[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.

[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

[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?

[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, 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

[[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

[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.

[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. ;-)

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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. ;-)

[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?

[G-squared]

On Feb 21, 7:58*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.
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?

Depending on the quality of the Y/C separator in the set, the
difference could be very subtle. As far as the source being HD, you're
converting it back to NTSC. If you had a really good feed before, how
could you tell a difference? The best source I ever saw on the old 35"
set was the 2003 Rose Parade on analog OTA KTLA down converted from
the HD feed.

GG

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Arny Krueger]

"G-squared" wrote in message


On Feb 21, 7:58 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.
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?

Depending on the quality of the Y/C separator in the set,
the difference could be very subtle.

CV (YUV) from sources from other than a NTSC TV signal need not pass through
a Y/C separator.

The NTSC Y/C separator inside the TV set can't possibly have as much
bandwidth of a good quality CV decoder driven by a first rate HDTV signal.
Even just S-Video can have more bandwidth than a NTSC signal can handle.

As far as the source being HD, you're converting it back to NTSC.

CV need not be downconverted to NTSC for analog TVs that can properly handle
CV. I don't know why one would do such a thing unless there was some NTSC
stumbling block in the signal path.

If you had a really good feed before, how could you tell a difference?

The really good feed can come from a higher bandwidth source than mere NTSC.

The best source I ever saw on the old 35" set was the
2003 Rose Parade on analog OTA KTLA down converted from
the HD feed.

The old 35" set probably didn't have YUV inputs.

[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!

[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!
===============================

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"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?


Not if they're ABX'd, no.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" wrote in message
news:85kvj.43691$9j6.146@attbi_s22
Arny Krueger wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
news:lXevj.43609$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?

Not if they're ABX'd, no.

We've done video ABX tests and had results that were pretty consistent with
the video state of the art. I take it that you have had some problems?

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

I've actually started watching TV now that I get it in HD. I'm sure I'll
quit when the neato factor wears off. Digital reception over here is WAY
better than analog, it's clear as a bell and there are more channels on
digital than analog. Rabbit ears are all that I need and multipath
doesn't seem to be an issue at all (if it is, I can't tell from where
I'm sitting)

[David Grant]

That box has NO digital output!


Hence my follow-up post over 24hours ago.

[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'

[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...)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 10:43*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"G-squared" wrote in message

news:e2481639-6a47-4f78-bbea-


On Feb 21, 7:58 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.
* 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?
Depending on the quality of the Y/C separator in the set,
the difference could be very subtle.

CV (YUV) from sources from other than a NTSC TV signal need not
pass through
a Y/C separator.

True but the subject is the subsidized converter box which is NOT
intended to be the best performance

The NTSC Y/C separator inside the TV set can't possibly have as
much
bandwidth of a good quality CV decoder driven by a first rate HDTV
signal.
Even just S-Video can have more bandwidth than a NTSC signal can
handle.

S-video has exactly the same bandwidth as NTSC. The only difference
from composite is the modulated subcarrier is not added onto the Y
signal and instead is routed out separately.

*As far as the source being HD, you're converting it back to
NTSC.

CV need not be downconverted to NTSC for analog TVs that can
properly handle
CV. I don't know why one would do such a thing unless there was
some NTSC
stumbling block in the signal path.

It does if it's for the subsidized converter box. If you're buying a
better grade box you'd be correct.

If you had a really good feed before, how could you tell a
difference?

The really good feed can come from a higher bandwidth source than
mere NTSC.

Yeah but those folks have been watching NTSC on an analog set. So how
could they tell the difference?


The best source I ever saw on the old 35" set was the
2003 Rose Parade on analog OTA KTLA down converted from
the HD feed.

The old 35" set probably didn't have YUV inputs.

True, but it doesn't alter the fact that it was the BEST OTA analog I
ever saw on that set.

GG

[Doc]

On Feb 21, 3:39*pm, dmaster wrote:

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? *


Nope, you've grasped what I was asking. It wasn't clear to me if HD is
available over the air or if you had to pay for it. Your answer
clarified this.

However, I still don't like how HD TV looks when viewed on actual HD
TV's and computer monitors, all kinds of artifacts that I find I don't
see on an analog set - at the top of the list is the "swarm of bees"
effect whenever there's motion. Everyone says "you haven't seen a good
one set up correctly" etc. I have yet to see one, either in someone's
house or set up in special display areas to showcase them in the
stores, whether the source is Blu-Ray, HD disc, or off whatever feed
they have that I haven't had a problem with. Is it possible there
isn't ONE competent setup person in ANY of the stores around here?

I'll find a big analog TV so I can get a decent-sized letterbox image
until it dies and I can't find another one and have no other choice.

[William Sommerwerck]

True but the subject is the subsidized converter box which
is NOT intended to be the best performance.

Hello? The subsidy is a fixed discount. The government doesn't care which
converter you buy, as long as it meets certain minimum standards.