Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Has anybody tried this? Analog TV with HD signal

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 3:24:01 AM

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

I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
tried this or witnessed it for themselves?

TIA -

More about : analog signal

Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:57:19 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>
> TIA -
============================
On my older Pioneer 46" 1.50:1 RPTV (NTSC), I use an HD receiver and the
picture is indeed DVD quality on HD transmissions.

It beats NTSC TV all to Hell.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:35:57 PM

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Walt Mather wrote:
> If people can get a down converted HD signal (that's actually an improvement
> over what they're getting now) on their old analog tv by just adding an HD
> receiver and providers (cable and satellite) are basically giving these
> receivers away, then what's all the hype in congress / NAB / FCC about
> people getting "abandoned" by the upcoming digital transition ?

Battery-powered handheld analog TVs will probably become useless. I think
that it's a crime that these things are still being sold, even at current
cheap prices.

Larger analog sets will continue to be useful. As has already been
pointed out, that is effectively what satellite users (and some cable
users) have now. You won't have HD, but you'll have pretty damn good
480p.

I doubt that analog will go away entirely for many years. It will happen
in the cities first, but remote rural areas may hold out for a long time.

The real problem is that the mandate to incorporate digital tuners have
been delayed for so long (at least in part due to the lies spread by
crooks such as BOB). There simply are too few choices of TVs with digital
tuners.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 6:07:33 PM

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:24:01 -0600, HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?

I do not have cable. But simply OTA digital set top box connected with
composite (single RCA jack) 480i to an old Panasonic TV and sound piped to
a sound system, is at least DVD quality, better than I have ever received
analog (40+ miles out), and better than any VHS tape.

Of course it is even better on a bargain 27" widescreen HDTV ready LCD
with OTA box set 720p or DVD on component cables. CRTs are too heavy and
larger screens were still too expensive for me at this time.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 6:07:34 PM

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

If what you guys are saying is true, this just occurred to me.

If people can get a down converted HD signal (that's actually an improvement
over what they're getting now) on their old analog tv by just adding an HD
receiver and providers (cable and satellite) are basically giving these
receivers away, then what's all the hype in congress / NAB / FCC about
people getting "abandoned" by the upcoming digital transition ?

If sat & cable can give these things away and they're really not even "mass"
produced yet, then the actual cost to provide every tv in this country with
one should be irrelevant compared to the money that will come in by the
reclaimed bandwidth sales. Since (according to the NAB) 95% of stations in
this country are already doing digital, then it seems to me this could
happen in months / not years.
Walt


"David Efflandt" <efflandt@xnet.com> wrote in message
news:slrncppell.s6a.efflandt@typhoon.xnet.com...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:24:01 -0600, HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>
> I do not have cable. But simply OTA digital set top box connected with
> composite (single RCA jack) 480i to an old Panasonic TV and sound piped to
> a sound system, is at least DVD quality, better than I have ever received
> analog (40+ miles out), and better than any VHS tape.
>
> Of course it is even better on a bargain 27" widescreen HDTV ready LCD
> with OTA box set 720p or DVD on component cables. CRTs are too heavy and
> larger screens were still too expensive for me at this time.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:53:40 PM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Walt Mather wrote:
>
>> If people can get a down converted HD signal (that's actually an
>> improvement
>> over what they're getting now) on their old analog tv by just adding
>> an HD
>> receiver and providers (cable and satellite) are basically giving these
>> receivers away, then what's all the hype in congress / NAB / FCC about
>> people getting "abandoned" by the upcoming digital transition ?
>
>
> Battery-powered handheld analog TVs will probably become useless. I
> think that it's a crime that these things are still being sold, even at
> current cheap prices.

There will be other digital broadcast that will work with analog TV sets
and the cost of the receiver will be very low.

(snipped)

> The real problem is that the mandate to incorporate digital tuners have
> been delayed for so long (at least in part due to the lies spread by
> crooks such as BOB). There simply are too few choices of TVs with
> digital tuners.

The mandate was not delayed, it was never planned, no one wanted to have
a mandate. The mandate was only used when it became obvious that the
transition was not working. It was a last ditch effort.

Up to 90% of retail stores orders for this season Christmas season are
for MONITORS. What % of the 10% left over are integrated sets who knows,
probably 2%. Once 5th gen receivers are available the mandate may not be
needed because the reliability of this receiver is good enough so that
retailers will not have a problem with returns.

