Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Analog cut off

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:53:14 AM

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

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-25-digital-...


Where can a DTV receiver be had for $50 to $60?

It's more like $200 to $800.

More about : analog cut

Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:31:35 PM

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

Mudd Bug (muddbug@cox.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-25-digital-...
>
>
> Where can a DTV receiver be had for $50 to $60?
>
> It's more like $200 to $800.

Since you can get the HR10-250 HD DirecTiVo for around $650 right now
(and that's about as high end as you can get), your $800 number is way off.
The HR10-250 works just fine as an ATSC receiver without any satellite
connection. In fact, you get two tuners that each buffer 30 minutes of
programming (great for watching two football games). You need a satellite
connection to get guide data, and you need a DirecTV subscription with
DVR service to be able to save recordings (and use all the other cool
TiVo features).

Right now, WalMart is selling the USDTV receiver for less than $150. By
2008, I'm pretty sure those will be down to less than $50. It took a
lot less than 2-1/2 years for DVD players to drop from $150 to $30, so
I don't think I'm too far off.

Also, just like DVD players, you can get one that does the job for $30,
but you can still spend $1500 if you want, so I wouldn't be surprised if
there are still $500-1000 ATSC receivers in 2008.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/Obedience...
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:40:57 PM

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

Mudd Bug wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-25-digital-...
>
>
> Where can a DTV receiver be had for $50 to $60?
>
> It's more like $200 to $800.
>

From the article...
"But some manufacturers, such as TTE, which makes RCAs, say the earlier
deadline could double the price of many 13- to 24-inch TVs."

Congress is drinking the kool aid being offered by some manufacturers.
For example one of the manufacturers making 8-VSB receivers for RCA
mentioned above would be Zoran.

Zoran was showing a receiver board last month to Congress that an RCA
would incorporate into a DTV set. They quoted $40, $50 And $55 for the
board in a quantity of millions.

But RCA has to add such things as IP royalty cost, connectors, software,
remote etc. Zoran was saying that the IP royalty cost for Dolby, 8-VSB
etc. would total $4 though they didn't know for sure since they don't
pay it. Well the IP royalty cost in total is around $16. The cost to RCA
for installing an integrated 8-VSB receiver would be $40 + $16 + $X or
something in the order of $65 to $75 and of course they want to make
some money on this on top of cost.

Zoran was telling Congress that a stand alone STB, simple converter for
analog set no HD, would cost $60 on the shelf by Christmas of this year
if they set a firm date for the analog turnoff.

That is $40 for Zoran and $20 for the manufacturer who takes Zoran's
board, pays for IP royalties of $16, puts a box around the Zoran board,
adds connectors, a remote, a front end, software, blinking lights, a
power supply and cord, shielding, shipping, distribution cost, sales
cost, return cost, advertising cost a margin for the retailer and a
PROFIT. All in that $20 of which $16 goes immediately for royalties.

It is a miracle what they can do with $4 these days.

Reality suggest that this converter STB will cost more like a minimum of
$125 retail and more likely $150. There is not that much to be saved by
eliminating HD capability with an 8-VSB receiver.

