8-VSB Full Of Holes

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

jatman on AVSForum has made a discovery.

"Very interesting reading at the below site regarding several DTV
reception issues. Less than optimal RF designs of DTV receivers is
widespread. DTV channel asignments near each other may also turn out to
be a bad idea. If you've got an engineering background you might find
this fun.... if not, it's curious to see how a technology could be so
widely deployed and still be so 'full of holes'."

http://www.tvtechnology.com/feature..._tv/index.shtml

The reason that there can be massive deployment of a truly lousy system
about which none of the parties involved is very exited is that the
broadcasters HAVE to deploy this lousy system under threat of losing
their spectrum and must carry rights. Since they make all their dollars
off of must carry they will do what it takes to keep that OTA spectrum
which comes with must carry rights. As a broadcaster said to me in 2000,
the cost of OTA broadcasting is just the dues we pay for must carry.

Broadcasters didn't care much what modulation was used when it was being
decided. Sinclair became interested only at the last minute when they
discovered that 8-VSB didn't work very well and tested COFDM which was
developed in Europe with the express purpose of solving the multipath issue.

Solving multipath was never a priority for DTV in the US. The priorities
here was winning a contest to see who could come up with the best
something in the least amount of time with the only proviso being that
it had to "emulate" NTSC. Fat chance since analog is substantially
different than digital.

What a goal, just be as good as something that is over 50 years old. And
they failed even at that.

Bob Miller

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

cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>

Rant snipped

>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> Why don't you just give up? No one cares about your rants about 8-VSB!
> You aren't going to get it changed to COFDM no matter how much you cry
> and whine about it. You lost, get over it! BTW, how much money did you
> lose by backing the wrong horse? That's all that this is about, right?
>

It used to be. By now it appears that he can't stop. I think it's OCD.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsYOJe.3157$RS.1759@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> jatman on AVSForum has made a discovery.
>
> The reason that there can be massive deployment of a truly lousy system
> about which none of the parties involved is very exited is that the
> broadcasters HAVE to deploy this lousy system under threat of losing their
> spectrum and must carry rights. Since they make all their dollars off of
> must carry they will do what it takes to keep that OTA spectrum which
> comes with must carry rights. As a broadcaster said to me in 2000, the
> cost of OTA broadcasting is just the dues we pay for must carry.
>
==================================
How long will you continue to flog this poor dead horse?
COFDM for broadcast TV in the US is D E A D!

8-VSB works perfectly for almost everyone that gets their DTV/HDTV OTA!

You are a buffoon!

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

Tree wrote:
> The major concern about 8VSB OTA is the channel assignments that were made to shoehorn all the stations in during the transition. Some of
> those combinations will only work if the receiver has a double conversion tuner. The FCC didn't mandated such a tuner when they
> required TVs to be built with DTV tuners.
> It is important that a rating scheme be employed to give a letter designation to receivers containing certain features. A has these
> features; B has this other set etc.. Heaven knows the store salesmen know zip so the consumer needs some help.
>

Since they did not specify any requirements there are NO requirements.
And from what I have heard most such receivers will be more cosmetic
than real. Just something inexpensive to cover the letter of the law
with most sets under $600 or so.

After all as one major manufacturer told me 85% to 95% will never be
attached to an antenna so why do they have to be so good, what they have
to be is as inexpensive as possible. Not the recipe for a good receiver
especially with a reception challenged modulation like 8-VSB.

Bob Miller

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

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:08:15 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

| http://www.tvtechnology.com/feature..._tv/index.shtml

How about a URL that actually works?

And if you ever want to get around to it, a URL that details how the data
bistream would be modulated over COFDM (I already have documentation on
how this works in 8-VSB) would be nice.


| The reason that there can be massive deployment of a truly lousy system
| about which none of the parties involved is very exited is that the
| broadcasters HAVE to deploy this lousy system under threat of losing
| their spectrum and must carry rights. Since they make all their dollars
| off of must carry they will do what it takes to keep that OTA spectrum
| which comes with must carry rights. As a broadcaster said to me in 2000,
| the cost of OTA broadcasting is just the dues we pay for must carry.

Are there call letters associated with this broadcaster? Sounds like
some specialized broadcaster in a big city that markets only to higher
income people.


| Solving multipath was never a priority for DTV in the US. The priorities
| here was winning a contest to see who could come up with the best
| something in the least amount of time with the only proviso being that
| it had to "emulate" NTSC. Fat chance since analog is substantially
| different than digital.

