

RR
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 8:06:40 AM

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

>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>>
>>1. HDTV tuner
>>2. VCR tuner
>>3. TV tuner
>>4. FM receiver

This is from (I think) the original post. I don't understand why you would
split all these off the incoming cable this way, in the first place. The
cable comes out of the wall and let's say you split it once. Half goes into
your HDTV tuner. The other half goes into your VCR (ugh!) and passes
through into the TV. The TV connects with the audio receiver via double RCA
cable, into one input. VCR and HDTV tuner connect with audio receiver into
other inputs, via digital cable, if possible. So, that's just two cables
out of the split instead of four.

mack
austin
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 10:57:07 PM

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

RR <rr@not.net> wrote (in part):

>>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>>>
>>>1. HDTV tuner
>>>2. VCR tuner
>>>3. TV tuner
>>>4. FM receiver

>>>Should I try one of those RF amplifiers to boost the signal?
>>>I saw one at Radio Hack for about $50.
>>>
>>>CB
>>
>>Yes. . . . The Radio Shack 15-2506 ($49.99) should work well.
>>
>>Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
>
>OK. I tried one. I am one very happy camper. I replaced my 3-way
>splitter with the 15-2506 and now have 4 very strong outputs. This
>thing is designed to go in the attic, so the aplifier is strong. I
>have it set on minimum and I still have beautiful pictures on all 3
>of my video sources, and the FM is great.
>
>Thanks Del for the tip.
>
>I couldn't be happier with both the analog and HDTV digital picture
>quality on my Samsung Tantus now.
>
>RR

Glad it worked. I have an older version of that amp (metal block
instead of the apparently plastic current version) feeding 5 VCRs, a
DVR and a couple of TVs in various rooms, so I have to do some passive
splitting as well. It used to also feed my cable modem, but the
outgoing part died, so I worked around it with a passive splitter
before the amp. Seems to work OK, but I should probably bite the
bullet and replace the amp.

I gradually acquired enough VCRs to record all the simultaneous
programs I might ever want to watch. Then I got an HDTV receiver/DVR
and a good display, and I can't stand to watch the VCRs anymore.
Modern technology strikes again!

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 11:16:02 PM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com>
wrote:

>>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>>>
>>>1. HDTV tuner
>>>2. VCR tuner
>>>3. TV tuner
>>>4. FM receiver
>
>This is from (I think) the original post. I don't understand why you would
>split all these off the incoming cable this way, in the first place. The
>cable comes out of the wall and let's say you split it once. Half goes into
>your HDTV tuner. The other half goes into your VCR (ugh!) and passes
>through into the TV. The TV connects with the audio receiver via double RCA
>cable, into one input. VCR and HDTV tuner connect with audio receiver into
>other inputs, via digital cable, if possible. So, that's just two cables
>out of the split instead of four.
>
>mack
>austin
>
I'm not the original poster, but his desire to feed these devices
separately makes sense. Unless your TV has only an RF input, it's a
bad idea to feed the VCR to it that way. Even if you're just passing
the cable through to minimize connections, many VCRs have their own
ideas on when to pass it through unchanged and when to substitute
their tuned channel or tape playback, converted to channel 3 or 4.
Although not mentioned in that post, he is also feeding a cable modem.
And don't forget his FM tuner, although that wouldn't need as much
signal as everything else and might even need to be padded down. In
this situation a good RF distribution amp just makes life a whole lot
easier.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
September 30, 2004 2:53:23 AM

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

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:06:40 GMT, "Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com>
wrote:

>>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>>>
>>>1. HDTV tuner
>>>2. VCR tuner
>>>3. TV tuner
>>>4. FM receiver
>
>This is from (I think) the original post. I don't understand why you would
>split all these off the incoming cable this way, in the first place. The
>cable comes out of the wall and let's say you split it once. Half goes into
>your HDTV tuner. The other half goes into your VCR (ugh!) and passes

....and the OTHER half goes into the FM receiver, I guess. :-)

>through into the TV. The TV connects with the audio receiver via double RCA
>cable, into one input. VCR and HDTV tuner connect with audio receiver into
>other inputs, via digital cable, if possible. So, that's just two cables
>out of the split instead of four.
>
>mack
>austin

I DO have the VCR video connected to the TV via RCA plugs.

And I tried the VCR-to-TV cable passthrough thing but it has
two problems. First, the signal is degraded. Just because
you don't tap the RF signal in parallel doesn't meant the
signal won't be degraded. It degraded both the VCR AND the
TV signals, making the tapes really difficult to watch (even
worse than not being hi-def) and the TV tuner equally poor.
The other problem is just a pain, and that's having to know
when to press the TV/VCR button on the VCR to get the right
signal to the TV.

