Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
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 |
#42
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"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. |
#43
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Doc" wrote in message
... 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. ============================ I have NONE of that on my HDTV! You must be referring to LCD sets, which have that problem. My Pioneer 710 64" RPTV still has a great picture. ================================ 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? ========================== 100% possible! =========================== 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. |
#44
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 21, 5:24*pm, Doc wrote:
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 wouldn't count on finding any well setup HDTVs in any Big Box store. Nor would I count on finding a well distributed signal. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just wouldn't count on it. Even then, the low priced LCD HDTVs, despite their array of wonderful specs, are the most likely to process signals poorly, especially fast motion sequences. Couple that with large screen sizes and the likelihood that you are examining the pictures from much closer than you normally would watch, and it doesn't surprise me that you'd find artifacts in most every store you visited. 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. Sure, that's your choice, so go ahead and enjoy. Personally, I have no problems with artifacts when watching OTA HDTV or SD-DVDs on my EDTV Plasma (480p) or my 720p bedroom LCD. Digital SD can show artifacts on either set, particularly the 720p LCD. I attribute that to 1. poor processing in the LCD 2. low bit rate encoding of the original analog SD source into digital SD and 3. the magnification of the low resolution picture to fit the HD LCD. Since I also feed the same signals through an ATSC equipped DVD-R to a 32 inch analog CRT TV, I can do direct comparisons. While the low resolution of the CRT hides a multitude of sins, I would always choose to watch the other sets first. Although we refer to analog CRTs as "480i", there is such an immense impovement going from the CRT to the 480p Plasma, that I have to believe the CRT's effective resolution is even lower. Having gotten used to the higher resolution of the Plasma and the LCD, I've really begun to notice the really low screen resolution of the CRT; the individual lines are so apparent from close to the set. Now consider letterboxed wide screen material. You are probably getting no more than 320i on the CRT. And that assumes the CRT can really resolve 480i, which in my case looks pretty doubtful. The lowly ED Plasma gives 480p for 16:9 material, and something like 400p for 2.35:1 material. No contest what-so-ever. The Plasma totally smokes the CRT every time. Again, since I was used to poor quality analog OTA, I used to think ordinary DVDs looked pretty good on the 32" CRT. Once I got the Plasma, I realized just how much of the detail from an *ordinary* DVD was lost by displaying it on the CRT. Or consider showing photos on the CRT. It was hardly worth the effort. The ED Plasma is worlds better, and a true HD set is better yet. The only "advantage" I can truly give my CRT is the ability to hide the poor quality of some source material. But that occasional slight benefit is completely outweighed by the higher resolution of the Plasma or LCD in the vast majority of the cases. Don't get me wrong, OTA digital will make your CRT look better than it ever has, but if you view the same signal on a decent HDTV, you will never go back. Dan (Woj...) |
#45
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
and thus Albert Manfredi inscribed ...
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. That is actually a benefit I hadn't thought about. Right now, there are some analogue channels that are fuzzy, and I still have my VCRs hooked up to tape some of them, and it will make it a lot clearer to record those signals. That was a huge reason why I went to OTA HDTV and recording to my desktop, because what I taped on the VCR was fuzzy at times. Now it won't. -- "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done." --till next time, consul -x- poetry.dolphins-cove.com |
#46
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Doc" wrote in message ... snip 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. =============================================== Could this be from sitting too close? I have heard (but not tested) the rule that 3 times the screen diagonal is the optimum viewing distance for HDTV. Mightn't the artifacts disappear at that distance? No doubt the artifacts are real and essentially unavoidable. Worst I ever saw was some tape made at a big swimming pool. Those random ripples do not compress! |
#47
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Sal M. Onella" wrote
in message news However, I still don't like how HD TV looks when viewed on actual HD TVs 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. I've seen HD many times (don't yet own it), but have never seen such an effect. (I have seen "mosquito noise" on DVDs.) There's obvious smearing on some LCD sets during fast motion, but that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
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. :-( |
#49
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