Emulating NTSC would certainly seem silly in the age of multiscan CRT
displays. Further, given the need to convert HD to NTSC for STBs on top
of old analog TV sets, the capability would already be there to convert
ED, SD, and even LD, to NTSC as well. I certainly would rather see an
SD-grade transmission of a movie come across as 576 lines at 24 frames
per second than as 480 lines at 29.97 frames per second and have to put
up with the effects of two layers of re-framing. Then I could watch it
at 72 frames per second cleanly :-)

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

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

That should be

http://www.tvtechnology.com/featur [...] ndex.shtml

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:08:15 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | http://www.tvtechnology.com/feature..._tv/index.shtml
>
> How about a URL that actually works?
>
> And if you ever want to get around to it, a URL that details how the data
> bistream would be modulated over COFDM (I already have documentation on
> how this works in 8-VSB) would be nice.
>
>
> | The reason that there can be massive deployment of a truly lousy system
> | about which none of the parties involved is very exited is that the
> | broadcasters HAVE to deploy this lousy system under threat of losing
> | their spectrum and must carry rights. Since they make all their dollars
> | off of must carry they will do what it takes to keep that OTA spectrum
> | which comes with must carry rights. As a broadcaster said to me in 2000,
> | the cost of OTA broadcasting is just the dues we pay for must carry.
>
> Are there call letters associated with this broadcaster? Sounds like
> some specialized broadcaster in a big city that markets only to higher
> income people.
>
Can't say who it was but they have many stations. This is a consensus
view among broadcasters. Publically they must say that they value their
spectrum and their OTA customers highly but in private most would turn
off their transmitters if they could and they also had mulitcast must
carry. The demographics of the OTA only customer are poor. Either they
are litteraly to poor for cable or satellite or they don't watch enough
TV to care.
>
> | Solving multipath was never a priority for DTV in the US. The priorities
> | here was winning a contest to see who could come up with the best
> | something in the least amount of time with the only proviso being that
> | it had to "emulate" NTSC. Fat chance since analog is substantially
> | different than digital.
>
> Emulating NTSC would certainly seem silly in the age of multiscan CRT
> displays. Further, given the need to convert HD to NTSC for STBs on top
> of old analog TV sets, the capability would already be there to convert
> ED, SD, and even LD, to NTSC as well. I certainly would rather see an
> SD-grade transmission of a movie come across as 576 lines at 24 frames
> per second than as 480 lines at 29.97 frames per second and have to put
> up with the effects of two layers of re-framing. Then I could watch it
> at 72 frames per second cleanly :-)
>

To emulate,to approach or attain equality with.

To have the same coverage and to have the same quality of image, not
greater. And that is the rules that DTV broadcasters must follow. 8-VSB
was designed so that it only had to "emulate" NTSC. Offer the same
coverage and be capable of the same visual quality.

It doesn't have the same coverage since many cannot receive DTV channels
that they can receive easily with NTSC. Though NTSC was poor in mobile
reception it did work. NTSC simply doesn't work mobile since
interference means the total loss of signal instead of just a poorer
picture. 8-VSB also does not work in multipath enviroments near the
transmitter. NTSC is far more watchable in a city like NY in many cases.

8-VSB is full of holes and no one has addressed them accept in a couple
of prototype receivers. Even then they do not work mobile and I would
not trust 8-VSB to work portable without a directional antenna.

We will have to wait to see the results of the NAV RFP this fall to see
if any of the 12 respondents offer to make a decent converter box at a
decent price.

Bob Miller

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

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eradnSmdXobDiGTfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "robmx" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:u96Ke.3185$Je.759@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> .
>>
>> 8-VSB is full of holes and no one has addressed them accept in a couple
>> of prototype receivers. Even then they do not work mobile and I would not
>> trust 8-VSB to work portable without a directional antenna.
>>
> =================================
> Who cares?

Well somebody like Mark Shubin who lives in a New York apartment(correct me
if I'm wrong) and cannot receive OTA with an antenna in the apartment.

