Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC HDTV tuner

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 2:41:33 PM

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

I'm looking to get a HDTV tuner for my new PC. It has a 3GHz Athlon64
chip and 400GB hard drive space, so I'm sure the PC would have no
problems handling it. The only problem I have is that there isn't much
on the net about HDTV turner cards. The ones I'm currently looking at
are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
MDP-130. I've heard that there were problem with ATI's software (which
is nothing
new) and that remote only works with ATI's software. The specs for the
Divco card look promising and according to the product manual the
remote software is programmable, but I've heard very little about it.
I've heard that the MDP-130 is supposed to have better performance
since it has a hardware decoder, but I haven't heard anything about
it's software or even if it has a remote.

BTW I don't have Windows Media Center and I couldn't care less about
connecting to cable or satellite since I don't have either.

Any recommendations or advice would be appreciated.

More about : hdtv tuner

Anonymous
September 21, 2005 2:46:16 PM

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

I also forgot to mention that I won't be connecting my PC to a TV
either. My 21" PC monitor dwarfs my 13" TV, so there just isn't much
of a point really.
September 21, 2005 6:43:01 PM

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

semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm looking to get a HDTV tuner for my new PC. It has a 3GHz Athlon64
> chip and 400GB hard drive space, so I'm sure the PC would have no
> problems handling it. The only problem I have is that there isn't much
> on the net about HDTV turner cards. The ones I'm currently looking at
> are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
> MDP-130. I've heard that there were problem with ATI's software (which
> is nothing
> new) and that remote only works with ATI's software. The specs for the
> Divco card look promising and according to the product manual the
> remote software is programmable, but I've heard very little about it.
> I've heard that the MDP-130 is supposed to have better performance
> since it has a hardware decoder, but I haven't heard anything about
> it's software or even if it has a remote.
>
> BTW I don't have Windows Media Center and I couldn't care less about
> connecting to cable or satellite since I don't have either.
>
> Any recommendations or advice would be appreciated.
>

In addition to the ATI software being bad, the ATI HDTV Wonder hardware
isn't very good either. The strongest channels in my area frequently
cut out for a few seconds every few minutes and the weaker ones only
produced sound. My Samsung SIR-T451 receiver yields about 5 more
channels and none of them cut out. Both were connected to my attic
antennae - I am about 20 miles from the local transmitters with a direct
line of sight.

Roger
Related resources
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 7:19:54 PM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The ones I'm currently looking at
> are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
> MDP-130.

The quick and dirty is that both the ATI and Fusion software aren't very
good. The ATI *driver* is bad, so that even Microsoft MCE (or other BDA
driver aware software) has problems. The Fusion control panel/recording
manager is bad, but the BDA driver is good, so you can use third-party
software (there is some, but I don't know more than that...AVS Forum has
the details).

The MDP-130 doesn't (and will never) have a BDA driver, but its own
software is very good. The remote software that comes with it is pretty
good, but it can also be turned off and you can use the remote with some
other software (like Girder).

I still say hardware decoding is the only way to go, and the MDP-130 has
passthrough of VGA or component, and adding the DVI daughtercard gives
you DVI. One of these should work well with your 21" monitor. If,
however, the monitor can only use an exotic mode, then the MDP-130 might
cause problems...it only supports the following modes for output of its
HD:

1920x1080/60i 1280x 720/60p
720x 480/60i 720x 480/60p
1440x1080/60i 1024x 768/60p
1360x 768/60p
1280x1024/60p
800x 600/60p
864x 480/60p
1280x 768/60p

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/Recycling...
September 21, 2005 10:12:03 PM

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

I have had a MDP-100 for a while now and it works very well with the
latest drivers and application. I recently purchased an HDTV Wonder
($125) and have already removed it due to it's clear inferiority. It
tunes very slowly making changing channels painful. I wish I had spent
a bit more for the MDP-130 ($219).

dan

semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm looking to get a HDTV tuner for my new PC. It has a 3GHz Athlon64
> chip and 400GB hard drive space, so I'm sure the PC would have no
> problems handling it. The only problem I have is that there isn't much
> on the net about HDTV turner cards. The ones I'm currently looking at
> are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
> MDP-130. I've heard that there were problem with ATI's software (which
> is nothing
> new) and that remote only works with ATI's software. The specs for the
> Divco card look promising and according to the product manual the
> remote software is programmable, but I've heard very little about it.
> I've heard that the MDP-130 is supposed to have better performance
> since it has a hardware decoder, but I haven't heard anything about
> it's software or even if it has a remote.
>
> BTW I don't have Windows Media Center and I couldn't care less about
> connecting to cable or satellite since I don't have either.
>
> Any recommendations or advice would be appreciated.
>
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 11:17:40 PM

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

I've read somewhere about an add-on software or something for the
Fusion was supposed to "fix" some of the problems, but I haven't found
very much about it either way.