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. |
#50
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 21, 3:44*pm, wrote:
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. I might have said that S-video has the same luminance bandwidth as COMPOSITE video, but not the same as OTA NTSC. Take the case of a DVD player connected to an analog TV via composite or S-video cable. The reason DVDs look better than standard NTSC OTA shows in this case is that the DVD player can actually squeeze through at least 5.5 MHz of video bandwidth, over composite or S-video. Compared with only 4.2 MHz of luminance bandwidth via the NTSC tuner of the TV. This is because there is no audio carrier to stay away from, in the composite or S-video interfaces, as there is in the analog 6 MHz OTA channel. So no need to roll off luminance as fast. Theoretically, since NTSC video is scanned at 483 * 30 visible horizontal lines/sec, or 14.5 MHz, a baseband video interface should be able to approach half that figure. I think you'll find that if you use a composite or S-video cable, the HDTV image on the older set should look as good as a DVD player's signal, when played over either of these baseband interfaces. Some SD programs, on the other hand, will be very grainy, similar to analog TV. Especially those that the broadcaster upconverted from an analog feed. I won't get into a debate of composite vs S-video. I think there are many variables there, but S-video is probably at least marginally better, in some cases. Reason being, you don't have to depend on the color difference signal being perfectly 90 degrees out of phase with the luminance. If instead you're using the RF cable ouput from box to TV, then the image should be as good as the very best OTA NTSC stations. Which is still a step up, IMO. Bert |
#51
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 26, 5:56*pm, Albert Manfredi wrote:
Theoretically, since NTSC video is scanned at 483 * 30 visible horizontal lines/sec, or *14.5 MHz, a baseband video interface should be able to approach half that figure. Ooops. forgot part of what's involved here. DVDs have 720 pixels in the horizontal. Which means that a line of video luminance consists of max 360 cycles (alternating light and dark pixels). So, including the blanking interval, that makes the bandwidth: 525 lines/frame * 360 cycles/line * 30 frames/sec = 5.67 MHz of video luminace bandwidth maximum. Too much for the NTSC RF to handle, given the audio carrier at 4.5 MHz, but achievable with baseband interfaces. Bert |
#52
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"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 |
#53
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
In article Albert Manfredi writes:
Take the case of a DVD player connected to an analog TV via composite or S-video cable. The reason DVDs look better than standard NTSC OTA shows in this case is that the DVD player can actually squeeze through at least 5.5 MHz of video bandwidth, over composite or S-video. Compared with only 4.2 MHz of luminance bandwidth via the NTSC tuner of the TV. This is because there is no audio carrier to stay away from, in the composite or S-video interfaces, as there is in the analog 6 MHz OTA channel. So no need to roll off luminance as fast. True, also the signal/noise is generally much better. Theoretically, since NTSC video is scanned at 483 * 30 visible horizontal lines/sec, or 14.5 MHz, a baseband video interface should be able to approach half that figure. Huh? This is dimensionally incorrect, and numerically suspect. 483 lines/frame * 30 frames/second = 14490 lines/second Nowhere does this come out to units of Hertz. Similarly, it doesn't come anywhere near 14.5 * 10^6 for the mega part. I think you'll find that if you use a composite or S-video cable, the HDTV image on the older set should look as good as a DVD player's signal, when played over either of these baseband interfaces. Some SD programs, on the other hand, will be very grainy, similar to analog TV. Especially those that the broadcaster upconverted from an analog feed. I won't get into a debate of composite vs S-video. I think there are many variables there, but S-video is probably at least marginally better, in some cases. Reason being, you don't have to depend on the color difference signal being perfectly 90 degrees out of phase with the luminance. This detail is not possible. The color signal is two parts, and they are at 90 degrees phase differenc with each other. They cannot be at 90 degrees difference with the luminance, even if the luminance had a phase reference, which it does not. Alan |
#54
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