When I can afford it, I'll get a VCR replacement...
September 30, 2004 2:54:59 AM

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

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:57:07 GMT, Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>RR <rr@not.net> wrote (in part):
>
>>>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
>>>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
>>>>
>>>>1. HDTV tuner
>>>>2. VCR tuner
>>>>3. TV tuner
>>>>4. FM receiver
>
>>>>Should I try one of those RF amplifiers to boost the signal?
>>>>I saw one at Radio Hack for about $50.
>>>>
>>>>CB
>>>
>>>Yes. . . . The Radio Shack 15-2506 ($49.99) should work well.
>>>
>>>Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
>>
>>OK. I tried one. I am one very happy camper. I replaced my 3-way
>>splitter with the 15-2506 and now have 4 very strong outputs. This
>>thing is designed to go in the attic, so the aplifier is strong. I
>>have it set on minimum and I still have beautiful pictures on all 3
>>of my video sources, and the FM is great.
>>
>>Thanks Del for the tip.
>>
>>I couldn't be happier with both the analog and HDTV digital picture
>>quality on my Samsung Tantus now.
>>
>>RR
>
>Glad it worked. I have an older version of that amp (metal block
>instead of the apparently plastic current version) feeding 5 VCRs, a
>DVR and a couple of TVs in various rooms, so I have to do some passive
>splitting as well. It used to also feed my cable modem, but the
>outgoing part died, so I worked around it with a passive splitter
>before the amp. Seems to work OK, but I should probably bite the
>bullet and replace the amp.
>
>I gradually acquired enough VCRs to record all the simultaneous
>programs I might ever want to watch. Then I got an HDTV receiver/DVR
>and a good display, and I can't stand to watch the VCRs anymore.
>Modern technology strikes again!

Hey, taping a News show for leisure viewing I can live with a VCR...

>Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 4:55:22 AM

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

"Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956D105F78D05nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:lje1l05h92v2gvibrdidsc1cp07hf1c6nu@4ax.com:
>
>>>But I have to agree with the OP... there's is much in HD yet. A&E,
>>>Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc are not broadcasting in HD.
>>>
>> The discovery channel is.
>
> Ooops... you're right.
>
> But there's not much on the Discovery Channel... hardly anything is in HD.
>
> --
> Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
> Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
> http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

On the contrary. the Discovery HD Theater channel is actually one of the few
stations that broadcasts 24 hours of HD content. Granted, much of it is
replayed through the course of a day or a week, but you will always find HD
playing. A number of their popular original programming is now broadcast in
HD as well. Regarding other channels that broadcast 24 hours of HD, INHD 1
& 2 have some decent programming on occasionally (MLB often).

Matt
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 6:04:05 PM

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

"RR" <rr@not.net> wrote in message
news:freml01e4ovlem71idgjemvs2fhbeoacjq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:06:40 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
> >>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
> >>>
> >>>1. HDTV tuner
> >>>2. VCR tuner
> >>>3. TV tuner
> >>>4. FM receiver
> >
> >This is from (I think) the original post. I don't understand why you
would
> >split all these off the incoming cable this way, in the first place. The
> >cable comes out of the wall and let's say you split it once. Half goes
into
> >your HDTV tuner. The other half goes into your VCR (ugh!) and passes
>
> ...and the OTHER half goes into the FM receiver, I guess. :-)
>
> >through into the TV. The TV connects with the audio receiver via double
RCA
> >cable, into one input. VCR and HDTV tuner connect with audio receiver
into
> >other inputs, via digital cable, if possible. So, that's just two cables
> >out of the split instead of four.
> >
> >mack
> >austin
>
> I DO have the VCR video connected to the TV via RCA plugs.
>
> And I tried the VCR-to-TV cable passthrough thing but it has
> two problems. First, the signal is degraded. Just because
> you don't tap the RF signal in parallel doesn't meant the
> signal won't be degraded. It degraded both the VCR AND the
> TV signals, making the tapes really difficult to watch (even
> worse than not being hi-def) and the TV tuner equally poor.
> The other problem is just a pain, and that's having to know
> when to press the TV/VCR button on the VCR to get the right
> signal to the TV.
>
> When I can afford it, I'll get a VCR replacement...
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 6:14:21 PM

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

Seems to me that I have been passing cable through my VCR, and now my
DVD/PVR machine, for years, on its way to the TV set and I have never had
any problem that I have been aware of with a degraded signal. But that's
just my experience.

Your other comment, about...

>having to know when to press the TV/VCR button on the VCR to get the right
> signal to the TV.