As I have said in Japan with NO MANDATE 99% of HD sets are integrated.
1.6 million in the last 11 months with only THREE cities broadcasting.

You are in dense denial. 8-VSB has been a disaster for the last seven
years because it is a lousy modulation, it will do much better next year
because for the first time it will have a receiver that works. It just
that simple.

Bob Miller
>
> -- Mark --
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:53:41 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> 8-VSB has been a disaster for the last seven
> years because it is a lousy modulation, it will do much better next year
> because for the first time it will have a receiver that works. It just
> that simple.
>

It will also be the first time tuners have been mandated in the TVs.
There will be a lot of integrated HDTVs sold next year without fifth
generation tuners.

Matthew
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:31:25 PM

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

HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>tried this or witnessed it for themselves?

I got an HD receiver about two weeks before I got a projector. In the
interim I used an old (1987) 26" NTSC-only TV with composite input.
On a station that simulcasts analog, SD and HD, SD was much better
than analog, and HD was a hair better than SD, even though it was all
knocked down to NTSC going to the TV.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 1:38:13 AM

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

I've had a Dish 6000 set top box for about four years. I connected it to
my 10 year old GE 27" and enjoyed the color accuracy HD programs
provide. Of course I enjoy it even more on my 32 inch Sanyo - but i
liked it.

Enjoy

HDTV-slingr wrote:
> I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>
> TIA -
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 2:01:44 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Uc6nd.29491$KJ6.24353@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: Mark Crispin wrote:
: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Walt Mather wrote:

: > Battery-powered handheld analog TVs will probably become useless.
I
: > think that it's a crime that these things are still being sold,
even at
: > current cheap prices.
:
: There will be other digital broadcast that will work with analog TV
sets
: and the cost of the receiver will be very low.

WHAT???
Bob, what did you just type?
Very intelligent......... NOT!
There will be a digital signal that works with an analog set, BOB!
:
: (snipped)

:
: Bob Miller
: >
: > -- Mark --
:
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 3:25:50 AM

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:31:25 GMT, Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:

>HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>>the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>>downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>>from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>>quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>>extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>>tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>
>I got an HD receiver about two weeks before I got a projector. In the
>interim I used an old (1987) 26" NTSC-only TV with composite input.
>On a station that simulcasts analog, SD and HD, SD was much better
>than analog, and HD was a hair better than SD, even though it was all
>knocked down to NTSC going to the TV.
>
Thanks to all who've responded :-)

So can you use the component inputs on a high-end analog set or do you
have to use the composit inputs to achieve DVD/higher-than-DVD quality
with a set-top HD receiver?

In between customers today, I was inspired to try downconverting (to
480i) with a Samsung HD tuner via component cables to a Sony
KV-36FS120 and saw nothing but garble. I didn't have time to try
s-video or composit though... is it because I was going the component
video route?
November 19, 2004 3:43:55 AM

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:13:24 -0500, "Walt Mather"
<waltinvt@lostinvt.net> wrote:

>If what you guys are saying is true, this just occurred to me.
>
>If people can get a down converted HD signal (that's actually an improvement
>over what they're getting now) on their old analog tv by just adding an HD
>receiver and providers (cable and satellite) are basically giving these
>receivers away, then what's all the hype in congress / NAB / FCC about
>people getting "abandoned" by the upcoming digital transition ?
>
>If sat & cable can give these things away and they're really not even "mass"
>produced yet, then the actual cost to provide every tv in this country with
>one should be irrelevant compared to the money that will come in by the
>reclaimed bandwidth sales. Since (according to the NAB) 95% of stations in
>this country are already doing digital, then it seems to me this could
>happen in months / not years.
>Walt
>

What if you do not want or have cable or Satellite? You have to BUY a
HD tuner and you will need one for each TV in your house. I have a
large house and 6 TVs. I have a HD tuner for my 65 inch Mitsubishi
and that's it. All the other sets are analog. In my area I do have 25
over the air stations and do not need cable. I will lose the use of
the other sets unless I buy a digital tuner. No one is giving HD or
Digital tuners away.