Bob Miller
Related resources
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:46:56 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Mudd Bug wrote:
>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-25-digital-...
>>
>>
>> Where can a DTV receiver be had for $50 to $60?
>>
>> It's more like $200 to $800.
>>
>
> From the article...
> "But some manufacturers, such as TTE, which makes RCAs, say the earlier
> deadline could double the price of many 13- to 24-inch TVs."
>
> Congress is drinking the kool aid being offered by some manufacturers.
> For example one of the manufacturers making 8-VSB receivers for RCA
> mentioned above would be Zoran.
>
> Zoran was showing a receiver board last month to Congress that an RCA
> would incorporate into a DTV set. They quoted $40, $50 And $55 for the
> board in a quantity of millions.
>
> But RCA has to add such things as IP royalty cost, connectors, software,
> remote etc. Zoran was saying that the IP royalty cost for Dolby, 8-VSB
> etc. would total $4 though they didn't know for sure since they don't
> pay it. Well the IP royalty cost in total is around $16. The cost to RCA
> for installing an integrated 8-VSB receiver would be $40 + $16 + $X or
> something in the order of $65 to $75 and of course they want to make
> some money on this on top of cost.
>
> Zoran was telling Congress that a stand alone STB, simple converter for
> analog set no HD, would cost $60 on the shelf by Christmas of this year
> if they set a firm date for the analog turnoff.
>
> That is $40 for Zoran and $20 for the manufacturer who takes Zoran's
> board, pays for IP royalties of $16, puts a box around the Zoran board,
> adds connectors, a remote, a front end, software, blinking lights, a
> power supply and cord, shielding, shipping, distribution cost, sales
> cost, return cost, advertising cost a margin for the retailer and a
> PROFIT. All in that $20 of which $16 goes immediately for royalties.
>
> It is a miracle what they can do with $4 these days.
>
> Reality suggest that this converter STB will cost more like a minimum of
> $125 retail and more likely $150. There is not that much to be saved by
> eliminating HD capability with an 8-VSB receiver.
>
> Bob Miller
>
And I meant to add that Congress was eating up this line from Zoran
because a low priced converter box is what they want to hear. And that
is why you read such in the press. The press was there eating it up
also. The "politically correct" converter box numbers is $60 because
sometime last year Motorola said something to that affect in a hearing.
That is the number that Congress wants to hear. So everyone just says it.

Maybe in 2009.

Of course you can buy such a COFDM receiver in a convenience store in
the UK for $50 today, in France for $70, in Oz for $75.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:46:57 PM

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

thats like comparing apples with oranges.
Those $50 dollar recievers in the UK do not do HDTV, and so one would assume
there is significantly less processing power reqd, and so less cost. (I dont
know the exact technical specs) - but if comparing then you should compare
apples to apples

Anyway, 8vsb vs cofdm is a moot point -, we have 8vsb, its been rolled out,
its a done deal.




That is the number that Congress wants to hear. So everyone just says it.
>
> Maybe in 2009.
>
> Of course you can buy such a COFDM receiver in a convenience store in the
> UK for $50 today, in France for $70, in Oz for $75.
>
> Bob Miller
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:10:44 PM

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

For those who would be happy seeing the equilavent of DirecTV or Dish on
their analog sets, there will be low cost sets with digital tuners.
Besides, cable, dbs, dvd's and vcr's aren't gonna change. Just over the
air. Already some HDTV's with tunershave tuners that are -cable - QAM
tuners and not OTA 8VSB tuners that will burn some people who are
replacing their sets for over the air use and do not have cable or DBS.


--
Barry Erick, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 7:38:45 PM

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

What Congress is talking about is an SD only converter box, NO HD
capability. A few dollars at most is saved in connector cost between an
SD and an HD 8-VSB receiver. I am comparing like with like. The
converter box that Congress will subsidize will only work with analog
sets so that those who cannot afford an HDTV set will still be able to
receive the DTV signal with their current analog sets.

So the comparison is accurate.

The extra cost BTW for making an HD capable receiver with COFDM would
add $25 to the $50 cost of an SD version. You will see such receivers in
France by the end of the year. France will have HDTV OTA using MPEG4 and
DVB-T COFDM exactly what we should be doing here. The US will convert to
such technology but maybe only after 8-VSB has killed off free OTA DTV.
France will be the first in a long line of countries that will be using
MPEG4 and a COFDM based modulation that will include China. The US has
the worst DTV modulation in the world by far.

The early versions of HD COFDM receivers in France will be higher cost
due to the small initial market for such receivers and the probable
inclusion of PVR capability and since this will be a subscription
service. But they may subsidize same. We will see. But if a country like
the US had allowed COFDM HD receiver cost would be in the sub $100 range
today and most people would be getting them free with subscription
services. As USDTV is doing unsuccessfully with 8-VSB receivers today
subsidizing them at $19.95. Such COFDM receivers with similar business
plans would have been FREE in 2001 and the digital transition would
already be history.

