[Doc]

I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

[David Grant]

"Doc" wrote in message
...
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

Need to know more about the rest of the system... what are you interfacing
with? Are you using the digital output, and if so, into what?

[David Grant]

"David Grant" wrote in message
...

"Doc" wrote in message
...
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

Need to know more about the rest of the system... what are you interfacing
with? Are you using the digital output, and if so, into what?

Sorry, just looked up the box... no digital output. Nevermind then.

[Doc]

On Feb 20, 12:28*pm, "David Grant" wrote:

Need to know more about the rest of the system... what are you interfacing
with? Are you using the digital output, and if so, into what?


Just to clarify, I'm using a Walmart cheapie antenna going through an
amplifier, just going to an analog TV. Actually, I've got it going
through a VCR but I wouldn't think that would be an issue.

As far as I can tell, it's an "it either works or it doesn't"
proposition. It seems once the signal falls below a certain threshold,
you don't get a picture. If it bounces around that threshold, the
picture gets corrupted with pixelation artifacts.

[Richard C.]

"David Grant" wrote in message
...

"Doc" wrote in message
...
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

Need to know more about the rest of the system... what are you interfacing
with? Are you using the digital output, and if so, into what?
=============================
That box has NO digital output!

[David Grant]

That box has NO digital output!


Hence my follow-up post over 24hours ago.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

If it sounds as good as my cell phone, you could stomp on it.

Let us know what happens. I would try ANOTHER brand unit
and hear what happens. It seems like there are cheaper models ??


greg

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article ,
Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

If it sounds as good as my cell phone, you could stomp on it.

Let us know what happens. I would try ANOTHER brand unit
and hear what happens. It seems like there are cheaper models ??

I just love digital picture artifacts.


greg

[Ron Capik]

GregS wrote:

...snip...

I just love digital picture artifacts.

greg

Green Xenon (aka:Radium) is that you?


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

On 2ÔÂ21ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç2ʱ17·Ö, Ron Capik wrote:
GregS wrote:
...snip...

I just love digital picture artifacts.

greg

Green Xenon (aka:Radium) is that you?

Later...

Ron Capik
--

http://www.885921.com/channel.php?cid=19

[Arny Krueger]

"Doc" wrote in message


I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter
box at Best Buy.

AFAIK Insignia is a BB house brand.

The picture comes in clear but on some
channels, I've noticed what I'd call an aliasing artifact
in the sound - overly shrill and harsh on the highs. It
seems to be more prevalent on certain channels.

Interesting. I watch HDTV using a HDTV receiver card in my PC. Sound seems
to be OK.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a
common problem?

I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.

Anything that can be done about it?

Take it back and get a good one?

[Doc]

On Feb 20, 1:15*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.


I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I happened to be
in the store. By "under-specified" what are you referring to?

As far as features, the user interface seems pretty well thought out
and intuitive. I don't know what other features I'd expect it to have.
One of the very useful features is a beep tone for adjusting the
antenna so you can tell if the signal is getting stronger or weaker
without having to see the screen, though there is a "thermometer"
display as well.

The only problem I really have is the sound issue, which unfortunately
is a pretty major issue. I'll be taking it back if I don't divine
something that can be done about it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Doc" wrote in message

On Feb 20, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web
site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.


I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I
happened to be in the store. By "under-specified" what
are you referring to?

The only specs for it that I can find are like the dimensions of its case,
and other equally obvious stuff.

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Doc" wrote in message

On Feb 20, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web
site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.

I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I
happened to be in the store. By "under-specified" what
are you referring to?

The only specs for it that I can find are like the dimensions of its case,
and other equally obvious stuff.

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.


Proof?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" wrote in message
news:lXevj.43609$yE1.7395@attbi_s21
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Doc" wrote in message

On Feb 20, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB
web site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.

I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I
happened to be in the store. By "under-specified" what
are you referring to?

The only specs for it that I can find are like the
dimensions of its case, and other equally obvious stuff.

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector
for video is a stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with
S-video and component video inputs, that would give a
better picture.

Proof?

Are you saying that you can't tell the difference in picture quality betwen
a good TV running off of a plain old baseband coax output, and CV, where the
source material is first rate HDTV?

[Doug Smith W9WI]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:57:15 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:
For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.

I don't think boxes with component outputs are eligible for the voucher
program.

[Arny Krueger]

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:57:15 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector
for video is a stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with
S-video and component video inputs, that would give a
better picture.

I don't think boxes with component outputs are eligible
for the voucher program.

Ya can't buy my videophile card for $40, Mr. Big government. ;-)

[Jer]

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:57:15 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:
For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.

I don't think boxes with component outputs are eligible for the voucher
program.





Who said anything about a voucher program?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

[Doc]

On Feb 21, 4:57*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.