On Feb 21, 3:44 pm, wrote: 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. I might have said that S-video has the same luminance bandwidth as COMPOSITE video, but not the same as OTA NTSC. I'm glad you corrected yourself. I had written a correction but it got lost. The bandwidth of the chrominance component of OTA NTSC is far less than that of the luminance - about half. The bandwidth of the luminance component of OTA NTSC is about 4 MHz. The bandwidth of either component of a S-Video connection can be 4 MHz. The bandwidth limitations of broadcast NTSC as compared to the limitations of in-studio NTSC are clearly visible when you can view both the studio video and the video that is sent over the air side-by-side with a good live source. Take the case of a DVD player connected to an analog TV via composite or S-video cable. Good example. The reason DVDs look better than standard NTSC OTA shows in this case is that the DVD player can actually squeeze through at least 5.5 MHz of video bandwidth, over composite or S-video. Compared with only 4.2 MHz of luminance bandwidth via the NTSC tuner of the TV. The video on a DVD is not frequency division multiplexed in analog domain, like NTSC video is. It is time division multiplexed in the digital domain. This is because there is no audio carrier to stay away from, in the composite or S-video interfaces, There is no audio in either composite or S-video interfaces, either in the home or in the studio. The problem with a studio or home compsite signal is that the chroma has to be separated out in the analog domain. Since this process uses frequency division multiplexing, there are naturally bandwidth limitations. For example, in a composite connection, the chroma signal frequency components are interleaved with the luninance signal frequency components in the same band. as there is in the analog 6 MHz OTA channel. So no need to roll off luminance as fast. Theoretically, since NTSC video is scanned at 483 * 30 visible horizontal lines/sec, or 14.5 MHz, a baseband video interface should be able to approach half that figure. This bandwidth is pretty much inherent in the S-video connection, but has to be threaded through a maze of frequency divisions and demodulators for the composite signal. I think you'll find that if you use a composite or S-video cable, the HDTV image on the older set should look as good as a DVD player's signal, when played over either of these baseband interfaces. That is at least a possibility. HDTV signals have greater bandwidth than DVD signals, and by quite a bit. It takes about 2 hours of full DVD-bandwidth signal to create a ca. 4 GB dataset, while it takes only about 30-40 minutes of a full-channel HDTV signal to create a ca. 4 GB dataset. Some SD programs, on the other hand, will be very grainy, similar to analog TV. Especially those that the broadcaster upconverted from an analog feed. Agreed. This can be observed with present-day OTA DTV signals. The big thing about MPEG-coded video is that there are no hard numbers - bandwidth and visual quality can be compromised every which way including loose. I won't get into a debate of composite vs S-video. I think there are many variables there, but S-video is probably at least marginally better, in some cases. One of the problem with S-video is that we observing it as it comes from a number of sources. Originally, it was intended to come from S-Video tapes, which were not all that wonderful. In many cases it comes from an OTA source. The S-video output of a DVD player could be a thing to see, just like a NTSC signal from a DVD player could be quite a thing to see. However, a NTSC signal from a DVD player is going to be decoded in a TV set, and I know of no TV sets that have a separate chroma decoder for the back-panel S-video input. It's easier and more economical to just put S-Video and composite video jacks there. |
#55
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 27, 3:33 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article Albert Manfredi writes: Take the case of a DVD player connected to an analog TV via composite or S-video cable. The reason DVDs look better than standard NTSC OTA shows in this case is that the DVD player can actually squeeze through at least 5.5 MHz of video bandwidth, over composite or S-video. Compared with only 4.2 MHz of luminance bandwidth via the NTSC tuner of the TV. This is because there is no audio carrier to stay away from, in the composite or S-video interfaces, as there is in the analog 6 MHz OTA channel. So no need to roll off luminance as fast. True, also the signal/noise is generally much better. Theoretically, since NTSC video is scanned at 483 * 30 visible horizontal lines/sec, or 14.5 MHz, a baseband video interface should be able to approach half that figure. Huh? This is dimensionally incorrect, and numerically suspect. 483 lines/frame * 30 frames/second = 14490 lines/second Nowhere does this come out to units of Hertz. Similarly, it doesn't come anywhere near 14.5 * 10^6 for the mega part. I think you'll find that if you use a composite or S-video cable, the HDTV image on the older set should look as good as a DVD player's signal, when played over either of these baseband interfaces. Some SD programs, on the other hand, will be very grainy, similar to analog TV. Especially those that the broadcaster upconverted from an analog feed. I won't get into a debate of composite vs S-video. I think there are many variables there, but S-video is probably at least marginally better, in some cases. Reason being, you don't have to depend on the color difference signal being perfectly 90 degrees out of phase with the luminance. This detail is not possible. The color signal is two parts, and they are at 90 degrees phase differenc with each other. They cannot be at 90 degrees difference with the luminance, even if the luminance had a phase reference, which it does not. Alan Very true. The luminance component (Y) contains the fine detail. The chrominance components (I and Q) modulate the color carrier at 3.58 MHz and are in quadrature. The presence of the color carrier and color signals in the luminance signal further degrades the bandwidth of the luminance component resulting in an additional loss of spatial resolution. S-video has separate channels for luminance and chrominance eliminating the loss of spatial resolution. The wider bandwidth from a DVD player, of course, also improves spatial resolution. |