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> D J wrote:
>
>> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:eradnSmdXobDiGTfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>>
>>> X-No-archive: yes
>>>
>>> "robmx" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u96Ke.3185$Je.759@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> .
>>>
>>>> 8-VSB is full of holes and no one has addressed them accept in a
>>>> couple of prototype receivers. Even then they do not work mobile and
>>>> I would not trust 8-VSB to work portable without a directional antenna.
>>>>
>>>
>>> =================================
>>> Who cares?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well somebody like Mark Shubin who lives in a New York
>> apartment(correct me if I'm wrong) and cannot receive OTA with an
>> antenna in the apartment.
>
>
> Actually, he can. He has reported successful reception of ATSC from ...
>
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> ... wait for it
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Philadelphia.
>
>
> Matthew

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

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:58:13 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:08:15 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|> | http://www.tvtechnology.com/feature..._tv/index.shtml
|>
|> How about a URL that actually works?
|
| How about you do a search? It took me 15 seconds to find the original
| post at AVS Forum that contains the link.

So you are saying the original post had the correct URL and Bob Miller
just screwed up copying it?

I know you like to attack people a lot. At least you are consistent.

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

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> How about a URL that actually works?
> |
> | How about you do a search? It took me 15 seconds to find the original
> | post at AVS Forum that contains the link.
>
> So you are saying the original post had the correct URL and Bob Miller
> just screwed up copying it?

Yes, the original post at AVS Forum has the correct link. The *text* of
the link in the post is truncated (with the ellipsis) if the link is too
long for easy display on a single line. Bob did *not* screw up in copying
it...he copied the text of the post perfectly.

You're the one who screwed up in demanding that he "fix" the link, when
instead you could have spent 15 seconds and gotten there yourself.

--
Jeff Rife | copy protection: n. A class of methods for
| preventing incompetent pirates from stealing
| software and legitimate customers from using it.
| Considered silly.
| -- Jargon File version 4.4.6

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

David wrote:
> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> newsd9jm50164q@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>>| ...........something in the least amount of time with the only proviso
>>being that
>>| it had to "emulate" NTSC. Fat chance since analog is substantially
>>| different than digital.
>>
>>Emulating NTSC would certainly seem silly in the age of multiscan CRT
>>displays. .....
>
>
> Please tell us you're kidding....?

AFAICT, he isn't.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:06:15 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| newsd9jm50164q@news1.newsguy.com...
|> | ...........something in the least amount of time with the only proviso
|> being that
|> | it had to "emulate" NTSC. Fat chance since analog is substantially
|> | different than digital.
|>
|> Emulating NTSC would certainly seem silly in the age of multiscan CRT
|> displays. .....
|
| Please tell us you're kidding....?

Should I interpret your response to mean that you believe emulating a
legacy analog format is the way of the future?

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

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

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:53:54 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| newsdhsji11l7a@news4.newsguy.com...
|> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:06:15 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
|> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
|> | newsd9jm50164q@news1.newsguy.com...
|> |> | ...........something in the least amount of time with the only
|> proviso
|> |> being that
|> |> | it had to "emulate" NTSC. Fat chance since analog is substantially
|> |> | different than digital.
|> |>
|> |> Emulating NTSC would certainly seem silly in the age of multiscan CRT
|> |> displays. .....
|> |
|> | Please tell us you're kidding....?
|>
|> Should I interpret your response to mean that you believe emulating a
|> legacy analog format is the way of the future?
|>
|> --
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
|> http://ham.org/ |
|> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
|> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Do you think the OP was referring to emulating the NTSC *display* standard?

No, I believe he was referring to the ability to transmit programming in
a way like NTSC, such that the resolution, interlacing, and frame rate was
sent in the same way as NTSC. My point is that trying to design a DTV
standard that specifically requires this emulation of NTSC is silly. What
should have been done is have a system that simply allowed the parameters
to be specified in a transmission header for each subchannel, specifying
just how the video and audio is transmitted. It could have had fields that
specify the intended frame rate (or even the frame time on each frame), the
aspect ratio, the interlacing structure, the number of lines, the number of
pixels, and the pixel structure variations per color layer. The _format_
should have that capability. Then the decision about what to use in a given
transmission can be made at that time, preferrably retaining the original
content parameters so the minimum of downresing and artifacts would be
involved in conversions that might need to be done. It would also have
encouraged more use of variable scan rate displays that can avoid
non-integer-ratio conversions.

At least ATSC does include a few common frame rates. A movie shot on film
at 24 frames per second could be rescaned to video at 24 frames per second
progressive and transmitted that way. Then I can display each frame three
times on my CRT and see no flicker at all. But, ATSC chose to ignore that
much content does exist at 25 frames per second, and is already scanned at
around 576 lines per frame, making it necessary to either downconvert or
upconvert before transmission over ATSC. A few other existing standards
should have been included to make it a more universal video transmission
system, including some industrial and military video standards. Designing
the bit stream layer part so it could be used for more things than just
broadcasting would have been my approach. But given the committee was to
be focused on broadcasting, we get something with limitations that confine
even broadcasting.