Actually, it also has composite jacks. I assume it's oriented toward
those like myself who have analog tv's and no cable. Mine has
composite jacks but some older sets don't. I would imagine there are
few people with a 16:9 High-def tv running off rabbit ears. I would
assume they mostly have cable or whatever. Don't most of the newer
16:9's have tuners built in?

Something that's not clear to me, some of the stations specify "HD"
but can you get a high-def image over the air or do you have to have
cable, satellite etc? I realize it's not applicable to an analog tv in
any case.

However, I'm struck by how much better the image is even on this cheap
tv than I ever saw with even the strongest analog station in the area.

[dmaster]

On Feb 21, 11:48*am, Doc wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:57*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.

Actually, it also has composite jacks. I assume it's oriented toward
those like myself who have analog tv's and no cable. Mine has
composite jacks but some older sets don't. *I would imagine there are
few people with a 16:9 High-def tv running off rabbit ears. I would
assume they mostly have cable or whatever. Don't most of the newer
16:9's have tuners built in?

Most do have ATSC/QAM tuners. But don't dismiss rabbit ears. }
Sure, the majority of people use some cable or satellite service, but
I'm one of the minority who only watches OTA. Since the switch to
digital broadcasts, all the broadcasts in my area are easier to
receive and *far* better quality.


Something that's not clear to me, some of the stations specify "HD"
but can you get a high-def image over the air or do you have to have
cable, satellite etc? I realize it's not applicable to an analog tv in
any case.

Did I miss something? Are you asking if HD broadcasts are available
over-the-air? Of course they are. All the networks and most of the
major independents broadcast quite a bit of HD these days. All it
takes is the appropriate antenna (for most people near the broadcast
towers, that could be rabbit ears - Don't forget, unless you live with
a particular reception problem, like a mountain in the way, or live in
an extreme fringe area, (over 40 miles away) digital broadcast are
usually much easier to receive than the analog broadcasts. ) and an
HDTV with an ATSC tuner (which is pretty much all of them for the last
2 years). Of course an external ATSC tuner can be used if needed.


However, I'm struck by how much better the image is even on this cheap
tv than I ever saw with even the strongest analog station in the area.

Certainly. } I use a DVD recorder with an ATSC tuner to feed my
remaining analog TV set. Even downconverted for a standard tube TV,
the improvement in quality is obvious except for the most perfect of
analog broadcasts.


Dan (Woj...)

[Albert Manfredi[_2_]]

On Feb 21, 12:48*pm, Doc wrote:

Actually, it also has composite jacks. I assume it's oriented toward
those like myself who have analog tv's and no cable. Mine has
composite jacks but some older sets don't. *I would imagine there are
few people with a 16:9 High-def tv running off rabbit ears. I would
assume they mostly have cable or whatever. Don't most of the newer
16:9's have tuners built in?

Yes, all new TVs have to have a built-in digital receiver, in the US
that is, if they have any built-in receiver at all. Meaning that plain
monitors are still permitted, but not TVs with only an NTSC (i.e.
analog) tuner. Just as was the case years ago, though, plain old
monitors don't seem to sell well. The receiver part just isn't that
much more of an expense.

Something that's not clear to me, some of the stations specify "HD"
but can you get a high-def image over the air or do you have to have
cable, satellite etc? I realize it's not applicable to an analog tv in
any case.

Absolutely. Just about all prime time shows on OTA stations are
transmitting glorious HD these days. Have been for years, actually.
And PBS stations seem to transmit HD 24/7. Lots of sports are HD too.

However, I'm struck by how much better the image is even on this cheap
tv than I ever saw with even the strongest analog station in the area.

True, if you are downconverting the digital signal to feed a standard
CRT TV, you'll get the equivalent of a really clear, ghost-free, good
color signal. Not much different from a pristine NTSC station. It's
just that this will be the rule for all your local and even not-so-
local stations, as opposed to just the one or two "best" analog
stations in your market.

And the box will also give you the multicast channels, so you get more
choice.

Bert

[Richard C.]

"Doc" wrote in message
...
:

I would imagine there are
few people with a 16:9 High-def tv running off rabbit ears. I would
assume they mostly have cable or whatever. Don't most of the newer
16:9's have tuners built in?

==================================
For several years, the sets did not have tuners built in.
Only in the past year did smaller sets have tuners.

OTA is the best way to receive DTV/HDTV - and it is FREE!

I dumped cable and sat long ago.

[Richard C.]

"Doc" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.


I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I happened to be
in the store. By "under-specified" what are you referring to?

