I have been browsing the forum for a while...but I see little commentary on the upcoming North American digital/high definition TV changes!
I feel the ball was dropped ten years ago when the FCC seemed to make more shifts than a moth in a wind storm concerning the HDS/NA broadcast standards.
Let me elaborate a bit: when stereo LPs hit the market, there was a simple logic applied in the L+R/L-R matrix cut in the vinyl groove. Listeners with monaural equipment weren't left out of the picture.
When stereo FM broadcast was developed, an ingenious subcarrier system was developed, again saving listeners with monaural equipment the sudden drop in level that would have happened with other modulation methods.
When color television was developed, the black and white viewers weren't left in the cold by the application of an ingenious chroma signal; most have never known that an analog color TV signal gets the color literally "painted" atop the basic b&w raster. (Those who moan over colorized movies don't know that the chroma killer is your friend.)
How about stereo AM broadcast? Though it didn't quite catch on (and would have been nice for interview formats if used right), the system allowed the masses to listen on in peace...
Finally, we arrive, in 1991, as Philips parades the HDS/NA 16:9 digital/analog video broadcast standard. How clever! I thought, a digital video carrier with an analog component interwoven. The beauty of the system was its simplicity: as above, the users of the current analog system (all of us at the moment) could march on, and see an image that included a pan-and-scan of the full image the digital viewers were watching. The downside of this format was bandwidth; for example, broadcast channels 2 and 4 would take up part of channel 3...of course, this original staggering was practical in the days when we all relied on bank-switched inductors to control our TV tuners.
As the consumer equipment improved by attrition, as it indeed has, the "sticker shock" of switching to new equipment has been as painless as possible.
Silly me, things like IDTV were on display, and the lessons of Sony and Beta/VHS seemed about to repeat themselves.
I could see the writing on the wall: 1991 CES, Philips was showing the system with a beautiful display, tuxedos donned, champagne just inside the door, by invitation only (well, I found my way in anyway...😉 a manufacturer's badge is quite handy at CES). I feel completely vindicated about it all, as I politely commented with those present that such frivolous things as being "elitist" about the new system would come back to haunt them... I have good friends at Sony. They know this.
Fast forward to 2002. I have been out of the consumer electronics scene for a few years, and I am reading the upcoming transition (digital TV broadcast) particulars as published by the Federal Communications Commission.. The picture is not pretty, folks. All I can say is that a lot of champagne was enjoyed during our last presidential administration.
The transition to digital won't be an easy one, in my opinion. I have a soft spot in my heart for the millions of poor Americans out there that get their daily dose of news and entertainment via the "rabbit ears". There are millions who cannot spare the monthly subscription fees of cable or satellite services. Feeding the children and paying the rent are bigger priorities. Not much commentary is out there about the prospect of lumping several hundred dollars for a digital/NTSC video tuner/convertor.
So far, all I see is numbers in the wind, between $500-800 at present.
Hm...with television sets running $100 or so for a 19-inch model (I am talking about a basic set here, no stereo, PIP, et cetera..), just how can one justify at least FIVE TIMES that price for compatibility with the new system?
Is it just me, or is some snow present in this picture? Herein lies the crux of my thread: any comments on the upcoming changes?
I feel the ball was dropped ten years ago when the FCC seemed to make more shifts than a moth in a wind storm concerning the HDS/NA broadcast standards.
Let me elaborate a bit: when stereo LPs hit the market, there was a simple logic applied in the L+R/L-R matrix cut in the vinyl groove. Listeners with monaural equipment weren't left out of the picture.
When stereo FM broadcast was developed, an ingenious subcarrier system was developed, again saving listeners with monaural equipment the sudden drop in level that would have happened with other modulation methods.
When color television was developed, the black and white viewers weren't left in the cold by the application of an ingenious chroma signal; most have never known that an analog color TV signal gets the color literally "painted" atop the basic b&w raster. (Those who moan over colorized movies don't know that the chroma killer is your friend.)
How about stereo AM broadcast? Though it didn't quite catch on (and would have been nice for interview formats if used right), the system allowed the masses to listen on in peace...
Finally, we arrive, in 1991, as Philips parades the HDS/NA 16:9 digital/analog video broadcast standard. How clever! I thought, a digital video carrier with an analog component interwoven. The beauty of the system was its simplicity: as above, the users of the current analog system (all of us at the moment) could march on, and see an image that included a pan-and-scan of the full image the digital viewers were watching. The downside of this format was bandwidth; for example, broadcast channels 2 and 4 would take up part of channel 3...of course, this original staggering was practical in the days when we all relied on bank-switched inductors to control our TV tuners.