#56
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
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. |
#57
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"jwvm" wrote in message
... The luminance component (Y) contains the fine detail. The chrominance components (I and Q) modulate the color carrier at 3.58 MHz and are in quadrature. The presence of the color carrier and color signals in the luminance signal further degrades the bandwidth of the luminance component resulting in an additional loss of spatial resolution. Not at all true! You need to read up on your color-TV theory. The subcarrier is at a frequency (an odd multiple of half the horizontal scanning rate) that causes its sidebands (which are not continuous, but at multiples of the horizontal scanning frequency) to fall _between_ the sidebands of the luminance signal. There is no loss of luminance information whatever -- unless the receiverlops off the upper part of the composite signal to reduce visible interference. Most modern TVs use multi-frame comb filtering, and do a very good job of extracting the fine detail. |
#58
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. .. One of the problem with S-video is that we observing it as it comes from a number of sources. Originally, it was intended to come from S-Video tapes, which were not all that wonderful. I don't know what you mean by "S-Video tapes". VCRs -- at least, non-studio machines -- traditionally recorded Y and C separately, long before the S output became available (at the time JVC introduced Super VHS). It was a trivial matter to add an S-output jack to any of these machines -- including Beta. Laserdisks recorded the composite video signal. Those with S outputs required an internal comb filter to separate the C. When I got an IDTV, I used the composite player output and let the TV do the separating. |
#59
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message "jwvm" wrote in message ... The luminance component (Y) contains the fine detail. The chrominance components (I and Q) modulate the color carrier at 3.58 MHz and are in quadrature. The presence of the color carrier and color signals in the luminance signal further degrades the bandwidth of the luminance component resulting in an additional loss of spatial resolution. Not at all true! You need to read up on your color-TV theory. The subcarrier is at a frequency (an odd multiple of half the horizontal scanning rate) that causes its sidebands (which are not continuous, but at multiples of the horizontal scanning frequency) to fall _between_ the sidebands of the luminance signal. There is no loss of luminance information whatever -- unless the receiverlops off the upper part of the composite signal to reduce visible interference. Most modern TVs use multi-frame comb filtering, and do a very good job of extracting the fine detail. However, there remains the problem of fine detail in the chrominance information in NTSC composite signals. There are two chroma signals, one with 1.5 MHz bandwidth, and one with 0.5 MHz bandwidth. So you can do what you want to in terms of extending the bandwidth of the luninance signal, but the color is locked into these numbers. They are not bad choices for a 4 MHz luminance signal, maybe a bit conservative. They suffer as you extend the bandwidth of the luminance beyond 4 MHz. If you send the signal as S-video, then AFAIK a lot more bandwidth can be packed into the luminance information. |
#60
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. One of the problem with S-video is that we observing it as it comes from a number of sources. Originally, it was intended to come from S-Video tapes, which were not all that wonderful. I don't know what you mean by "S-Video tapes". VCRs -- at least, non-studio machines -- traditionally recorded Y and C separately, long before the S output became available (at the time JVC introduced Super VHS). It was a trivial matter to add an S-output jack to any of these machines -- including Beta. I meant S-VHS. I owned a S-VHS VCR and literally ran it 'till the heads were gone which was about 4 years. I got it on a close-out for a really cheap price, so I pretty much got the extra quality I paid for. ;-) Laserdisks recorded the composite video signal. Those with S outputs required an internal comb filter to separate the C. When I got an IDTV, I used the composite player output and let the TV do the separating. That gets you into that post a few days back from "Trotsky". If you are using a format that requires that the video undergo NTSC Y/C separation, the quality difference available from using the S-video cable can be negligible. It can even favor not using the S-Video connection if the TV Y/C separator is hot and the one in the video player is not. That can all change when you start working with digital media. If you start out with a DVD-V signal, there is potentially a about double the video information available to the player than OTA NTSC can handle. The situation is even more extreme for HDTV, where there is potentially about three times the video information as DVD-V. A DTV adaptor can potentially have about 6 times as much information available to it as the video from the tuner in the analog TV it is attached to. You really want a component video connection, but S-video done right could be a good kicker. |