Fred
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 3:52:40 AM

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

fred <nus@tenretni.moc> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:13:24 -0500, "Walt Mather"
> <waltinvt@lostinvt.net> wrote:
>
> >If what you guys are saying is true, this just occurred to me.
> >
> >If people can get a down converted HD signal (that's actually an
> >improvement over what they're getting now) on their old analog tv by
> >just adding an HD receiver and providers (cable and satellite) are
> >basically giving these receivers away, then what's all the hype in
> >congress / NAB / FCC about people getting "abandoned" by the upcoming
> >digital transition ?
> >
> >If sat & cable can give these things away and they're really not even
> >"mass" produced yet, then the actual cost to provide every tv in this
> >country with one should be irrelevant compared to the money that will
> >come in by the reclaimed bandwidth sales. Since (according to the NAB)
> >95% of stations in this country are already doing digital, then it seems
> >to me this could happen in months / not years.
> >Walt
> >
>
> What if you do not want or have cable or Satellite? You have to BUY a
> HD tuner and you will need one for each TV in your house. I have a
> large house and 6 TVs. I have a HD tuner for my 65 inch Mitsubishi
> and that's it. All the other sets are analog. In my area I do have 25
> over the air stations and do not need cable. I will lose the use of
> the other sets unless I buy a digital tuner. No one is giving HD or
> Digital tuners away.
>
> Fred

Twenty five OTA stations? Where do you live???
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 1:07:12 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"kw5kw" <qwerty.kw5kw@swbell.net.qwerty> wrote in message
news:sR9nd.35444$Al3.29205@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Uc6nd.29491$KJ6.24353@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> : Mark Crispin wrote:
> : > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Walt Mather wrote:
>
> : > Battery-powered handheld analog TVs will probably become useless.
> I
> : > think that it's a crime that these things are still being sold,
> even at
> : > current cheap prices.
> :
> : There will be other digital broadcast that will work with analog TV
> sets
> : and the cost of the receiver will be very low.
>
> WHAT???
> Bob, what did you just type?
> Very intelligent......... NOT!
> There will be a digital signal that works with an analog set, BOB!
> :
> : (snipped)
>
> :
> : Bob Miller
> : >
> : > -- Mark --
> :
===================================
Bob shows more clearly all the time that he has no idea what he is talking
about.

Selling analog only sets is irresponsible at this time.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 6:31:59 PM

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>> Battery-powered handheld analog TVs will probably become useless. I think
>> that it's a crime that these things are still being sold, even at current
>> cheap prices.
> There will be other digital broadcast that will work with analog TV sets and
> the cost of the receiver will be very low.

Once again, Psycho Bob utters a piece of complete nonsense.

I have a battery powered handheld analog TV that I bought in the late
1980s. It has a rod antenna. Explain how this device will continue to be
useful once NTSC broadcasting ceases.

> As I have said in Japan with NO MANDATE

That is bullshit. The Japanese government has extremely strict controls
on what goes into TV and radio receivers.

In case you didn't know, Psycho Bob, TV set owners are *taxed* for the
privilege of ownership.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:12:14 PM

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

HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote (in part):

>So can you use the component inputs on a high-end analog set or do you
>have to use the composit inputs to achieve DVD/higher-than-DVD quality
>with a set-top HD receiver?
>
>In between customers today, I was inspired to try downconverting (to
>480i) with a Samsung HD tuner via component cables to a Sony
>KV-36FS120 and saw nothing but garble. I didn't have time to try
>s-video or composit though... is it because I was going the component
>video route?

Component is better than S-Video, which is better than composite. Use
it if you can, even though the TV may force you to downconvert to 480i
or 480p. BTW, S-Video is just like composite except that the color
infromation is separate from the brightness, allowing higher frequency
response for both. If you start with composite and convert to
S-Video, you gain nothing unless the converter is MUCH better than
your other processing equipment.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:12:15 PM

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:14 GMT, Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:

>>So can you use the component inputs on a high-end analog set or do you
>>have to use the composit inputs to achieve DVD/higher-than-DVD quality
>>with a set-top HD receiver?
>>
>>In between customers today, I was inspired to try downconverting (to
>>480i) with a Samsung HD tuner via component cables to a Sony
>>KV-36FS120 and saw nothing but garble. I didn't have time to try
>>s-video or composit though... is it because I was going the component
>>video route?
>
>Component is better than S-Video, which is better than composite. Use
>it if you can, even though the TV may force you to downconvert to 480i
>or 480p. BTW, S-Video is just like composite except that the color
>infromation is separate from the brightness, allowing higher frequency
>response for both. If you start with composite and convert to
>S-Video, you gain nothing unless the converter is MUCH better than
>your other processing equipment.