I agree that the MDP-130 hardware decoder as it's advantages, but it's
also nice to be able to display the video in a window so that you see
when the show comes on while doing something else during commercials.

Either way, my monitor can do 1280x1024/60p. It should be able to
handle the timings for 1920x1080/60i , but I'm not sure.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 11:20:52 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> This at least gives hope that ATI could fix it someday.

ATI almost never gets it right the first time. They usually get close
by the time the product is obsolete.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 11:29:53 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> I have both the MDP-100 and the MDP-130. For some stations, the MDP-100
> does a better job. It's not enough to make a decision one way or the
> other, and, except for the optional DVI daughtercard available for the 130,
> they really are very similar in every respect. The new features in the
> software work the same in both cards, so you aren't really losing anything.
>
> I gave away my Fusion II because the software was horrible, and Dvico hadn't
> released BDA drivers, so there were no other alternatives.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gi...

So, what's the difference between the 100, 120, and 130?
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:41:01 AM

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

Roger (crosseyedpenguin@cox.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In addition to the ATI software being bad, the ATI HDTV Wonder hardware
> isn't very good either. The strongest channels in my area frequently
> cut out for a few seconds every few minutes and the weaker ones only
> produced sound.

I've heard that part of that is the driver software. The actual tuner
hardware isn't bad, but the driver doesn't configure it with the best
parameters. The MyHD cards started getting better reception when the driver
was improved, so it's definitely possible this is the problem.

This at least gives hope that ATI could fix it someday.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: What's the story, Norm?
|
| Norm: Thirsty guy walks into a bar. You
| finish it.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:57:17 AM

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

dan (dan@nospam.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I have had a MDP-100 for a while now and it works very well with the
> latest drivers and application. I recently purchased an HDTV Wonder
> ($125) and have already removed it due to it's clear inferiority. It
> tunes very slowly making changing channels painful. I wish I had spent
> a bit more for the MDP-130 ($219).

I have both the MDP-100 and the MDP-130. For some stations, the MDP-100
does a better job. It's not enough to make a decision one way or the
other, and, except for the optional DVI daughtercard available for the 130,
they really are very similar in every respect. The new features in the
software work the same in both cards, so you aren't really losing anything.

I gave away my Fusion II because the software was horrible, and Dvico hadn't
released BDA drivers, so there were no other alternatives.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gi...
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 3:40:23 AM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I agree that the MDP-130 hardware decoder as it's advantages, but it's
> also nice to be able to display the video in a window so that you see
> when the show comes on while doing something else during commercials.

You can do this with any of the MyHD cards. It still uses hardware
decoding, then feeds the output to a video overlay window.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: Yeah, Norm, how come you and Vera never
| had any kids?
| Norm: I can't, Coach.
| Coach: Gee, I'm sorry, Norm.
| Norm: I look at Vera...and I just can't.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 3:50:33 AM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> So, what's the difference between the 100, 120, and 130?

- The MDP-100 doesn't have the option for the DVI daughtercard (which also
has an optical digital audio output...only coaxial digital is on the
main card of all MyHD cards). The daughtercards of the 120 and 130 are
different, and specific to the board.

- The MDP-130 tuner supports digital cable (unscrambled only, of course).

- The MDP-130 comes with a USB remote receiver instead of serial.