#61
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... However, there remains the problem of fine detail in the chrominance information in NTSC composite signals. The chrominance signals don't need fine detail -- but not for the reason you might think. See below. There are two chroma signals, one with 1.5 MHz bandwidth, and one with 0.5 MHz bandwidth. So you can do what you want to in terms of extending the bandwidth of the luninance signal, but the color is locked into these numbers. They are not bad choices for a 4 MHz luminance signal, maybe a bit conservative. They suffer as you extend the bandwidth of the luminance beyond 4 MHz. Not necessarily. Again, see below. I don't have time to discuss this in detail, but have you ever noticed that virtually every system of storing and transmitting color images uses color-difference signals? These are created by subtracting the luminance information (Y) from the raw color signals (R, G, B). This removes the fine luminance detail from them, reducing the required bandwidth. More to the point -- as the color-difference signals represent _saturation_ -- not hue -- and most things, natural or manufactured, are decorated with colors of constant saturation, color-difference signals don't have to be wideband to _fully_ represent the color in the image. This is why an NTSC receiver can "get away" with displaying only 0.5MHz of color(-saturation) information. The only time the "reduced" bandwidth is noticeable is in lettering -- such as the CNN logo -- where 0.5MHz isn't enough to render the vertical bars. I am one of the few people in the world who consciously understands all this. ahem |
#62
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... Laserdisks recorded the composite video signal. Those with S outputs required an internal comb filter to separate the C. When I got an IDTV, I used the composite player output and let the TV do the separating. That gets you into that post a few days back from "Trotsky". If you are using a format that requires that the video undergo NTSC Y/C separation, the quality difference available from using the S-video cable can be negligible. It can even favor not using the S-Video connection if the TV Y/C separator is hot and the one in the video player is not. Exactly my point. That can all change when you start working with digital media. If you start out with a DVD-V signal, there is potentially a about double the video information available to the player than OTA NTSC can handle. The situation is even more extreme for HDTV, where there is potentially about three times the video information as DVD-V. A DTV adaptor can potentially have about 6 times as much information available to it as the video from the tuner in the analog TV it is attached to. You really want a component video connection, but S-video done right could be a good kicker. It would certainly improve the luminance part. However, the receiver will have its own bandpass filter for the chrominance, and if it's limited to 0.5MHz... you won't see much of an improvement. I've often wondered why VHS has such terrible chrominance bandwidth. It's SO bad that you often see objects -- especially in home videos -- with uncolored borders. Horrible. |
#63
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... However, there remains the problem of fine detail in the chrominance information in NTSC composite signals. The chrominance signals don't need fine detail -- but not for the reason you might think. See below. There are two chroma signals, one with 1.5 MHz bandwidth, and one with 0.5 MHz bandwidth. So you can do what you want to in terms of extending the bandwidth of the luninance signal, but the color is locked into these numbers. They are not bad choices for a 4 MHz luminance signal, maybe a bit conservative. They suffer as you extend the bandwidth of the luminance beyond 4 MHz. Not necessarily. Again, see below. Role reversal, eh? ;-) I don't have time to discuss this in detail, but have you ever noticed that virtually every system of storing and transmitting color images uses color-difference signals? No. I don't see that he http://www.ntsc-tv.com/ntsc-index-06.htm I can see colors being subtracted, but there seems to more than simple subtraction of luminance going on. Furthermore, each luminance component is low-passed. These are created by subtracting the luminance information (Y) from the raw color signals (R, G, B). This removes the fine luminance detail from them, reducing the required bandwidth. I follow the psychovisual explanation in the reference, above: http://www.ntsc-tv.com/ntsc-index-04.htm http://www.ntsc-tv.com/ntsc-index-06.htm More to the point -- as the color-difference signals represent _saturation_ -- not hue -- and most things, natural or manufactured, are decorated with colors of constant saturation, color-difference signals don't have to be wideband to _fully_ represent the color in the image. You still got edges to worry about, particularly when you go from saturated color to white. This is why an NTSC receiver can "get away" with displaying only 0.5MHz of color(-saturation) information. Well, 1.5 MHz and 0.5 MHz depending on color. The only time the "reduced" bandwidth is noticeable is in lettering -- such as the CNN logo -- where 0.5MHz isn't enough to render the vertical bars. Lettering ofgten looks a lot better coming from a DVD, even via a S-video cable. I am one of the few people in the world who consciously understands all this. ahem ummm... ;-) |