As the consumer equipment improved by attrition, as it indeed has, the "sticker shock" of switching to new equipment has been as painless as possible.
Silly me, things like IDTV were on display, and the lessons of Sony and Beta/VHS seemed about to repeat themselves.
I could see the writing on the wall: 1991 CES, Philips was showing the system with a beautiful display, tuxedos donned, champagne just inside the door, by invitation only (well, I found my way in anyway...😉 a manufacturer's badge is quite handy at CES). I feel completely vindicated about it all, as I politely commented with those present that such frivolous things as being "elitist" about the new system would come back to haunt them... I have good friends at Sony. They know this.
Fast forward to 2002. I have been out of the consumer electronics scene for a few years, and I am reading the upcoming transition (digital TV broadcast) particulars as published by the Federal Communications Commission.. The picture is not pretty, folks. All I can say is that a lot of champagne was enjoyed during our last presidential administration.
The transition to digital won't be an easy one, in my opinion. I have a soft spot in my heart for the millions of poor Americans out there that get their daily dose of news and entertainment via the "rabbit ears". There are millions who cannot spare the monthly subscription fees of cable or satellite services. Feeding the children and paying the rent are bigger priorities. Not much commentary is out there about the prospect of lumping several hundred dollars for a digital/NTSC video tuner/convertor.
So far, all I see is numbers in the wind, between $500-800 at present.
Hm...with television sets running $100 or so for a 19-inch model (I am talking about a basic set here, no stereo, PIP, et cetera..), just how can one justify at least FIVE TIMES that price for compatibility with the new system?
Is it just me, or is some snow present in this picture? Herein lies the crux of my thread: any comments on the upcoming changes?
I believe you have described the situation accurately, however by your own admission you have a soft spot for those unable to afford a set top decoder plus whatever ongoing fees are applicable.
Governments do not care about poor people. They say they do and at election time they go out and kiss babies but it is a shallow action.
What really determines present day policies are not Governments or caring citizens. Comerce is now totally controlled by the law of supply and demand.
I always believed the strong helped those less fortunate but that seems to be an old fashioned idea. Except on this forum where people do help each other.
Governments do not care about poor people. They say they do and at election time they go out and kiss babies but it is a shallow action.
What really determines present day policies are not Governments or caring citizens. Comerce is now totally controlled by the law of supply and demand.
I always believed the strong helped those less fortunate but that seems to be an old fashioned idea. Except on this forum where people do help each other.
The government doesn't care if poor people get health care, but they should care if they get to watch TV? That'll be the day. But the fact is that unluss analog TV is phased out, there will always be $100 32" analog sets on sale at places while the DTV equivilent will be more. Simple economics. Once analog sets become worthless (i.e. no analog broadcasts) you'll start to see some bargain-brand DTV sets poping up.
Only two ways it will work. Not allow manufacturers to sell analog TVs, or force broadcasters to stop broadcasting analog. The gov't went w/ the second.
Only two ways it will work. Not allow manufacturers to sell analog TVs, or force broadcasters to stop broadcasting analog. The gov't went w/ the second.
(sigh)
Well, we're concerned with the electronics aspect here, as this is an Audio/Video DIY forum 😀
Health care is not mentioned per se in the Constitution, but open communication is. I for one see that devices employing CRTs have become the main means of disseminating information and news these days...granted, the content can be debated ad infinitum, but I believe most readers here understand my point.
Using government to push "popular" mandates upon the people makes as much sense as reinventing health care. I think we saw enough of that activity recently as well. I am alarmed as we see industries "bending the senators' ears" as well as lobbyists for whatever cause is the most trendy...
From the previous post, there is a third option: let the free market determine the course of action. If DTV is indeed the answer, the viewers can go and buy it. Planned obsolescence makes little sense- look at Japan's woes. How many of you would be happy if the government told you that class-A operation was horribly inefficient, that your electric bill would include a penalty and that this dandy Bose table radio is all you need?
Not for me, thank you.
On the other hand, I have been doing a bit of reading about commercial radio broadcasting's upcoming work. IBOC digital broadcasting follows the logical historical model I first described. This path is far more reasonable than abolishment of an existing successful format.