....makes me think you hook up your VCR in a different way than I do. My
cable comes out of the wall, into a 2-way splitter, half into the DVR/DVD
(but could be VCR -- used to be) into the TV, so I can tune either to any
cable channel. To watch programming from the DVR/DVD, I change the TV input
to what I have labeled "DVD". Input from the DVR is via component video
into the TV. (Digital audio runs directly into my receiver.) So, I never
mess with any buttons on the DVR to determine what I see on the TV. It's
always feeding one of the TV's video inputs. If I want to see DVR output on
the TV, I just change the input to "DVD" and turn on the DVR/DVD. I will
then see either recorded media (if I have hit "Play") or passed-through
cable.

Are we talking about hooking up a VCR via the old Ch.2/ 3 method vs. via
video inputs? If so, you only want to use the Ch. 2/3 method if you don't
have additional video inputs, which you do on any large recent TV.

mack
austin





"RR" <rr@not.net> wrote in message
news:freml01e4ovlem71idgjemvs2fhbeoacjq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:06:40 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>The one thing I'm still trying to deal with is I now have/need
> >>>too many taps split off the incoming RF cable signal:
> >>>
> >>>1. HDTV tuner
> >>>2. VCR tuner
> >>>3. TV tuner
> >>>4. FM receiver
> >
> >This is from (I think) the original post. I don't understand why you
would
> >split all these off the incoming cable this way, in the first place. The
> >cable comes out of the wall and let's say you split it once. Half goes
into
> >your HDTV tuner. The other half goes into your VCR (ugh!) and passes
>
> ...and the OTHER half goes into the FM receiver, I guess. :-)
>
> >through into the TV. The TV connects with the audio receiver via double
RCA
> >cable, into one input. VCR and HDTV tuner connect with audio receiver
into
> >other inputs, via digital cable, if possible. So, that's just two cables
> >out of the split instead of four.
> >
> >mack
> >austin
>
> I DO have the VCR video connected to the TV via RCA plugs.
>
> And I tried the VCR-to-TV cable passthrough thing but it has
> two problems. First, the signal is degraded. Just because
> you don't tap the RF signal in parallel doesn't meant the
> signal won't be degraded. It degraded both the VCR AND the
> TV signals, making the tapes really difficult to watch (even
> worse than not being hi-def) and the TV tuner equally poor.
> The other problem is just a pain, and that's having to know
> when to press the TV/VCR button on the VCR to get the right
> signal to the TV.
>
> When I can afford it, I'll get a VCR replacement...
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 9:05:15 PM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote
(in part):

>Your other comment, about...
>
>>having to know when to press the TV/VCR button on the VCR to get the right
>> signal to the TV.
>
>...makes me think you hook up your VCR in a different way than I do. My
>cable comes out of the wall, into a 2-way splitter, half into the DVR/DVD
>(but could be VCR -- used to be) into the TV, so I can tune either to any
>cable channel. To watch programming from the DVR/DVD, I change the TV input
>to what I have labeled "DVD". Input from the DVR is via component video
>into the TV. (Digital audio runs directly into my receiver.) So, I never
>mess with any buttons on the DVR to determine what I see on the TV. It's
>always feeding one of the TV's video inputs. If I want to see DVR output on
>the TV, I just change the input to "DVD" and turn on the DVR/DVD. I will
>then see either recorded media (if I have hit "Play") or passed-through
>cable.
>
>Are we talking about hooking up a VCR via the old Ch.2/ 3 method vs. via
>video inputs? If so, you only want to use the Ch. 2/3 method if you don't
>have additional video inputs, which you do on any large recent TV.
>
>mack
>austin

We're all agreed that the RF modulator is the worst way to get a
signal from a VCR to a TV, and shouldn't be used if there is an
alternative. That's not the issue here. If you pass the cable feed
through the VCR to the TV, there will be times when the VCR
substitutes its own tuned channel or tape playback or its menus for
the cable feed, even if you never want to see them that way. Suppose
you want to record channel 8 while you watch channel 12. Some VCRs
will pass the cable signal through in this mode, and you won't have a
problem. Others will put out channel 8 remodulated on channel 3 (or
whatever), and you can't tune anything else on the TV. Most will let
you force the RF output to your preference, but many will revert to
their default setting as soon as they have a chance. If your VCR
doesn't give you that problem or if it doesn't bother you, fine.
Whatever works. But separate cable feeds to the VCR and TV avoids the
problem entirely. That's all I was saying.

I have the opposite problem with a 25-year-old TV. It still works
fine (they built them to last back then) but it has only an RF input
and it can't tune cable channels, so I feed it with the RF out from a
VCR, which I use as my tuner. I ALWAYS want the remodulated output
from the VCR, not the cable pass-through, but when I turn the VCR off
and on it reverts to pass-through. It's an annoyance, but one I can
live with, especially since I rarely use that TV anymore.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
!