#64
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 27, 9:50 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "jwvm" wrote in message ... The luminance component (Y) contains the fine detail. The chrominance components (I and Q) modulate the color carrier at 3.58 MHz and are in quadrature. The presence of the color carrier and color signals in the luminance signal further degrades the bandwidth of the luminance component resulting in an additional loss of spatial resolution. Not at all true! You need to read up on your color-TV theory. The subcarrier is at a frequency (an odd multiple of half the horizontal scanning rate) that causes its sidebands (which are not continuous, but at multiples of the horizontal scanning frequency) to fall _between_ the sidebands of the luminance signal. There is no loss of luminance information whatever -- unless the receiverlops off the upper part of the composite signal to reduce visible interference. I assume that you mean bandwidth here and that sounds like a loss of spatial resolution. Most modern TVs use multi-frame comb filtering, and do a very good job of extracting the fine detail. Indeed they do. However, there is still some loss of fine detail at least vertically and artifacts are introduced. See, for example: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidcomb.htm#CombHorLoss If comb filtering were as effective as you claim, then there would be no need for S-video. However, it is very easy to see the quality difference between composite video and S-video. |
#65
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Laserdisks recorded the composite video signal. Those with S outputs required an internal comb filter to separate the C. When I got an IDTV, I used the composite player output and let the TV do the separating. That gets you into that post a few days back from "Trotsky". If you are using a format that requires that the video undergo NTSC Y/C separation, the quality difference available from using the S-video cable can be negligible. It can even favor not using the S-Video connection if the TV Y/C separator is hot and the one in the video player is not. Exactly my point. That can all change when you start working with digital media. If you start out with a DVD-V signal, there is potentially a about double the video information available to the player than OTA NTSC can handle. The situation is even more extreme for HDTV, where there is potentially about three times the video information as DVD-V. A DTV adaptor can potentially have about 6 times as much information available to it as the video from the tuner in the analog TV it is attached to. You really want a component video connection, but S-video done right could be a good kicker. It would certainly improve the luminance part. However, the receiver will have its own bandpass filter for the chrominance, and if it's limited to 0.5MHz... you won't see much of an improvement. But, the chroma bandwidth over a S-video connection is not necessarily as limited because it does not need to undergo frquency division-multiplesming based demodulation. I've often wondered why VHS has such terrible chrominance bandwidth. It's SO bad that you often see objects -- especially in home videos -- with uncolored borders. Horrible. The VHS and S-VHS chroma bandwidth is 0.4/0.4 MHz, which is even worse than NTSC's 0.5/1.5 MHz. |
#66
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 27, 10:45 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: snip More to the point -- as the color-difference signals represent _saturation_ -- not hue -- and most things, natural or manufactured, are decorated with colors of constant saturation, color-difference signals don't have to be wideband to _fully_ represent the color in the image. This is why an NTSC receiver can "get away" with displaying only 0.5MHz of color(-saturation) information. The only time the "reduced" bandwidth is noticeable is in lettering -- such as the CNN logo -- where 0.5MHz isn't enough to render the vertical bars. There is actually a more basic reason for reduced resolution of color information. The human visual system has greatest acuity in the green portion of the spectrum and much less in the red and blue. Letting the green portion correspond to the luminance signal provides good spatial resolution and considerably less bandwidth need be allocated for the red and green portions of the spectrum. BTW, this trick is also commonly used for single-chip color cameras. There are often twice as many green pixels than red or blue. And yes, colored text can be exceedingly hard to read and looks terrible. I am one of the few people in the world who consciously understands all this. ahem Congratulations! We should notify the Nobel committee. :-) |
#67
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. .. It would certainly improve the luminance part. However, the receiver will have its own bandpass filter for the chrominance, and if it's limited to 0.5MHz... you won't see much of an improvement. But, the chroma bandwidth over a S-video connection is not necessarily as limited because it does not need to undergo frquency division-multiplesming based demodulation. No, not necessarily as limited. But... To increase the chroma bandwidth in the monitor would reduce the chroma signal's group delay, screwing up the image. I've often wondered why VHS has such terrible chrominance bandwidth. It's SO bad that you often see objects -- especially in home videos -- with uncolored borders. Horrible. The VHS and S-VHS chroma bandwidth is 0.4/0.4 MHz, which is even worse than NTSC's 0.5/1.5 MHz. Until recently, few NTSC sets demodulated the full 1.5MHz. My classic NAD MR-20a, which has an excellent image, has only 0.5MHz bandwidth. |