Bob Miller

Craig Bennett wrote:
> thats like comparing apples with oranges.
> Those $50 dollar recievers in the UK do not do HDTV, and so one would assume
> there is significantly less processing power reqd, and so less cost. (I dont
> know the exact technical specs) - but if comparing then you should compare
> apples to apples
>
> Anyway, 8vsb vs cofdm is a moot point -, we have 8vsb, its been rolled out,
> its a done deal.
>
>
>
>
> That is the number that Congress wants to hear. So everyone just says it.
>
>>Maybe in 2009.
>>
>>Of course you can buy such a COFDM receiver in a convenience store in the
>>UK for $50 today, in France for $70, in Oz for $75.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>
>
May 26, 2005 8:04:45 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:94mle.160$q4.5@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> What Congress is talking about is an SD only converter box, NO HD
> capability. A few dollars at most is saved in connector cost between an
> SD and an HD 8-VSB receiver. I am comparing like with like. The
> converter box that Congress will subsidize will only work with analog
> sets so that those who cannot afford an HDTV set will still be able to
> receive the DTV signal with their current analog sets.
>
> So the comparison is accurate.

Still Apples and Oranges. The box must still decode all the HD formats even though it only outputs SD.

David
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 6:31:00 AM

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

David wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:94mle.160$q4.5@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>What Congress is talking about is an SD only converter box, NO HD
>>capability. A few dollars at most is saved in connector cost between an
>>SD and an HD 8-VSB receiver. I am comparing like with like. The
>>converter box that Congress will subsidize will only work with analog
>>sets so that those who cannot afford an HDTV set will still be able to
>>receive the DTV signal with their current analog sets.
>>
>>So the comparison is accurate.
>
>
> Still Apples and Oranges. The box must still decode all the HD formats even though it only outputs SD.
>
> David
>
If we as I propose switched to COFDM and MPEG4 simple receivers that
only decode an SD program could be used at price points right now of $35.

With MPEG4 an HD and SD duplicate of the program could be broadcast with
a combined lower bitrate than is required with MPEG2 HD alone. The COFDM
SD receiver would not have to decode the HD program, there would be many
bits to spare and billions of now wasted dollars saved.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 3:33:04 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Craig Bennett" <craig_b @ no.spam> wrote in message
news:KqqdnUpBDd2yewjfRVn-oQ@mycybernet.net...
>
> Anyway, 8vsb vs cofdm is a moot point -, we have 8vsb, its been rolled
> out,
> its a done deal.
>
=========================
And those $50 to $60 boxes will appear by the analog cut off.....maybe even
cheaper if all they have to do is receive ATSC and output it in 480i.
Most likely it will be done in one chip within the next year.
May 27, 2005 8:22:11 PM

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

> If we as I propose switched to COFDM and MPEG4 simple receivers that
> only decode an SD program could be used at price points right now of $35.
>
> With MPEG4 an HD and SD duplicate of the program could be broadcast with
> a combined lower bitrate than is required with MPEG2 HD alone. The COFDM
> SD receiver would not have to decode the HD program, there would be many
> bits to spare and billions of now wasted dollars saved.
>
> Bob Miller

Bob Miller,

You have a way of oversimplifying things by focusing entirely on pre-conceived notions of MPEG2 and 8VSB. It took years for you to finally admit that things like the tuner can have a profound effect on the viability of ANY modulation method including CODFM. This is particularly true during the DTV transition when we have many cases of stations running their digital broadcast at a power 10 dB lower on a channel adjacent to their analog signal. The use of adjacent channels and many of the other formally 'taboo' UHF allocations in the UHF band require better tuners period, no matter what the modulation method.

Second, you seem to think MPEG4 offers some kind of magic solution. You need some education here. MPEG 1-4 decoders are deterministic. You put in a bit stream and they all should produce the same decoded analog output. Encoders however are not deterministic and many choices can be made in the encoding process that determine the bit rate and visual appearance of the encoded video. Both MPEG2 and MPEG4 are based upon the DCT and B, P, and I frame encoding. For MPEG 4 to get the 2 to 1 improvement often mentioned in compression over MPEG 2, you have to compare early MPEG 2 encoders with theoretical MPEG 4 encoders. Currently there is no MPEG 4 coder that can achieve a 2 to 1 improvement over MPEG 2 when encoding a HDTV program IN REAL TIME. The computational load is just to great to allow the use of the advanced compression profiles. Note the key here is real time. If you have pre-recorded material and can do multi-pass encoding and have a lot of time to do it, then yes MPEG 4 has some advantages. Today's, real time MPEG 2 HDTV encoders are easily a factor of 1.5 to 2 better in compression for the same perceived picture quality that the encoders that could be implemented 10 years ago and we have many examples of 8VSB stations transmitting both a SD and HDTV version of the same program simultaneously today. We even have examples of digital stations broadcasting 6 simultaneous SD programs with excellent quality. I am talking about 6 standard programs - not programs with static images like weather maps. As technology advances MPEG encoders of all flavors will advance, 8VSB receivers will get better and eventually equal or surpass CODFM receivers. There will be MPEG 5,6,7,8 in the future and we have to be careful about how many times we want to switch standards. My rule of thumb is a technology switch requires a factor of 4 or more improvement before scrapping an existing system. Neither CODFM or MPEG4 have reached that yet.