- Supposedly, each board improved the tuner, but it really was only slight,
although the MDP-130 does seem to have better resistance to multipath.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
| doesn't border entirely on the negative."
|
| -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
September 22, 2005 1:52:31 PM

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

<semi_charm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127324493.888988.281360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm looking to get a HDTV tuner for my new PC. It has a 3GHz Athlon64
> chip and 400GB hard drive space, so I'm sure the PC would have no
> problems handling it. The only problem I have is that there isn't much
> on the net about HDTV turner cards. The ones I'm currently looking at
> are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
> MDP-130. I've heard that there were problem with ATI's software (which
> is nothing
> new) and that remote only works with ATI's software. The specs for the
> Divco card look promising and according to the product manual the
> remote software is programmable, but I've heard very little about it.
> I've heard that the MDP-130 is supposed to have better performance
> since it has a hardware decoder, but I haven't heard anything about
> it's software or even if it has a remote.
>
> BTW I don't have Windows Media Center and I couldn't care less about
> connecting to cable or satellite since I don't have either.
>
> Any recommendations or advice would be appreciated.
>

I had to change my PC HDTV card a few times over the years because of either
operating system issues or the file structure wasn't right.

My first card was an Accessdtv, then I bought a Hipix, now I'm using the
Myhd 120. It's connected directly to a JVC projector using RGBHV.
All of them have worked as advertised and reception was always rock solid.
Installation can be a bitch for a newbie.

BTW, it looks like the Accessdtv card is coming back to life with new
XP-compatible drivers recently becoming available. No DVI output on the
original card, though. :/ 
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 8:00:32 PM

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

I really didn't know that. Any info on the MyHD cards would be helpful
at this point.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 8:05:59 PM

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

The multipath issue could be important. I can get most local stations
on my TV, but I still get slight "ghosting" on some channels.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 10:17:21 PM

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

semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm looking to get a HDTV tuner for my new PC. It has a 3GHz Athlon64
> chip and 400GB hard drive space, so I'm sure the PC would have no
> problems handling it. The only problem I have is that there isn't much
> on the net about HDTV turner cards. The ones I'm currently looking at
> are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
> MDP-130. I've heard that there were problem with ATI's software (which
> is nothing
> new) and that remote only works with ATI's software. The specs for the
> Divco card look promising and according to the product manual the
> remote software is programmable, but I've heard very little about it.
> I've heard that the MDP-130 is supposed to have better performance
> since it has a hardware decoder, but I haven't heard anything about
> it's software or even if it has a remote.
>
> BTW I don't have Windows Media Center and I couldn't care less about
> connecting to cable or satellite since I don't have either.
>
> Any recommendations or advice would be appreciated.
>

The only one you listed that is good IMO is the DVICO. There should be
one from BBTI on the market by now also that should equal the DVICO,
both 5th generation and both of which I am using.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 10:17:22 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RyCYe.2339$vw6.1918@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> > Any recommendations or advice would be appreciated.
> >
>
> The only one you listed that is good IMO is the DVICO. There should be
> one from BBTI on the market by now also that should equal the DVICO,
> both 5th generation and both of which I am using.
>

http://www.bbti.us/products_airstar_hd5000_pci.htm
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:07:31 PM

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

Sorry, but the manual wasn't very helpful. Like many manuals nowadays,
it just says a little bit about the hardware then devotes the other 2/3
to screen shots of the software install. I also had questions about
how the card handles surround sound, but then I noticed that their faq
says "Multi-channel 5.1 sound cards configured in Windows, choose
Stereo", even though the screen shot gives an option Dolby surround.

Then when I checked for any other info on their site, there wasn't any!
They don't even have internation contact or support!
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:27:09 AM

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:19:54 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> (semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> The ones I'm currently looking at
>> are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
>> MDP-130.
>
>The quick and dirty is that both the ATI and Fusion software aren't very
>good. The ATI *driver* is bad, so that even Microsoft MCE (or other BDA
>driver aware software) has problems.

I have excellent results with the ATI HD Wonder card, using an indoor
antenna. The remote control software won't run under Windows 2000 but
who needs a remote control on a PC tuner?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 3:14:42 AM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I also had questions about
> how the card handles surround sound,

It sends it out the built-in coaxial digital output. That's the best
way to deal with it.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gi...
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 3:15:42 AM

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

Phil Witt (w4imm@charter.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >The quick and dirty is that both the ATI and Fusion software aren't very
> >good. The ATI *driver* is bad, so that even Microsoft MCE (or other BDA
> >driver aware software) has problems.
>
> I have excellent results with the ATI HD Wonder card, using an indoor
> antenna.