Del, thanks but I actually knew the differences between component,
s-video and composite cables. I was just wondering if component
cables could be used with a HD receiver and an analog TV because one
of the guys at work was convinced that one had to use either s-video
or composite to see a downconverted picture on an analog set. Does
this sound right to you? TIA -
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:12:16 PM

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

HDTV-slingr wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:12:14 GMT, Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>So can you use the component inputs on a high-end analog set or do you
> >>have to use the composit inputs to achieve DVD/higher-than-DVD quality
> >>with a set-top HD receiver?
> >>
> >>In between customers today, I was inspired to try downconverting (to
> >>480i) with a Samsung HD tuner via component cables to a Sony
> >>KV-36FS120 and saw nothing but garble. I didn't have time to try
> >>s-video or composit though... is it because I was going the component
> >>video route?
> >
> >Component is better than S-Video, which is better than composite. Use
> >it if you can, even though the TV may force you to downconvert to 480i
> >or 480p. BTW, S-Video is just like composite except that the color
> >infromation is separate from the brightness, allowing higher frequency
> >response for both. If you start with composite and convert to
> >S-Video, you gain nothing unless the converter is MUCH better than
> >your other processing equipment.
>
> Del, thanks but I actually knew the differences between component,
> s-video and composite cables. I was just wondering if component
> cables could be used with a HD receiver and an analog TV because one
> of the guys at work was convinced that one had to use either s-video
> or composite to see a downconverted picture on an analog set. Does
> this sound right to you? TIA -


If you down convert a HDTV Program Signal via a Set top box....

(Either with Cable or OTA {Over The Air antenna])...

to 480i... Then use a S-Video cable to feed 480i to an

Analog SD TV.... I'm under the impression that $450

Analog TVs do not have component Video In.... ??
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:12:17 PM

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:17:35 -0600, Dennis Mayer <Polaris1@execpc.com>
wrote:

> I was just wondering if component
>> cables could be used with a HD receiver and an analog TV because one
>> of the guys at work was convinced that one had to use either s-video
>> or composite to see a downconverted picture on an analog set. Does
>> this sound right to you? TIA -
>
>
> If you down convert a HDTV Program Signal via a Set top box....
>
> (Either with Cable or OTA {Over The Air antenna])...
>
> to 480i... Then use a S-Video cable to feed 480i to an
>
> Analog SD TV.... I'm under the impression that $450
>
> Analog TVs do not have component Video In.... ??

So the answer is, you've got to use s-video to view, even if your TV
has component video inputs?

And yeah, more and more of the TV's in that price range have component
in, to answer your question. Most of the mid-range and high end TV's
24" and over will have at least one component input these days.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:12:18 PM

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

HDTV-slingr wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:17:35 -0600, Dennis Mayer <Polaris1@execpc.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I was just wondering if component
> >> cables could be used with a HD receiver and an analog TV because one
> >> of the guys at work was convinced that one had to use either s-video
> >> or composite to see a downconverted picture on an analog set. Does
> >> this sound right to you? TIA -
> >
> >
> > If you down convert a HDTV Program Signal via a Set top box....
> >
> > (Either with Cable or OTA {Over The Air antenna])...
> >
> > to 480i... Then use a S-Video cable to feed 480i to an
> >
> > Analog SD TV.... I'm under the impression that $450
> >
> > Analog TVs do not have component Video In.... ??
>
> So the answer is, you've got to use s-video to view, even if your TV
> has component video inputs?
>
> And yeah, more and more of the TV's in that price range have component
> in, to answer your question. Most of the mid-range and high end TV's
> 24" and over will have at least one component input these days.


My hind sight thinking leads me to 'guess' that Component

Video In port on a modern Analog TV set.... is for the

purpose of accepting 480p (progressive) Analog component

Program signal...... ie: DVD or Set Top Box out 480p ???
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 1:00:58 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:57:58 -0600, Dennis Mayer <Polaris1@execpc.com>
wrote:

>
> My hind sight thinking leads me to 'guess' that Component
>
> Video In port on a modern Analog TV set.... is for the
>
> purpose of accepting 480p (progressive) Analog component
>
> Program signal......