#68
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"jwvm" wrote in message
... On Feb 27, 10:45 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: snip More to the point -- as the color-difference signals represent _saturation_ -- not hue -- and most things, natural or manufactured, are decorated with colors of constant saturation, color-difference signals don't have to be wideband to _fully_ represent the color in the image. This is why an NTSC receiver can "get away" with displaying only 0.5MHz of color(-saturation) information. The only time the "reduced" bandwidth is noticeable is in lettering -- such as the CNN logo -- where 0.5MHz isn't enough to render the vertical bars. There is actually a more basic reason for reduced resolution of color information. The human visual system has greatest acuity in the green portion of the spectrum and much less in the red and blue. Letting the green portion correspond to the luminance signal provides good spatial resolution and considerably less bandwidth need be allocated for the red and green portions of the spectrum. BTW, this trick is also commonly used for single-chip color cameras. There are often twice as many green pixels than red or blue. This is true, but it's not the full -- or best -- explanation as to why color information doesn't require full bandwidth. |
#69
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"jwvm" wrote in message
... If comb filtering were as effective as you claim, then there would be no need for S-video. However, it is very easy to see the quality difference between composite video and S-video. S-Video was a cheap and dirty "solution" to the problem of the lack of expensive multi-dimensional comb filtering in TV receivers. |
#70
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 27, 11:29 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "jwvm" wrote in message ... On Feb 27, 10:45 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: snip More to the point -- as the color-difference signals represent _saturation_ -- not hue -- and most things, natural or manufactured, are decorated with colors of constant saturation, color-difference signals don't have to be wideband to _fully_ represent the color in the image. This is why an NTSC receiver can "get away" with displaying only 0.5MHz of color(-saturation) information. The only time the "reduced" bandwidth is noticeable is in lettering -- such as the CNN logo -- where 0.5MHz isn't enough to render the vertical bars. There is actually a more basic reason for reduced resolution of color information. The human visual system has greatest acuity in the green portion of the spectrum and much less in the red and blue. Letting the green portion correspond to the luminance signal provides good spatial resolution and considerably less bandwidth need be allocated for the red and green portions of the spectrum. BTW, this trick is also commonly used for single-chip color cameras. There are often twice as many green pixels than red or blue. This is true, but it's not the full -- or best -- explanation as to why color information doesn't require full bandwidth. Huh!!?? The FCC mandated that the new color television signal had to be compatible with existing monochrome sets and the monochrome broadcasting standard. This meant that the color information needed to fit within the existing channel bandwidth. The only way this could be done and still maintain most of the existing image quality was to take advantage of human perception limitations and limit the chromaticity bandwidth severely. What other part is there to this story? |
#71
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
On Feb 27, 11:31 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "jwvm" wrote in message ... If comb filtering were as effective as you claim, then there would be no need for S-video. However, it is very easy to see the quality difference between composite video and S-video. S-Video was a cheap and dirty "solution" to the problem of the lack of expensive multi-dimensional comb filtering in TV receivers. Are you claiming that S-video isn't any better than a good comb filter? It actually works quite well though not as good as component color given the need for quadrature demodulation with S-video. |
#72
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"jwvm" wrote in message
... On Feb 27, 11:31 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "jwvm" wrote in message ... If comb filtering were as effective as you claim, then there would be no need for S-video. However, it is very easy to see the quality difference between composite video and S-video. S-Video was a cheap and dirty "solution" to the problem of the lack of expensive multi-dimensional comb filtering in TV receivers. Are you claiming that S-video isn't any better than a good comb filter? It actually works quite well though not as good as component color given the need for quadrature demodulation with S-video. It is, in principle, IF the original signal was created AND STORED as separate Y & C components. The Y & C laid down on an S-VHS recorder, unless they come from a camera, were not originally separate. |
#73