There are configurations that work, but many people have problems with
setups that don't 100% match what ATI expects.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLi...
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 8:02:24 AM

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

semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:
> The multipath issue could be important. I can get most local stations
> on my TV, but I still get slight "ghosting" on some channels.
>

Then you want either the BBTI or the DVICO. Both 4th gen LG equiped.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 9:55:41 AM

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

My speakers don't have coaxial digital input, so that's of little use
to me.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 10:01:49 AM

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

I don't know about the BBTI, but the Fusion5 is 5th gen.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 11:14:38 AM

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

semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:
> The multipath issue could be important. I can get most local stations
> on my TV, but I still get slight "ghosting" on some channels.
>

In all probability you don't have enough multipath to represent a
problem. Check to see what power levels your local DTV stations are at
and where their antenna are (they may not be co-located with the analog
station).

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 4:55:07 PM

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

Anything Divico. Iam in Australia and i have a Divico Fusion. And mine
is hooked up to my 86cm WS tb HD TV. And its brilliant.


On 21 Sep 2005 10:46:16 -0700, semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:

>I also forgot to mention that I won't be connecting my PC to a TV
>either. My 21" PC monitor dwarfs my 13" TV, so there just isn't much
>of a point really.
September 23, 2005 6:26:53 PM

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

Phil Witt wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:19:54 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>
>>(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>> The ones I'm currently looking at
>>>are the ATI HDTV Wonder, the Divco FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MyHD
>>>MDP-130.
>>
>>The quick and dirty is that both the ATI and Fusion software aren't very
>>good. The ATI *driver* is bad, so that even Microsoft MCE (or other BDA
>>driver aware software) has problems.
>
>
> I have excellent results with the ATI HD Wonder card, using an indoor
> antenna. The remote control software won't run under Windows 2000 but
> who needs a remote control on a PC tuner?

Well, if you feed the PC signal to your HDTV, then you may want it.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 9:50:22 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> The multipath issue could be important. I can get most local stations
>> on my TV, but I still get slight "ghosting" on some channels.
>>
>
> Then you want either the BBTI or the DVICO. Both 4th gen LG equiped.
>
> Bob Miller
That should have read "5th generation"

Bob Miller
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 12:08:04 PM

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

So far I guess it's down to FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MDP-130.
One thing that concerns me is how the cards handle surround sound.
>From what I can tell, the FusionHDTV5 supports 5.1 sound cards for
digital, but requires a stero cable to be linked to the sound card for
analog. Acording to Jeff Rife the only way to get surround sound with
the MDP-130 is to use the built-in coaxial digital output, which is
useless for me. He also said that the MDP-130 doesn't (and will never)
have a BDA driver. I'm assuming that means that you can't use 3rd
party recording apps with it?
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 12:59:23 PM

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

So far I guess it's down to FusionHDTV5 Gold Plus, and the MDP-130.
The main things I need are good OTA reception, surround sound support,
a good remote, digital and analog recording, and of course scheduling,
time-shift, etc. The reason I passed on the A180 is that it doesn't
come with a remote and additional cost puts it in the same ballpark as
the FusionHDTV.

One thing that concerns me is how the cards handle surround sound.
>From what I can tell, the FusionHDTV5 supports 5.1 sound cards for digital, but requires a stereo cable to be linked to the sound card for analog. According to Jeff Rife the only way to get surround sound with the MDP-130 is to use the built-in coaxial digital output, which is useless for me.

He also said that the MDP-130 doesn't (and will never) have a BDA
driver. I'm assuming that means that you can't use 3rd party recording
apps with it? That's OK if its app works well, but MIT barely provides
any support for it and no updates, so if there's a problem in the
future I'd be out of luck.

Also, while the CPU utilization of the FusionHDTV5 is worse than the
MDP-130, but it's still far lower than the HDTV Wonder. I would mostly
be recording shows when I'm away or while I'm watching it, and
certainly not while playing a CPU hog such as Doom 3.

I don't have anything against the MDP-130, but that's just how I see
it.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 7:59:16 PM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Acording to Jeff Rife the only way to get surround sound with
> the MDP-130 is to use the built-in coaxial digital output, which is
> useless for me.