Before you jump in and point to the new DBS satellites offering hundreds of HDTV channels using MPEG4, may I point out that most of the capacity improvement comes from elsewhere. These are in the Ka rather than Ku band with much more licensed bandwidth per orbital slot. That and going from 4 PSK to 8 PSK and using newer FEC algorithms represents the biggest increase in the payload of programming. Most of the increased programming capacity comes from these changes rather than the MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 change that everyone seems to talk about. MPEG4 will help further in the future when more capable real time encoders emerge.

Sorry for the rant, but the years of Miller oversimplifications have finally gotten to me. Regards, David
May 29, 2005 11:17:28 AM

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

In article <EDvle.519$s64.492@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:

>If we as I propose switched to COFDM and MPEG4 simple receivers that
>only decode an SD program could be used at price points right now of $35.

Except that the chip sets that are in these $35 receivers cannot decode
MPEG4.

That pushes the cost up again.

>With MPEG4 an HD and SD duplicate of the program could be broadcast with
>a combined lower bitrate than is required with MPEG2 HD alone. The COFDM
>SD receiver would not have to decode the HD program, there would be many
>bits to spare and billions of now wasted dollars saved.

Many report otherwise. The savings of MPEG4 are not as great as some claim.

Alan
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 10:31:41 PM

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

David wrote:
>> If we as I propose switched to COFDM and MPEG4 simple receivers
>> that only decode an SD program could be used at price points right
>> now of $35.
>>
>> With MPEG4 an HD and SD duplicate of the program could be broadcast
>> with a combined lower bitrate than is required with MPEG2 HD
>> alone. The COFDM SD receiver would not have to decode the HD
>> program, there would be many bits to spare and billions of now
>> wasted dollars saved.
>>
>> Bob Miller
>
>
> Bob Miller,
>
> You have a way of oversimplifying things by focusing entirely on pre-conceived notions of MPEG2 and 8VSB. It took years for you to
> finally admit that things like the tuner can have a profound effect on the viability of ANY modulation method including CODFM. This is
> particularly true during the DTV transition when we have many cases of stations running their digital broadcast at a power 10 dB lower on
> a channel adjacent to their analog signal. The use of adjacent channels and many of the other formally 'taboo' UHF allocations in
> the UHF band require better tuners period, no matter what the modulation method.

First we had to have an 8-VSB receiver good enough so that the question
of it's tuner even came up. With all current and previous 8-VSB
receivers you are saying it was all because their front ends were/are so
bad? Haven't had such a problem with current or past COFDM receivers. It
is only now that we have 5th gen receivers being tested and which work
pretty well that the issue of better tuners even came up.
>
> Second, you seem to think MPEG4 offers some kind of magic solution.
> You need some education here. MPEG 1-4 decoders are deterministic.
> You put in a bit stream and they all should produce the same decoded
> analog output. Encoders however are not deterministic and many
> choices can be made in the encoding process that determine the bit
> rate and visual appearance of the encoded video. Both MPEG2 and MPEG4
> are based upon the DCT and B, P, and I frame encoding. For MPEG 4 to
> get the 2 to 1 improvement often mentioned in compression over MPEG
> 2, you have to compare early MPEG 2 encoders with theoretical MPEG 4
> encoders. Currently there is no MPEG 4 coder that can achieve a 2 to
> 1 improvement over MPEG 2 when encoding a HDTV program IN REAL TIME.
> The computational load is just to great to allow the use of the
> advanced compression profiles. Note the key here is real time. If you
> have pre-recorded material and can do multi-pass encoding and have a
> lot of time to do it, then yes MPEG 4 has some advantages.