============================
See my review on the site.
The unit is one of the higher priced and has NO digital audio out
and it has NO S-Video out!
===============================

[[email protected]]

On 2ÔÂ21ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç1ʱ25·Ö, Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

http://www.885921.com/channel.php?cid=19

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 20, 12:25 pm, Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

That's interesting and somewhat disappointing. I have an old TV set
and don't watch enough to justify cable or a new set, so I'll probably
buy a digital converter when my $40 coupon arrives. I haven't looked
at the units available yet since I'm not ready to buy.

I live down in a hole and I have a lot of multipath interference here,
even with an outside rotatable antenna. On one of the local channels,
I can get decent sound or decent picture by turning the antenna a few
degrees, but not both. I wonder if this will improve with digital
transmission, or if I just won't get anything.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


On Feb 20, 12:25 pm, Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter
box at Best Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some
channels, I've noticed what I'd call an aliasing
artifact in the sound - overly shrill and harsh on the
highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain channels.

That's interesting and somewhat disappointing. I have an
old TV set and don't watch enough to justify cable or a
new set, so I'll probably buy a digital converter when my
$40 coupon arrives. I haven't looked at the units
available yet since I'm not ready to buy.

If maximizing value is your goal, you probably don't want to buy into this
game early.

I live down in a hole and I have a lot of multipath
interference here, even with an outside rotatable
antenna. On one of the local channels, I can get decent
sound or decent picture by turning the antenna a few
degrees, but not both. I wonder if this will improve with
digital transmission, or if I just won't get anything.

Well, the good news with digital TV is that if you get sound, you will get
picture, and if you get picture, you will get sound. Not only that, for
every main channel you will usually get 2-3 different programs concurrently,
if you get one.

Interestingly enough this rule breaks down for HDTV QAM channels on cable.
My local Comcast system has 333 digital channels, but as promised, only
about a dozen of them are watchable without a magic decoder ring. At this
point the magic decoder ring for PCs requires total re-engineering of the
whole PC from the BIOS on up.

A number of Comcast's 333 digital channels have sound, but put up a nifty
blue graphic of a FM radio, even though the sound is clearly from one of the
cable channels. Comcast's technical staff are about as much on the ball as
ever, I guess. ;-)

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 21, 7:42 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

If maximizing value is your goal, you probably don't want to buy into this
game early.

I'm not eager to buy any time before the signals go away. Nor am I
particularly interested in maximizing value. I just want to watch
something dumb on TV when rec.audio.pro stops amusing me.

[jwvm]

On Feb 21, 7:42 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

Interestingly enough this rule breaks down for HDTV QAM channels on cable.
My local Comcast system has 333 digital channels, but as promised, only
about a dozen of them are watchable without a magic decoder ring. At this
point the magic decoder ring for PCs requires total re-engineering of the
whole PC from the BIOS on up.

A number of Comcast's 333 digital channels have sound, but put up a nifty
blue graphic of a FM radio, even though the sound is clearly from one of the
cable channels. Comcast's technical staff are about as much on the ball as
ever, I guess. ;-)

Of course some cable companies manage to hose up the QAM channels so
even for those you need a magic box. The signal is there per the FCC
requirement but it fades in and out just like OTA. :-(

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:

I live down in a hole and I have a lot of multipath interference here,
even with an outside rotatable antenna. On one of the local channels,
I can get decent sound or decent picture by turning the antenna a few
degrees, but not both. I wonder if this will improve with digital
transmission, or if I just won't get anything.

It will. The one major advantage of the digital format is the ability to
deal with severe multipath.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:

I live down in a hole and I have a lot of multipath interference here,
even with an outside rotatable antenna. On one of the local channels,
I can get decent sound or decent picture by turning the antenna a few
degrees, but not both. I wonder if this will improve with digital
transmission, or if I just won't get anything.

It will. The one major advantage of the digital format is the ability to
deal with severe multipath.

It depends on how severe "severe" is.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:

I live down in a hole and I have a lot of multipath interference here,
even with an outside rotatable antenna. On one of the local channels,
I can get decent sound or decent picture by turning the antenna a few
degrees, but not both. I wonder if this will improve with digital
transmission, or if I just won't get anything.

It will. The one major advantage of the digital format is the ability to
deal with severe multipath.

It depends on how severe "severe" is.

It is able to deal with more severe multipath than I would be willing to
deal with for analogue broadcast.

However, my father would be willing to put up with nearly anything if
the Steelers are playing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 21, 10:12 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

It is able to deal with more severe multipath than I would be willing to
deal with for analogue broadcast.

However, my father would be willing to put up with nearly anything if
the Steelers are playing.

Most people wouldn't put up with the picture that I get. But then a
lot of the time when I'm on the couch with the TV on, I'm reading the
newspaper anyway.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Mike Rivers wrote:

I live down in a hole and I have a lot of multipath
interference here, even with an outside rotatable
antenna. On one of the local channels, I can get decent
sound or decent picture by turning the antenna a few
degrees, but not both. I wonder if this will improve
with digital transmission, or if I just won't get
anything.