No, that's not what I said. That's *best* way and the way most people do
it because it is a hardware card...you don't need a good computer to use
it. But, it will feed raw AC3 to your soundcard for decoding, or it will
decode it itself. It can send this decoded as 2-channel digital *or*
analog (if you connect the extra wire) to the soundcard.

But, since there is no standard for sending 5.1 sound in decoded form to a
soundcard, it can't do that.

--
Jeff Rife | Radio Shack...you've got questions,
| we've got puzzled looks.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:04:26 PM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> That's OK if its app works well, but MIT barely provides
> any support for it and no updates

No updates? Where did you get that idea? There have been a stream of
updates for the software (15 significant ones in the less than 2 years I
have owned MIT cards). The latest one adds support for decoding of
digital closed captions, and was released less than a month ago.

> Also, while the CPU utilization of the FusionHDTV5 is worse than the
> MDP-130, but it's still far lower than the HDTV Wonder. I would mostly
> be recording shows when I'm away or while I'm watching it, and
> certainly not while playing a CPU hog such as Doom 3.

That's not what's important. Even with 100% utilization, a 3GHz machine
with a very fast video card will drop some frames if outputting at 1080i.
There are zero dropped frames on the MyHD cards, even if you run stuff
in the background.

Just remember that you *will* have to use 3rd party software with the
Fusion cards, because their software doesn't do timer recordings. Sure,
it's supposed to, and you can schedule them, but it's about a 50% chance
the recording won't succeed completely.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Sins.jpg
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 10:12:26 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> No updates? Where did you get that idea? There have been a stream of
> updates for the software (15 significant ones in the less than 2 years I
> have owned MIT cards). The latest one adds support for decoding of
> digital closed captions, and was released less than a month ago.

Where? There are no updates posted on the site you had linked to
earlier.

> That's not what's important. Even with 100% utilization, a 3GHz machine
> with a very fast video card will drop some frames if outputting at 1080i.
> There are zero dropped frames on the MyHD cards, even if you run stuff
> in the background.

100%? I've read a comparative review that said that the HDTV Wonder
board averaged somewhere between 65%-90% where as a Fusion5 only hit
around 33% on the same machine. If I remember correctly the machine
used was a 2.4GHz P4.

> Just remember that you *will* have to use 3rd party software with the
> Fusion cards, because their software doesn't do timer recordings. Sure,
> it's supposed to, and you can schedule them, but it's about a 50% chance
> the recording won't succeed completely.

Well, it would be nice if you posted some *real* info on the MyHD cards
and software, but so far you have not.
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 2:53:43 AM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > No updates? Where did you get that idea? There have been a stream of
> > updates for the software (15 significant ones in the less than 2 years I
> > have owned MIT cards). The latest one adds support for decoding of
> > digital closed captions, and was released less than a month ago.
>
> Where? There are no updates posted on the site you had linked to
> earlier.

That must be a bug in their website. Here they all are:

ftp://ftp.mitinc.co.kr/pub/MyHD/

> 100%? I've read a comparative review that said that the HDTV Wonder
> board averaged somewhere between 65%-90% where as a Fusion5 only hit
> around 33% on the same machine. If I remember correctly the machine
> used was a 2.4GHz P4.

That's probably correct, because the Fusion runs out of steam about then.
But, as I said, even if it went to 100% utilization, it would still drop
frames.

> Well, it would be nice if you posted some *real* info on the MyHD cards
> and software, but so far you have not.

OK, so when did the "let's post here and get everybody to do all my
research" trend start? Go read at AVS Forum and you will learn everything
you need to know about *every* HDTV card...all their ups and downs. I
assumed you had done that but were just confused, but now I see that we
have yet another person who wants to be spoon-fed.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/DoomedProject.jpg
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 8:57:30 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> That must be a bug in their website. Here they all are:
>
> ftp://ftp.mitinc.co.kr/pub/MyHD/

Their site seems to be fixed now.

> That's probably correct, because the Fusion runs out of steam about then.
> But, as I said, even if it went to 100% utilization, it would still drop
> frames.