Real time MPEG4 AVC encoders have no advantage today over MPEG2? More
like a 60% advantage today but that is not the issue. How well will
MPEG4 AVC work in a year or five years compared to MPEG2 is the
question. More effort will go into improving MPEG4 AVC than MPEG2 from
here on out. And what percentage of broadcast is real time? Real time
MPEG4 AVC will hit 2X MPEG2 in a year or so and non real time will offer
even more advantage.

Should be base our broadcast industry only on what is possible now or
look out a little to what will be possible. MPEG2 and 8-VSB are not the
best tools to revive OTA broadcasting let alone see it prosper in the
future.

> Today's, real time MPEG 2 HDTV encoders are easily a factor of 1.5 to 2 better
> in compression for the same perceived picture quality that the
> encoders that could be implemented 10 years ago and we have many
> examples of 8VSB stations transmitting both a SD and HDTV version of
> the same program simultaneously today. We even have examples of
> digital stations broadcasting 6 simultaneous SD programs with
> excellent quality. I am talking about 6 standard programs - not
> programs with static images like weather maps. As technology advances
> MPEG encoders of all flavors will advance, 8VSB receivers will get
> better and eventually equal or surpass CODFM receivers. There will be
> MPEG 5,6,7,8 in the future and we have to be careful about how many
> times we want to switch standards. My rule of thumb is a technology
> switch requires a factor of 4 or more improvement before scrapping an
> existing system. Neither CODFM or MPEG4 have reached that yet.

Your rule of thumb is not the same as what may be needed to insure the
viability of OTA broadcasting IMO. 8-VSB will never equal or surpass
COFDM based modulations IMO and it seems in the opinion of the LG
engineers who developed the 5th gen chip at least from what they told
me. The competitors to OTA will use the best tools and will not delay
till your "factor of 4" IMO. The only reason broadcasters are not up in
arms over the straight jacket MPEG2 and 8-VSB put them in is because of
must carry. In other countries broadcasters fought tooth and nail
against 8-VSB including Taiwan, Australia and even S. Korea. In most
other countries the issue did not even come up.
>
> Before you jump in and point to the new DBS satellites offering
> hundreds of HDTV channels using MPEG4, may I point out that most of
> the capacity improvement comes from elsewhere. These are in the Ka
> rather than Ku band with much more licensed bandwidth per orbital
> slot. That and going from 4 PSK to 8 PSK and using newer FEC
> algorithms represents the biggest increase in the payload of
> programming. Most of the increased programming capacity comes from
> these changes rather than the MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 change that everyone
> seems to talk about. MPEG4 will help further in the future when more
> capable real time encoders emerge.

Yes and the future is where we live. That is where free OTA broadcasting
lives or dies. The whole tone of the digital transition in the US is
that OTA is of no consequence. For Congress the whole issue of OTA is
all about auctioning off spectrum. They dismiss OTA as irrelevant since
most now rely on cable or satellite. Later they will be back to auction
off channels below 51.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but the years of Miller oversimplifications have
> finally gotten to me. Regards, David
>

Bob Miller
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:40:08 AM

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

In article <hanne.705$W77.191@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> David wrote:
>>> If we as I propose switched to COFDM and MPEG4 simple receivers
>>> that only decode an SD program could be used at price points right
>>> now of $35.
>>>
>>> With MPEG4 an HD and SD duplicate of the program could be broadcast
>>> with a combined lower bitrate than is required with MPEG2 HD
>>> alone. The COFDM SD receiver would not have to decode the HD
>>> program, there would be many bits to spare and billions of now
>>> wasted dollars saved.
>>>
>>> Bob Miller
>>
>>
>> Bob Miller,
>>
>> You have a way of oversimplifying things by focusing entirely on pre-conceived notions of MPEG2 and 8VSB. It took years for you to
>> finally admit that things like the tuner can have a profound effect on the viability of ANY modulation method including CODFM. This is
>> particularly true during the DTV transition when we have many cases of stations running their digital broadcast at a power 10 dB lower on
>> a channel adjacent to their analog signal. The use of adjacent channels and many of the other formally 'taboo' UHF allocations in
>> the UHF band require better tuners period, no matter what the modulation method.
>
> First we had to have an 8-VSB receiver good enough so that the question
> of it's tuner even came up. With all current and previous 8-VSB
> receivers you are saying it was all because their front ends were/are so
> bad? Haven't had such a problem with current or past COFDM receivers. It
> is only now that we have 5th gen receivers being tested and which work
> pretty well that the issue of better tuners even came up.
>
Again, Bob you continue to mischaracterize the matter of tuner quality. I
have been mentioning the FACT that the greatest issue with 8VSB reception
in my experience (significant amount) has to do with tuner (front end)
issues, and not so much the modulation method. No modulation method likes
front end overload (serious problem) or other front end problem. Most
cases that I have seen of 8VSB reception problems have been mitigated by
proper set-up of the front end (e.g. coax, antenna, signal levels, etc.)