It will. The one major advantage of the digital format
is the ability to deal with severe multipath.

Agreed. There seem to be but 3 states of HDTV reception:

1. No picture, no sound, everything blanked.
2. Stop-motion picture and/or intermittent sound
3. About as good as it gets.

[Don Stauffer in Minnesota]

On Feb 20, 11:25 am, Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

I have similar problems with my new HDTV. One of my local channels
has that problem, but only for live broadcasts, mainly of news
programs. All other channels are fine. I have not yet pinged on the
station, but I am assuming that they are having some problems with
their audio setup. Their analog station is fine, it is only on their
digital channel that I notice this.

Also, I notice this on the national news broadcast on that channel.
So I assume the problem is at the transmitter, not at their local news
studio.

[jwvm]

On Feb 21, 10:19 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote:
On Feb 20, 11:25 am, Doc wrote:

I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

I have similar problems with my new HDTV. One of my local channels
has that problem, but only for live broadcasts, mainly of news
programs. All other channels are fine. I have not yet pinged on the
station, but I am assuming that they are having some problems with
their audio setup. Their analog station is fine, it is only on their
digital channel that I notice this.

Also, I notice this on the national news broadcast on that channel.
So I assume the problem is at the transmitter, not at their local news
studio.

It may be a compression artifact. I have noticed a similar effect with
especially severe distortion on sibilants when a track has been
compressed and decompressed multiple times. If you hear the problem
with remote broadcasts (live at the scene of a crash!) this could be
the cause.

[Bob Howes]

"jwvm" wrote in message
...

It may be a compression artifact. I have noticed a similar effect with
especially severe distortion on sibilants when a track has been
compressed and decompressed multiple times. If you hear the problem
with remote broadcasts (live at the scene of a crash!) this could be
the cause.

It almost certainly IS a compression artifact. If you're ever lucky enough
to see raw, uncompressed HDTV pictures, they're simply stunning even up
close to the display. The problems that have been described come from
trying to squeeze too many channels into too little bandwidth.

Bobbsy

[jwvm]

On Feb 27, 12:32 am, "Bob Howes"
wrote:
"jwvm" wrote in message

...



It may be a compression artifact. I have noticed a similar effect with
especially severe distortion on sibilants when a track has been
compressed and decompressed multiple times. If you hear the problem
with remote broadcasts (live at the scene of a crash!) this could be
the cause.

It almost certainly IS a compression artifact. If you're ever lucky enough
to see raw, uncompressed HDTV pictures, they're simply stunning even up
close to the display. The problems that have been described come from
trying to squeeze too many channels into too little bandwidth.

Bobbsy

The sad thing here is that the bandwidth required for audio is much
less than video. Compressing the audio excessively is not going to
provide significant additional bandwidth for the video signal.

[pj]

crossposts noted

Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

Yeah, I've been there with that "aliasing
artifact." Advice: Don't necessarily throw
rocks at the Insignia Box.

Rule of thumb for me: Two channels derived from
OTA seems to work well. Two-channels derived
from whatever is on cable might be harsh (but
not always).

I've had this sound problem with both our
'digital SD' cable box (SA 2100) and with
translation of 5.1 sound into two-channel sound
by our HD box (SA 4240). (Haven't sprung for a
receiver yet as we are in 'technology overload'
around here.)

There are probably better ways of connecting the
4240 to our HDTV but that's way down my list of
things-to-do.

(As an aside, here's Rule #2 for Home
Technology: Do not buy identical Harmony
remotes for two separate systems, then fail to
label them and write down the login's and
passwords for the online profiles.)

'Harsh' was definitely noticeable during the
ProBowl game. We ran sets in three rooms.

One was feeding a R-L signal from the Cox 4240
into our projection HDTV--harsh. When I
switched the HDTV to OTA and let the HDTV
convert the broadcast sound into it's own
"surround-sound" the sound was fine (this HDTV
would probably be classified as a 3.1 with some
screwball, Bose-like, phase shifting to 'fill
the room.')

In another room, Cox's 2100 box was converting
cable's digital (SD) signal into 480i and
two-channel 'stereo' for an older CRT set. That
set also sounded "harsh." (I tend to blame Cox
cable for something it was doing with the Fox
signal.)

In a third room, we had an older EDTV plasma
running from a Samsung 451 tuner, OTA (bunny
ears) with R-L audio (being decoded from
whatever the local Fox station was putting out
on its DTV signal) -- that one sounded clean.

Things will probably be better a year from now.
Meanwhile, keep a cooler of cold beer near the
TV and use it as needed to take the edge off the
sound. {;-)

--
pj