Half price, and yet, no one will buy them!!!!!

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

At the local walmarts, they have a clearance on one of their HDTV converter
boxes.

It was originally $180 or so dollars, and they have it at $99 dollars.
The same five converter boxes have been sitting in the clearance section for
over a week, and no one has bought a single one at almost half price.

One box had been opened where it was used for the store display. The other
four boxes still had their factory plastic wrapping.

I will wait to see if they push the price down to $50 to try to push them
off the shelf. Or they may just send them back to the factory if they don't
sell at $99.

That is a good sign that you many not even be able to sell converter boxes
at $60. Get all them government subbed boxes out there at $60 dollars a
piece, and no one buys them. Now that would be a black eye for DTV.

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote in message
news:7Nyze.400803$cg1.748@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> At the local walmarts, they have a clearance on one of their HDTV
converter
> boxes.
>
> It was originally $180 or so dollars, and they have it at $99 dollars.
> The same five converter boxes have been sitting in the clearance section
for
> over a week, and no one has bought a single one at almost half price.
>

All: Please relate experiences or anecdotes for the Walmart boxes'
performance. I use a Samsung SIR-T151, which seems to work well, but if I
can pick up a decent "second box" for cheap, I will.

Please reply to group. Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:32:51 GMT N9WOS <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

| At the local walmarts, they have a clearance on one of their HDTV converter
| boxes.
|
| It was originally $180 or so dollars, and they have it at $99 dollars.
| The same five converter boxes have been sitting in the clearance section for
| over a week, and no one has bought a single one at almost half price.

$99 is still above my price point for buying.


| One box had been opened where it was used for the store display. The other
| four boxes still had their factory plastic wrapping.
|
| I will wait to see if they push the price down to $50 to try to push them
| off the shelf. Or they may just send them back to the factory if they don't
| sell at $99.

I'm waiting for $40.


| That is a good sign that you many not even be able to sell converter boxes
| at $60. Get all them government subbed boxes out there at $60 dollars a
| piece, and no one buys them. Now that would be a black eye for DTV.

I'm in no hurry.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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.video.digital-tv (More info?)

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
newsash2l2vv5@news1.newsguy.com...

> What will they do for people located in places where the analog signal
> is already snowy?

Maybe give them crystal-clear pictures.

Technically, the reasoning is this: Figure a noise-free analog picture
needs a S/N ratio
of 46 dB ("TASO Excellent). If the digital signal can be received with a
20 dB C/N ratio,
I believe a perfect picture will result most of the time. Digital
transmitters are generally
less powerful than their analog elders, but the difference isn't great
enough to throw away
the digital advantage.

Anecdotally, I am 125 miles south of Mt Wilson, the site of 99% of LA's TV
transmitters. I can
count on one hand the number of days that I have seen a noise-free analog
picture from LA, but
I get perfect digital reception almost all the time, even considering
interference from some low-power
local analog broadcasters on the same channels as some of the LA digitals.

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:49:06 -0700 Sal M. Onella <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| newsash2l2vv5@news1.newsguy.com...
|
|> What will they do for people located in places where the analog signal
|> is already snowy?
|
| Maybe give them crystal-clear pictures.

Or not.


| Technically, the reasoning is this: Figure a noise-free analog picture
| needs a S/N ratio
| of 46 dB ("TASO Excellent). If the digital signal can be received with a
| 20 dB C/N ratio,
| I believe a perfect picture will result most of the time. Digital
| transmitters are generally
| less powerful than their analog elders, but the difference isn't great
| enough to throw away
| the digital advantage.

With more information density in the signal, the noise immunity actually
goes down. To be more precise, it's a linear curve in AM modulation, and
a non-linear curve in FM modulation, and a rather abrupt sharp curve in
digital. When the signal is lost, it's really lost.

If you have a minimal amount of noise, digital "fixes" it because the noise
does not go beyond the bounds of quantization. But the higher data rate of
digital, especially with 1080i or 720p running over it, pushes the bounds
of that noise immunity because the bounds of quantization are now smaller
to accomodate the higher data rate. Note that quantization can be in both
signal level as well as transition timing.


| Anecdotally, I am 125 miles south of Mt Wilson, the site of 99% of LA's TV
| transmitters. I can
| count on one hand the number of days that I have seen a noise-free analog
| picture from LA, but
| I get perfect digital reception almost all the time, even considering
| interference from some low-power
| local analog broadcasters on the same channels as some of the LA digitals.

How much noise are you normally getting on analog?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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.video.digital-tv (More info?)

K. B. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:32:51 GMT, "N9WOS"
> <n9wos@nobugatt.net> posted:
>
>
>>At the local walmarts, they have a clearance on one of their HDTV converter
>>boxes.
>>
>>It was originally $180 or so dollars, and they have it at $99 dollars.
>
>
> I have a Wal-Mart USDTV/Hisense DTV/HDTV STB (paid $125).
> I'm fairly happy with it although the Silver Sensor antenna
> doesn't work much better than a VHF rabbit ears/UHF loop
> antenna at my location, the GE Optima antenna is the best
> I've found so far.
>
> I'm using my 13" Panasonic TV with it (still shopping for a
> "big screen" TV).
>
> Kirk Bayne
> alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
> <http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm>


just installed an Optoma H31 myself. 1000-bucks - 12ft screen.

Not HD. fine by me a don't have cable and could care less.

DVD rez. is what it is made for!!.........even VHS looks decent on this
thing!

checkout...........www.projectorcentral.com


--

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.

4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969