Not sure, man. I tried 480i via component on that new, 36" Sony and
it didn't work. Wonder if it was because I of the 480i vs 480p or
because I used component instead of composite or s-video?

> ie: DVD or Set Top Box out 480p ???

I have a DVD player hooked up via component in my bedroom and it works
better than s-video or composite. Again, not sure about 480p in an
analog set.... is this even possible???
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 4:08:45 AM

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:57:19 -0800, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:

>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
>>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>>
>> TIA -
>============================
>On my older Pioneer 46" 1.50:1 RPTV (NTSC), I use an HD receiver and the
>picture is indeed DVD quality on HD transmissions.
>
>It beats NTSC TV all to Hell.
>


My cable company charges $5 for HD service. Is it possible to get just
the local HD stations (supposedly free ?) off the standard enhanced
basic cable feed using something like the WallMart $200 set top box ?
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 4:43:15 AM

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

I have a circa 1994 35" Proscan IDTV (4:3 aspect ratio tube), the best
picture that was available at the time. In 2000, I got an RCA DTC-100 for
DirecTV HD and OTA Analog, Digital, and HD signals. Viewing HD on my Proscan
IDTV (using S-video connections) is by far the best picture source I've
seen, even better than DVD. I'm very happy to watch this way until 16:9 flat
screens become affordable.

CM

"HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
> I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>
> TIA -
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 4:43:16 AM

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

I use a NTSC Pioneer Elite 1009W with downcoverted HD fed via S-Video and it
looks stunning.

"CM" <cm2dd@netscape.net> wrote in message news:Tixnd.101$TG2.36@trnddc01...
>I have a circa 1994 35" Proscan IDTV (4:3 aspect ratio tube), the best
> picture that was available at the time. In 2000, I got an RCA DTC-100 for
> DirecTV HD and OTA Analog, Digital, and HD signals. Viewing HD on my
> Proscan
> IDTV (using S-video connections) is by far the best picture source I've
> seen, even better than DVD. I'm very happy to watch this way until 16:9
> flat
> screens become affordable.
>
> CM
>
> "HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
>> I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>>
>> TIA -
>
>
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 4:43:17 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:40:34 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
<tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:

>I use a NTSC Pioneer Elite 1009W with downcoverted HD fed via S-Video and it
>looks stunning.

Thanx for your feedback guys. This is what I keep hearing, that a
*good* analog set looks fantastic, better than DVD quality with a
downconverted HD signal. Are you guys just downconverting to 480i? I
don't think it's possible to downconvert to 480p on an analog set,
right? Thanx again.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 7:06:58 AM

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:08:45 -0800, roy_w@nospam.com wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:57:19 -0800, "Richard C."
><post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
>>>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>>> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>>> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>>> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>>> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>>> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>>> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>>>
>>> TIA -
>>============================
>>On my older Pioneer 46" 1.50:1 RPTV (NTSC), I use an HD receiver and the
>>picture is indeed DVD quality on HD transmissions.
>>
>>It beats NTSC TV all to Hell.
>>
>
>
>My cable company charges $5 for HD service. Is it possible to get just
>the local HD stations (supposedly free ?) off the standard enhanced
>basic cable feed using something like the WallMart $200 set top box ?
>

WallMart ? My bad.

Should have asked what kind of set top boxes are available for
purchase that would provide local HD channels off an ordinary cable
account. Probably $5/month would be cheaper if they will rent you the
box without a HD TV set.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 10:53:22 AM

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

HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote (in part):

>Del, thanks but I actually knew the differences between component,
>s-video and composite cables. I was just wondering if component
>cables could be used with a HD receiver and an analog TV because one
>of the guys at work was convinced that one had to use either s-video
>or composite to see a downconverted picture on an analog set. Does
>this sound right to you? TIA -

No, it doesn't. There's no reason component shouldn't work at any
rate the TV can handle. It can certainly handle 480i, and if it has a
component input, probably 480p as well. That's what a typical DVD
player supplies on its component output, and there have been
progressive-scan DVD players for a lot longer than there have been
HD-ready TVs.