I think you're a bit confused about what CPU utilization means.
Comparatively speaking, CPU utilization is a BAD thing. It means that
something can do the same job, but requires less work to do so. In the
previous example, the Fusion used about 33% where as the wonder
required over 65%. That means that the Fusion requires the CPU to
about half the work of the Wonder. Any capture card that requires 100%
utilization will in fact ALWAYS drop frames.

> OK, so when did the "let's post here and get everybody to do all my
> research" trend start? Go read at AVS Forum and you will learn everything
> you need to know about *every* HDTV card...all their ups and downs. I
> assumed you had done that but were just confused, but now I see that we
> have yet another person who wants to be spoon-fed.

I've spent a lot of time looking at other cards, but only started
looking at the MyHD recently and with the glitch on their site I didn't
have much to go on at the time. BTW, I'm not adverse to spending 5
hours doing research, but there's no point in wasting the time if
someone who already knows it can answer the question in 5 minutes.
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 11:15:04 PM

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

Thanks. I'm not really new to usenet, just this group. I'm just a
drifter though, so don't worry about me. I'm not in the HDTV club.
Well, not yet anyway.
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 2:00:07 AM

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:53:43 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

|> Well, it would be nice if you posted some *real* info on the MyHD cards
|> and software, but so far you have not.
|
| OK, so when did the "let's post here and get everybody to do all my
| research" trend start? Go read at AVS Forum and you will learn everything
| you need to know about *every* HDTV card...all their ups and downs. I
| assumed you had done that but were just confused, but now I see that we
| have yet another person who wants to be spoon-fed.

There you go again, Jeff. If you don't want to actually provide useful
information _here_ then why are you still hanging around here? Either you
"know it all" and hence have no need to read useful information yourself
(in which case it is unclear why you post at all, since you would be
neither providing information nor taking it in), or you don't (but in this
case you seem to want to be hiding that fact).

If you want to just post an opinion (with no useful info to support it),
then at the very least phrase it as such. I know you have opinions about
certain people that you do tend to post a lot (and always without any
useful information).

I would suggest you would be happier in life if you went to AVS Forum
yourself and just stayed there, even if you already "know it all" (since
you wouldn't be expected to actually contribute anything useful, as that
is supposedly already being done there by others not as snobbish as you).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 2:00:08 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:53:43 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> |> Well, it would be nice if you posted some *real* info on the MyHD cards
> |> and software, but so far you have not.
> |
> | OK, so when did the "let's post here and get everybody to do all my
> | research" trend start? Go read at AVS Forum and you will learn everything
> | you need to know about *every* HDTV card...all their ups and downs. I
> | assumed you had done that but were just confused, but now I see that we
> | have yet another person who wants to be spoon-fed.
>
> There you go again, Jeff. If you don't want to actually provide useful
> information _here_

Why don't you go over to the avsforum, read and digest all of the
information and type in an authoritative post for the poor fellow. Then
you might understand why no one will do that for you.

Moron.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 2:56:03 AM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > That's probably correct, because the Fusion runs out of steam about then.
> > But, as I said, even if it went to 100% utilization, it would still drop
> > frames.
>
> I think you're a bit confused about what CPU utilization means.

No, I'm not.

> Comparatively speaking, CPU utilization is a BAD thing.

I understand that.

> It means that
> something can do the same job, but requires less work to do so. In the
> previous example, the Fusion used about 33% where as the wonder
> required over 65%. That means that the Fusion requires the CPU to
> about half the work of the Wonder. Any capture card that requires 100%
> utilization will in fact ALWAYS drop frames.

This isn't true. Using more CPU can stop frames from being dropped, while
using less drops frames.

What I said was that the Fusion drops frames, and even increasing its
CPU usage to 100% won't stop that.

Software can artifically limit its CPU usage, and the Fusion does that
when DxVA is present. It merely hands off the frame to the video card
and lets the chips fall where they may. If, instead, it used a bit more
CPU before the handoff, it might possibly be able to keep up.
Unfortunately, the Fusion software isn't written that well.

> BTW, I'm not adverse to spending 5
> hours doing research, but there's no point in wasting the time if
> someone who already knows it can answer the question in 5 minutes.

There is no way to answer the "which card should I get?" question that
quickly unless you want me to just tell you which one to get and you
blindly follow what I say. If you want to make a completely informed
decision, you need to find out what all the problems are with each card,
and what solutions (if any) those problems have.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/CatsAndDo...
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 2:59:54 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> There you go again, Jeff. If you don't want to actually provide useful
> information _here_ then why are you still hanging around here?