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

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:24:48 GMT news.cup.hp.com <thomasDELME_gilgDELME@hpdelme.com> wrote:
| Phil wrote:
|> I do believe 8-VSB is a reasonably suitable choice for the OTA TV
|> environment
|> of the USA.
|
| Having read some of the 8-VSB vs. COFDM field-trial shootout results, what
| struck me was that neither 8-VSB or COFDM did particularly well, and across
| all the test scenarios, 8-VSB and COFDM each took turns being the looser.
|
| There is no obvious winner or looser here, and simply being expert at
| throwing rocks at one does not automagically mean the other is better.
|
| Considering the mix of terrestrial, cable and satellite services in the US,
| and how the US population is concentrated/dispersed, in my humble opinion
| COFDM is a reasonable choice for the US. I have also had the opportunity
| during standards body work for HP to query many CE/DTV companies wrt 8-VSB
| and COFDM, and the consistent message I get back is that 8-VSB vs. COFDM is
| a wash, and now that the standards are cemented there is great technical
| work going on to improve both, and for the US, 8-VSB is a done deal and it
| is a pure waste of time to argue otherwise.

"pure waste of time to argue" ... is what a lot of us have these days :-)

I tried to be open minded about 8-VSB vs. COFDM when I first came here
because I had not considered the issues at all. Seems I gained some
enemies just for not putting the other side down. My final conclusion is
8-VSB is probably better, but probably by no more than 2 db. 16-VSB might
have been good enough.

But it is all water under the bridge. I think we've dried up the river.

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

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

On 15 Aug 2005 22:37:57 GMT cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:

| But that's the rub, Phil. Bob Miller doesn't think that it's over.
| In fact, he wants to change the country to his way of thinking (COFDM)
| because he has money on the line. He posts distortions and outright lies
| about the issue, as if that will change the minds of the powers that be.

And he missed the opportunity to convince me COFDM would have been a
better choice. But that's not the same thing as convincing me it is worth
abandoning everything and switching to COFDM. What is his relation to
Sinclair (I assume it is the broadcaster with 62 holdings)? Their website
doesn't say anything about 8-VSB being bad.

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

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:38:11 GMT, "news.cup.hp.com"
<thomasDELME_gilgDELME@hpDELME.com> wrote:

>Thomas wrote:
>> ... in my humble opinion COFDM is a reasonable choice for the US. ...
>
>Big whoops. I meant to say 8-VSB is a reasonable choice. COFDM would have
>been too, but that is water under the bridge.

The FCC obviously dis-agrees with your statement..

COFDM modulation suffers from many deficiencies when trying to
squeeze the designated data rates into a 6Mhz channel assignment.

COFDM's higher Crosstalk, Higher Power(S/N) requirements(6dB),
Significantly lower Impulse noise immunity(>10dB), Lower payload
density, and Diminished error correction payload are just a few of the
issues which left it DOA in the North America.

Meanwhile the modulation standard chosen for the US, 8VSB has
stepped up to the plate and delivered reliable OTA Hi-def content from
hundreds of Stations. A feat which COFDM advocates can only dream
about.

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

Tim Keating wrote:
> COFDM modulation suffers from many deficiencies ...

I appreciate the COFDM laundry list, and it is illustrates that COFDM has
its holes too.

> Meanwhile the modulation standard chosen for the US, 8VSB has
> stepped up to the plate and delivered reliable OTA Hi-def content from
> hundreds of Stations. A feat which COFDM advocates can only dream
> about.

While I find the detailed technical arguments facinating, I'm falling back
on the simplier observation that with standards development activities (e.g.
ATSC), we often end up with lots of viable-enough options on the table, and
in many of those cases (e.g. 8-VSB v. COFDM),
technologists/business-managers can become very pig headed and drag the
argument out for decades and fail to make a choice and move on. I'm glad the
FCC and others finally forced a choice (8-VSB), as it has allowed everyone
to now focus on implementing and improving the choice. The US now has
several years of 8-VSB implementation learnings under its belt, and the
improvements in 8-VSB have been substantial. That's a far better situation
than having spent the past few years in further academic debates and staged
field trials that can only approximate a real world deployment.

In summary - the US picked 8-VSB and there should be no looking back, and
there is far more to this than just technical specs at this point (e.g.
8-VSB is widely deployed in the US for DTV, COFDM is not).

Thomas Gilg