So, factually, the tuner quality has been a major issue all along. It
is just those who have been obscuring the discussion with complaints about
8VSB have been distracting against a really significant problem: Tuner
front end design.

Bob oh Bob, why do you keep on trying to obscure the real problems?

John
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:40:09 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <hanne.705$W77.191@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>>If we as I propose switched to COFDM and MPEG4 simple receivers
>>>>that only decode an SD program could be used at price points right
>>>>now of $35.
>>>>
>>>>With MPEG4 an HD and SD duplicate of the program could be broadcast
>>>> with a combined lower bitrate than is required with MPEG2 HD
>>>>alone. The COFDM SD receiver would not have to decode the HD
>>>>program, there would be many bits to spare and billions of now
>>>>wasted dollars saved.
>>>>
>>>>Bob Miller
>>>
>>>
>>>Bob Miller,
>>>
>>>You have a way of oversimplifying things by focusing entirely on pre-conceived notions of MPEG2 and 8VSB. It took years for you to
>>>finally admit that things like the tuner can have a profound effect on the viability of ANY modulation method including CODFM. This is
>>>particularly true during the DTV transition when we have many cases of stations running their digital broadcast at a power 10 dB lower on
>>> a channel adjacent to their analog signal. The use of adjacent channels and many of the other formally 'taboo' UHF allocations in
>>>the UHF band require better tuners period, no matter what the modulation method.
>>
>>First we had to have an 8-VSB receiver good enough so that the question
>>of it's tuner even came up. With all current and previous 8-VSB
>>receivers you are saying it was all because their front ends were/are so
>>bad? Haven't had such a problem with current or past COFDM receivers. It
>>is only now that we have 5th gen receivers being tested and which work
>>pretty well that the issue of better tuners even came up.
>>
>
> Again, Bob you continue to mischaracterize the matter of tuner quality. I
> have been mentioning the FACT that the greatest issue with 8VSB reception
> in my experience (significant amount) has to do with tuner (front end)
> issues, and not so much the modulation method. No modulation method likes
> front end overload (serious problem) or other front end problem. Most
> cases that I have seen of 8VSB reception problems have been mitigated by
> proper set-up of the front end (e.g. coax, antenna, signal levels, etc.)
>
> So, factually, the tuner quality has been a major issue all along. It
> is just those who have been obscuring the discussion with complaints about
> 8VSB have been distracting against a really significant problem: Tuner
> front end design.
>
> Bob oh Bob, why do you keep on trying to obscure the real problems?
>
> John
>
Never really argued about what the 8-VSB problem was. Just argued that
there was a problem. The 8-VSB proponents were the ones who fixated on
ever new magic chips that would solve the problem. Now that many say the
5th gen chip is the answer we find that it is not.

I have tested 5th gen receivers not designed them. We tested one that
worked minimally well last summer ans assumed as LG told us the problems
were solved by the 5th gen chip. Now we know that was not the case. That
front end issues were somehow solved along with that 5th gen chip.

I have never argued that the solution was by chip. I never argued that
there was a solution at all. Only that their was a problem. Others
argued there was a solution.

So far I have seen one very weak solution not duplicable so far which is
OK in my book for a particular venture and because maybe it will end the
never ending US transition and allow us and others to use COFDM on
spectrum above channel 51.

But don't say that I was saying in the past that the problem with 8-VSB
was with the chip design. I only said 8-VSB had a problem. COFDM
receivers must have always had superior front ends it seems. Even
adjacent to a much more powerful channel 53 we were able to demonstrate
COFDM mobile on 54 in NYC.

Bob Miller
!