But there are other variables that may trip you up. The receiver and
TV have to agree on the standards: R/G/B or Y/Pb/Pr, separate sync or
sync on green, etc. I presume you told the receiver to output to
component in one of those formats (usually Y/Pb/Pr) and the TV to look
for it on the component input.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 11:48:03 AM

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:53:22 GMT, Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:

>HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote (in part):
>
>>Del, thanks but I actually knew the differences between component,
>>s-video and composite cables. I was just wondering if component
>>cables could be used with a HD receiver and an analog TV because one
>>of the guys at work was convinced that one had to use either s-video
>>or composite to see a downconverted picture on an analog set. Does
>>this sound right to you? TIA -
>
>No, it doesn't. There's no reason component shouldn't work at any
>rate the TV can handle. It can certainly handle 480i, and if it has a
>component input, probably 480p as well. That's what a typical DVD
>player supplies on its component output, and there have been
>progressive-scan DVD players for a lot longer than there have been
>HD-ready TVs.
>
>But there are other variables that may trip you up. The receiver and
>TV have to agree on the standards: R/G/B or Y/Pb/Pr, separate sync or
>sync on green, etc. I presume you told the receiver to output to
>component in one of those formats (usually Y/Pb/Pr) and the TV to look
>for it on the component input.
>
OK, that's probably it. I did set the TV up for it but I didn't go
inside of the menu on the set top box to make sure it was synched
properly. Either it was that or the questionable reception inside
that block/cement building. I'll give it another whirl someday. This
is just a curiosity thing anyway... not a pressing matter. Thanx for
your input :-)
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 6:19:55 PM

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

"Del Mibbler" <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D 0ttp05m6hc5blj2aldecpg9fb7l438cd8@4ax.com...
> HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote (in part):
> No, it doesn't. There's no reason component shouldn't work at any
> rate the TV can handle. It can certainly handle 480i, and if it has a
> component input, probably 480p as well. That's what a typical DVD
> player supplies on its component output, and there have been
> progressive-scan DVD players for a lot longer than there have been
> HD-ready TVs.
>
> But there are other variables that may trip you up. The receiver and
> TV have to agree on the standards: R/G/B or Y/Pb/Pr, separate sync or
> sync on green, etc. I presume you told the receiver to output to
> component in one of those formats (usually Y/Pb/Pr) and the TV to look
> for it on the component input.
> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>

Related (I think) question:
This may have something to do with why I'm getting lousy PQ when viewing my
Dish 508 satellite feed through my Panasonic E85 dvd recorder.

My tv is a 34" 16:9 RCA direct view hdtv. If I run my Dish 508 pvr direct
to the tv with S-Vid, the picture looks great. However running S-Vid to my
E85 and then running component out to the tv, the same signal looks much
worse.

I've tried switching (even bought new) component cables and inputs (my tv
has 2 component) but nothing helps. Now playing a commercial dvd through
component from my Toshiba dvd player provides a great picture. In fact
playing the same dvd through the E85 looks good as well. It's something
about the satellite signal through the E85 that isn't working right.

As to what you're saying about "telling the tv what to look for", I'm not
sure how to do that on my tv. The E85 does have the option of setting for a
tv that's: 4:3 480i, 4:3 480p, 16:9 480i & 16:9 480p. I assumed the last
was correct but have tried them all and nothing I do seems to make this
recorder's pq look that great for my sat signal. Turning progressive scan
off helps some but the pq's still nowhere near as good as what I see with
S-Vid direct from sat to the tv. Obviously this all affects the pq on an
dvds I try to record (which brings many other factors into play) too but I
figure I can't expect decent dvds until I get this signal situation
resolved.
Thanks
WaltinVt
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 6:52:06 PM

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

roy_w@nospam.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:57:19 -0800, "Richard C."
> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >X-No-archive: yes
> >
> >"HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
> >>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
> >> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
> >> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
> >> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
> >> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
> >> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
> >> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
> >>
> >> TIA -
> >============================
> >On my older Pioneer 46" 1.50:1 RPTV (NTSC), I use an HD receiver and the
> >picture is indeed DVD quality on HD transmissions.
> >
> >It beats NTSC TV all to Hell.
> >
>
> My cable company charges $5 for HD service. Is it possible to get just
> the local HD stations (supposedly free ?) off the standard enhanced
> basic cable feed using something like the WallMart $200 set top box ?


Roy: You have 3 options to get HD TV for 'different prices"...

I will ignore Dish Satellite here... Option 4...

The cable Company delivers HD in QAM coding or QAM scrambled
coding... A cable Set Top Box will read unscrambled
QAM for the Price of a Box.... Usually Analog Channels
1 thru 99 and Local HD Programming. IF you want non local
HD Program channels... Pay more & you will get 'em...