It is not my job to spend hours educating people. When a question becomes
something that I can't answer in just a few minutes, I direct people to
a fuller body of knowledge that they can peruse at their leisure.

It appears the OP understands how to do that, and will get the full gory
details of the experience of many hundreds of people who use the various
HDTV capture cards by reading at AVS Forum.

If he then comes back with questions that he still hasn't found answers for,
I'll be happy to try, because he tried to learn it himself first.

This is unlike you. See the difference?

--
Jeff Rife | "Having your book turned into a movie is like
| seeing your ox turned into bouillon cubes."
|
| -- John Le Carré
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 3:14:27 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>There you go again, Jeff. If you don't want to actually provide useful
>>information _here_ then why are you still hanging around here?
>
>
> It is not my job to spend hours educating people. When a question becomes
> something that I can't answer in just a few minutes, I direct people to
> a fuller body of knowledge that they can peruse at their leisure.
>
> It appears the OP understands how to do that, and will get the full gory
> details of the experience of many hundreds of people who use the various
> HDTV capture cards by reading at AVS Forum.
>
> If he then comes back with questions that he still hasn't found answers for,
> I'll be happy to try, because he tried to learn it himself first.
>
> This is unlike you. See the difference?
>

I'm sure the moron doesn't.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 5:14:02 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:35:40 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:53:43 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
|>
|> |> Well, it would be nice if you posted some *real* info on the MyHD cards
|> |> and software, but so far you have not.
|> |
|> | OK, so when did the "let's post here and get everybody to do all my
|> | research" trend start? Go read at AVS Forum and you will learn everything
|> | you need to know about *every* HDTV card...all their ups and downs. I
|> | assumed you had done that but were just confused, but now I see that we
|> | have yet another person who wants to be spoon-fed.
|>
|> There you go again, Jeff. If you don't want to actually provide useful
|> information _here_
|
| Why don't you go over to the avsforum, read and digest all of the
| information and type in an authoritative post for the poor fellow. Then
| you might understand why no one will do that for you.

No one is obligated to answer any question. However, an attempt to do so
brings the expectation of doing so in a reasoanble way. Jeff Rife should
simply have not attempted to do so if he is unable to do so in an
authoritative way (and so many of his posts ... and yours ... indicate a
lack of being an informative authority on these subjects).


| Moron.

Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> will find any and all excuses
to avoid a technical discussion based on the facts, merit, logic,
and/or analysis of the topic at hand, preferring instead to twist or
selectively interpret what people say in order to find a means to make
personal attacks, or incite flame wars. If you catch him doing this,
you can help others by posting a followup that points out the errors
in his postings. There might be hope in salvaging what could otherwise
be a smart person.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 5:28:08 AM

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

On 26 Sep 2005 16:57:30 -0700 semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:

| I've spent a lot of time looking at other cards, but only started
| looking at the MyHD recently and with the glitch on their site I didn't
| have much to go on at the time. BTW, I'm not adverse to spending 5
| hours doing research, but there's no point in wasting the time if
| someone who already knows it can answer the question in 5 minutes.

While keeping in mind that no one is obligated to post an answer to any
question asked, it has been considered reasonable that if someone does
post a followup, that it do something reasonable, like actually answer the
question, or ask more about the question to narrow down what is actually
asked. Opinions are also generally acceptable, but should be obvious that
it is an opinion (though not much of one unless at least some foundation
is also provided). And, of course, sometimes there are opportunities for
simple humorous quips. 99.99% of USENET participants generally tend to
follow these ideals. 0.01% can still be annoying, especially in the few
newsgroups where there is more than an average number, such as here.
Unfortunately, Jeff Rife, and a couple others, have shown this tendency
almost the entire time I have been reading and posting here. You can
ignore them, or point out the error of their ways (if you don't mind being
ignored). Do be prepared for a personal attack, but don't let it upset
you as it is simply their nature to do those things.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 5:28:09 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2005 16:57:30 -0700 semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> | I've spent a lot of time looking at other cards, but only started
> | looking at the MyHD recently and with the glitch on their site I didn't
> | have much to go on at the time. BTW, I'm not adverse to spending 5
> | hours doing research, but there's no point in wasting the time if
> | someone who already knows it can answer the question in 5 minutes.
>
> While keeping in mind that no one is obligated to post an answer to any
> question asked, it has been considered reasonable that if someone does
> post a followup, that it do something reasonable, like actually answer the
> question, or ask more about the question to narrow down what is actually
> asked.