While the classic plate-modulated AM broadcast transmitters cannot readily transmit the digital carrier, most broadcasters have already gone to the digital transmitters such as the Harris units. This was a simple choice of economy: one can replace components in an aging transmitter, that is far less efficient than the new units, or install a new unit; the newer designs can much more readily be adapted for the digital data stream. Transmitters of up to 100 kW capability have banks of hot-swappable output stages (1kW each)....very nice indeed!
To a broadcaster, transmitter downtime, maintenance, and efficiency are the most important factors. The consoles of the broadcast studio have been "going digital" over the last 20 years. Again, the free market worked here: it is more logical to install a completely digital system than add incompatible devices and successive DA/AD convertors. Cabling and recabling the studio makes for an engineer's nightmare.
Standing inside an RCA BT50F, replete with its bank of 5671 output triodes, fed by huge fans, was an incredible experience, but the commercial market has gone to the more cost-effective computer controlled designs. The little modern silver boxes are the way of the future.
Well, we're concerned with the electronics aspect here, as this is an Audio/Video DIY forum 😀
Health care is not mentioned per se in the Constitution, but open communication is. I for one see that devices employing CRTs have become the main means of disseminating information and news these days...granted, the content can be debated ad infinitum, but I believe most readers here understand my point.
Using government to push "popular" mandates upon the people makes as much sense as reinventing health care. I think we saw enough of that activity recently as well. I am alarmed as we see industries "bending the senators' ears" as well as lobbyists for whatever cause is the most trendy...
From the previous post, there is a third option: let the free market determine the course of action. If DTV is indeed the answer, the viewers can go and buy it. Planned obsolescence makes little sense- look at Japan's woes. How many of you would be happy if the government told you that class-A operation was horribly inefficient, that your electric bill would include a penalty and that this dandy Bose table radio is all you need?
Not for me, thank you.
On the other hand, I have been doing a bit of reading about commercial radio broadcasting's upcoming work. IBOC digital broadcasting follows the logical historical model I first described. This path is far more reasonable than abolishment of an existing successful format.
While the classic plate-modulated AM broadcast transmitters cannot readily transmit the digital carrier, most broadcasters have already gone to the digital transmitters such as the Harris units. This was a simple choice of economy: one can replace components in an aging transmitter, that is far less efficient than the new units, or install a new unit; the newer designs can much more readily be adapted for the digital data stream. Transmitters of up to 100 kW capability have banks of hot-swappable output stages (1kW each)....very nice indeed!
To a broadcaster, transmitter downtime, maintenance, and efficiency are the most important factors. The consoles of the broadcast studio have been "going digital" over the last 20 years. Again, the free market worked here: it is more logical to install a completely digital system than add incompatible devices and successive DA/AD convertors. Cabling and recabling the studio makes for an engineer's nightmare.
Standing inside an RCA BT50F, replete with its bank of 5671 output triodes, fed by huge fans, was an incredible experience, but the commercial market has gone to the more cost-effective computer controlled designs. The little modern silver boxes are the way of the future.
W/ the free market approach we would never see DTV. There are conflicts of interest between broadcasters and TV manfactururers. Why should the networks broadcast HDTV when the sets aren't available? Why would anyone buy a set when there is nothing to watch? Kind of like the chicken or the egg. There is no open free market in broadcasting because it is a closed market. Every bit of available bandwith is shared among a handful of channels. You need the gov't to step in when things get this complicated. An Adam Smith approach would mean duopolies, etc.
I truely think the biggest mistake was not making DVDs high-definition and all DVD players DTV compatible. That would have motivated people to buy HDTV sets despite the lack of available programming.
I truely think the biggest mistake was not making DVDs high-definition and all DVD players DTV compatible. That would have motivated people to buy HDTV sets despite the lack of available programming.
Lol...you're right on the biggest sticky point: bandwidth. Have you seen how incredibly valuable "bits of the radio pie" are lately, as companies vie for space?
This is the stuff (read "money" here) that makes Washington buzz with activity.
Bandwidth is important you see, as cable and satellite providers want really badly to occupy 24 transponders all night airing infomercials from the Juiceman and Carlton Sheets....
This is the stuff (read "money" here) that makes Washington buzz with activity.
Bandwidth is important you see, as cable and satellite providers want really badly to occupy 24 transponders all night airing infomercials from the Juiceman and Carlton Sheets....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.