A second choice is to buy a brand new recent HDTV with Cable Card,
ASTC Tuner, & QAM tuner built in.... Here for the price
of monthly Basic service & $2 monthly Cable Card Fee.....
You can get any unscrambled QAM Cable Channel 'with no guide'.

A third option is to buy the Walmart $200 Digital STBox,
to go Over The Air antenna(OTA) & get only the local
HD Programs Free... Many current OTA Set Top Boxes do not
Decode Cable QAM including the $200 Walmart unit...

THis 3rd option does include Buying a 'very recent' OTA
AND QAM Digital receiver such as the Samsung T-451
for $250... I'll receive one in 4 days from One Call..
I'll see what I can get from TWC and what good/bad OTA features
it has... It's main goal is to replace OTA Samsung T-151.

THe T-151 will be used to give in house HD Demos to Friends.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 7:59:07 PM

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

HDTV-slingr <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrotd:

>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>

Before I got my Samsung DLP HDTV I purchased the Samsung SIRT150 tuner.
It has a 480i output, so I hooked it up to my Mitsubishi 36" SDTV. It looked
fantastic!

Hermango
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 8:56:21 PM

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:59:07 -0600, Hermango
<hermango.kill_spam.@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Before I got my Samsung DLP HDTV I purchased the Samsung SIRT150 tuner.
>It has a 480i output, so I hooked it up to my Mitsubishi 36" SDTV. It looked
>fantastic!

Thanks, Hermango. Did you run s-video, composite, or component
cables? When you say it looked "fantastic", do you mean as in better
than DVD fantastic, better than digital cable/satellite fantastic?
Just curious.... thanx again.
November 20, 2004 8:57:45 PM

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

On 19 Nov 2004 00:52:40 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:

>fred <nus@tenretni.moc> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:13:24 -0500, "Walt Mather"
>> <waltinvt@lostinvt.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If what you guys are saying is true, this just occurred to me.
>> >
>> >If people can get a down converted HD signal (that's actually an
>> >improvement over what they're getting now) on their old analog tv by
>> >just adding an HD receiver and providers (cable and satellite) are
>> >basically giving these receivers away, then what's all the hype in
>> >congress / NAB / FCC about people getting "abandoned" by the upcoming
>> >digital transition ?
>> >
>> >If sat & cable can give these things away and they're really not even
>> >"mass" produced yet, then the actual cost to provide every tv in this
>> >country with one should be irrelevant compared to the money that will
>> >come in by the reclaimed bandwidth sales. Since (according to the NAB)
>> >95% of stations in this country are already doing digital, then it seems
>> >to me this could happen in months / not years.
>> >Walt
>> >
>>
>> What if you do not want or have cable or Satellite? You have to BUY a
>> HD tuner and you will need one for each TV in your house. I have a
>> large house and 6 TVs. I have a HD tuner for my 65 inch Mitsubishi
>> and that's it. All the other sets are analog. In my area I do have 25
>> over the air stations and do not need cable. I will lose the use of
>> the other sets unless I buy a digital tuner. No one is giving HD or
>> Digital tuners away.
>>
>> Fred
>
>Twenty five OTA stations? Where do you live???
>Chip
SF Bay Area up on a hill I get San Fran, San Jose and Central Valley
Fred
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 11:18:26 PM

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

See correction below:

Dennis Mayer wrote:
>
> roy_w@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:57:19 -0800, "Richard C."
>><post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>X-No-archive: yes
>>>
>>>"HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>>>>the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>>>>downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>>>>from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>>>>quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>>>>extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>>>>tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>>>>
>>>>TIA -
>>>
>>>============================
>>>On my older Pioneer 46" 1.50:1 RPTV (NTSC), I use an HD receiver and the
>>>picture is indeed DVD quality on HD transmissions.
>>>
>>>It beats NTSC TV all to Hell.
>>>
>>
>>My cable company charges $5 for HD service. Is it possible to get just
>>the local HD stations (supposedly free ?) off the standard enhanced
>>basic cable feed using something like the WallMart $200 set top box ?
>
>
>
> Roy: You have 3 options to get HD TV for 'different prices"...
>
> I will ignore Dish Satellite here... Option 4...
>
> The cable Company delivers HD in QAM coding or QAM scrambled
> coding... A cable Set Top Box will read unscrambled
> QAM for the Price of a Box.... Usually Analog Channels
> 1 thru 99 and Local HD Programming. IF you want non local
> HD Program channels... Pay more & you will get 'em...
>
> A second choice is to buy a brand new recent HDTV with Cable Card,
> ASTC Tuner, & QAM tuner built in.... Here for the price
> of monthly Basic service & $2 monthly Cable Card Fee.....
> You can get any unscrambled QAM Cable Channel 'with no guide'.
>
CORRECTION: On such a receiver, you can receive the unscrambled HD
channels and unscrambled digital SD channels without the CableCard.
CableCard is only required if you want to receive scrambled/premium
digital SD or HD channels.