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message "jwvm" wrote in message ... On Feb 27, 11:31 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "jwvm" wrote in message ... If comb filtering were as effective as you claim, then there would be no need for S-video. However, it is very easy to see the quality difference between composite video and S-video. S-Video was a cheap and dirty "solution" to the problem of the lack of expensive multi-dimensional comb filtering in TV receivers. Are you claiming that S-video isn't any better than a good comb filter? It actually works quite well though not as good as component color given the need for quadrature demodulation with S-video. It is, in principle, IF the original signal was created AND STORED as separate Y & C components. In the case of the S-video output of a DVD player or HDTV receiver, the S-Video signal can have far more information in it than the NTSC output of the same player. |
#74
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... In the case of the S-video output of a DVD player or HDTV receiver, the S-Video signal can have far more information in it than the NTSC output of the same player. Yes, and component outputs have even more. |
#75
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
In article "Arny Krueger" writes:
In the case of the S-video output of a DVD player or HDTV receiver, the S-Video signal can have far more information in it than the NTSC output of the same player. Since the s-video output and the composite output are both NTSC, it is impossible for either the s-video output or the composite output to have *more* output than the NTSC output -- they *ARE* NTSC outputs. Alan |
#76
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... More to the point -- as the color-difference signals represent _saturation_ -- not hue -- and most things, natural or manufactured, are decorated with colors of constant saturation, color-difference signals don't have to be wideband to _fully_ represent the color in the image. This is why an NTSC receiver can "get away" with displaying only 0.5MHz of color(-saturation) information. The human eye perceives color with the less-numerous "cones," compared to the "rods" which perceive differences in brightness. Thus, small areas are not perceived in color, hence the reduced need for chroma bandwidth. Wideband NTSC chroma would be a waste. When the color difference signals are matrixed, the resultant I & Q signals are transmitted as a double-sideband color signal whose two quadrature amplitudes and polarities represent a vector that instantaneously describes both hue and saturation. The receiver reconstitutes the difference signals. It's genius. |
#77
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
|
#78
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Alan" wrote in message
In article "Arny Krueger" writes: In the case of the S-video output of a DVD player or HDTV receiver, the S-Video signal can have far more information in it than the NTSC output of the same player. Since the s-video output and the composite output are both NTSC, In a home or studio video component, neither s-video nor composite video must be NTSC, unless broadcast compatibility is required. |
#79
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
Since the s-video output and the composite output are both NTSC,
it is impossible for either the s-video output or the composite output to have *more* output than the NTSC output -- they *ARE* NTSC outputs. This might be true in practice, but "it ain't necessarily so". |
#80
Posted to alt.video.digital-tv,rec.arts.tv,rec.audio.pro,sci.engr.television.advanced,alt.tv.tech.hdtv
|
|||
|
|||
Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.
"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... More to the point -- as the color-difference signals represent _saturation_ -- not hue -- and most things, natural or manufactured, are decorated with colors of constant saturation, color-difference signals don't have to be wideband to _fully_ represent the color in the image. This is why an NTSC receiver can "get away" with displaying only 0.5MHz of color(-saturation) information. The human eye perceives color with the less-numerous "cones", compared to the "rods" which perceive differences in brightness. Thus, small areas are not perceived in color, hence the reduced need for chroma bandwidth. Not so. Wideband NTSC chroma would be a waste. We already have wideband NTSC chroma -- the Q signal of 1.5MHz. When the color difference signals are matrixed, the resultant I & Q signals are transmitted as a double-sideband color signal whose two quadrature amplitudes and polarities represent a vector that instantaneously describes both hue and saturation. The receiver reconstitutes the difference signals. It's genius. Yes, it's brilliant. (It's one of the great 20th century inventions.) But -- and I will keep repeating this ad nauseum -- the reason color TV systems (of all sorts) can "get away" with reduced chroma bandwidth has little to do with the eye's (relatively) limited color resolution and a great deal to do with what I said -- most objects are colored with constant saturation, which greatly reduces the required bandwidth for the chrominance signals -- or more precisely, lets them convey more useful information. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
IEEE article "I don't really have a replacement career,"Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing." | Vacuum Tubes | |||
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs | Audio Opinions |