Care to explain why you didn't do so?

Moron.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 10:12:27 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> This isn't true. Using more CPU can stop frames from being dropped, while
> using less drops frames.
>
> What I said was that the Fusion drops frames, and even increasing its
> CPU usage to 100% won't stop that.

Not realy. There's a difference between using the CPU and wasting it,
however both is measured as utilization.

> Software can artifically limit its CPU usage, and the Fusion does that
> when DxVA is present. It merely hands off the frame to the video card
> and lets the chips fall where they may. If, instead, it used a bit more
> CPU before the handoff, it might possibly be able to keep up.
> Unfortunately, the Fusion software isn't written that well.

Maybe or maybe not. Simply using more CPU time isn't going to fix
buggy software. Either it might improve it or simply make it less
efficient.

> There is no way to answer the "which card should I get?" question that
> quickly unless you want me to just tell you which one to get and you
> blindly follow what I say. If you want to make a completely informed
> decision, you need to find out what all the problems are with each card,
> and what solutions (if any) those problems have.

I'm not asking anyone to tell me which card to get, just for an
informed opinion.
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 12:18:10 PM

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

In article <11jhe5ic2oamp62@corp.supernews.com>,
Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>>
>> While keeping in mind that no one is obligated to post an answer to any
>> question asked
[[...]

Blah.

>Care to explain why you didn't do so?
>
>Moron.

Blah.

Guys, can you two please just stop bickering in every single thread? You
both radically drop the signal-to-noise ratio, and I don't particularly
like adding people to my killfile, as sometimes even bickerers have
something interesting to say.

Can we please just leave it at you don't like each other and just STFU?
You really don't need to follow up each others posts just to moan or
be abusive.

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 3:12:15 PM

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

(semi_charm@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I'm not asking anyone to tell me which card to get, just for an
> informed opinion.

OK, then, my informed opinion is don't waste time or money on the lesser
cards, and get a MyHD MDP-130. The bugs in both Fusion and ATI aren't worth
the trouble. If you want to go on the cheap, get a used MDP-120 or MDP-100.

At this point, either you can believe my opinion, or you can go find
resources elsewhere, since nobody else here has any experience with
multiple cards.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/AmericaOnline...
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 4:05:40 PM

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

semi_charm@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm not asking anyone to tell me which card to get, just for an
> informed opinion.

For what it's worth, I've done the research for my own needs, and I've
decided to buy the MyHD 130 card. For me, the main benefits are the QAM
receiver and the hardware decoding.

Your needs may differ, but this is the right one for me.
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 9:12:28 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> Hitting the CPU power ceiling is not the only way to lose frames.
> Certainly if your CPU is below the level needed to sustain the frame rate,
> frames can get dropped. But frame drops can happen due to a lot of other
> reasons, including software not well designed to interface properly with
> hardware that may have been designed too complex. I don't know the
> specifics in this case, but I have worked on drivers for other kinds of
> devices and found many kinds off issues similar to frame drops in video,
> and have seen many ways software and hardware can interface poorly. So it
> is no surprise to me that you can lose frames even with the CPU loafing
> along at 5%.

I know, I was merely replying to Jeff's insistance that maxing out the
CPU would somehow improve the situation. My point is that given that
two products that work equally, lower CPU usage is better.

> It depends on the particulars of the hardware, and often the OS as well
> (for example how well the OS can provide interrupt scheduling to let a
> driver fill a hardware buffer quick enough).

True, there are a number of things on the path from receiver to hard
driver that can drop the ball.

> I think what would be useful is for someone to start a web page/site that
> specifically covers information about all the various cards that can go
> into PCs to provide A/V I/O in various forms (baseband, digitized, RF
> modulated), and cover details about how well they operate, what OS and
> applications are supported, and links to where to buy (the potential
> funding source for the site).

An PC A/V site? Sounds like a good idea to me.
!