> A third option is to buy the Walmart $200 Digital STBox,
> to go Over The Air antenna(OTA) & get only the local
> HD Programs Free... Many current OTA Set Top Boxes do not
> Decode Cable QAM including the $200 Walmart unit...
>
> THis 3rd option does include Buying a 'very recent' OTA
> AND QAM Digital receiver such as the Samsung T-451
> for $250... I'll receive one in 4 days from One Call..
> I'll see what I can get from TWC and what good/bad OTA features
> it has... It's main goal is to replace OTA Samsung T-151.
>
> THe T-151 will be used to give in house HD Demos to Friends.
November 21, 2004 3:51:02 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> lied in message
news:Uc6nd.29491$KJ6.24353@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>8-VSB has been a disaster for the last seven years because it is a lousy
>modulation...
> Bob Miller


"Compulsive Lying: Overview
There are a number of reasons that people lie. The first is fear. This is
the most common reason that people may lie, and they are taking shelter from
a perceived punishment. It may be because they know they have done something
wrong a single time, in which case it is not compulsive lying. But if they
are always in fear of being punished, it may become a habit, which is a
second reason for lying. In this case, it may become compulsive lying, which
is lying by reflex. Even when confronted by the truth, they insist the lie
is the truth in this case...."

-from a posting on the Compulsive Lying Forum.

http://www.psychforums.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=123

Let's see if you can get thrown off that forum too...
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 11:49:56 PM

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

David (davey2@home.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> -from a posting on the Compulsive Lying Forum.
>
> http://www.psychforums.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=123
>
> Let's see if you can get thrown off that forum too...

How would we know if they're all a bunch of compulsive liars? ;->

--
Jeff Rife | "The old guy was leading a 'Simon Says' game
SPAM bait: | when he collapsed. On the way down he yelled
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | 'call an ambulance!', but no one moved."
spam@ftc.gov | -- Wings
November 22, 2004 12:35:27 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c0b0fd31fe232b3989930@news.nabs.net...
> David (davey2@home.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> -from a posting on the Compulsive Lying Forum.
>>
>> http://www.psychforums.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=123
>> Let's see if you can get thrown off that forum too...


> How would we know if they're all a bunch of compulsive liars? ;->

LOL
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 2:34:32 AM

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

I know comcast will let you do it.
However,I really like their box.


--
When considering an HDTV,DO NOT stick with 4:3.
16:9 is the future! Deal with it!
<roy_w@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:962up098c1jjgsbfu5a4ss8bvffas2e21q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:57:19 -0800, "Richard C."
> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"HDTV-slingr" <NOSPAMMERS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:33eop017l2sj3dvluid0r4774kuhtt025q@4ax.com...
>>>I keep hearing all these great things about how fantastic a picture
>>> the new, high-end Sony (analog) TV's get with a HD signal,
>>> downconverted to 480i. I've now heard a few personal testimonials
>>> from people who swear up and down their picture is anywhere from DVD
>>> quality to EDTV quality and that it's definitely worth paying the
>>> extra price for the HD signal through their providers. Has anybody
>>> tried this or witnessed it for themselves?
>>>
>>> TIA -
>>============================
>>On my older Pioneer 46" 1.50:1 RPTV (NTSC), I use an HD receiver and the
>>picture is indeed DVD quality on HD transmissions.
>>
>>It beats NTSC TV all to Hell.
>>
>
>
> My cable company charges $5 for HD service. Is it possible to get just
> the local HD stations (supposedly free ?) off the standard enhanced
> basic cable feed using something like the WallMart $200 set top box ?
>
>
!