On 18 Jan 2006 12:02:06 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
dave weil wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 10:34:34 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:
dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:
Well, now I can reveal the truth...
So up to this point.... you're an admitted liar. Nice Dave.
Well, I *could* be lying now. g
Most probably are.
Look, you jumped on a statement of mine that it turns out that you
support anyway with a bunch of nonsense about *your* setup (bragging
all the way) which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I
just felt that you should be led along a little bit to see how far you
would go.
I've seen exactly the problem you describe on a good quality plasma
that was the converter box. Upgrade the box to component video out
and the problem went away.
Before, it was just upgrade to S-video.
Nothing to do with NBC or "storage compression".
Which of course is why I don't get the same level of artifacts on ESPN
or most other channels guffaw.
OF COURSE I have S-video. I gave
you enough hints to give you the chance to back off of your "cabling
theory", but you were so convinced of your position, you couldn't see
it. What hints? The current Toshiba TV. The DVR satellite box. The DVD
recorder.
I also wanted to see how far into personal insults you would dive
into. You didn't disappoint.
I have no problem with personally insulting liars. They deserve it.
Well then, since I'm apparently a personally insulting liar, I guess
you don't have a problem with me. I guess I deserve you not having a
problem with me...chuckle
I have no problem with you Dave.
You MUST be kidding.
If you had any character you'd have
a problem with yourself... but you don't.
Nah, you don't have a problem with me. That's the reason that you find
any opportunity to go after the things that I say and why you make
comments like the above.
Guess you're ****ed to have been shown that you let your personal
feelings override your "science".
What "science" Dave?
Exactly!
Now, as to your paragraph regarding Dish Network (the TRUE name of the
service - Dishnet is a retailer in Florida), thanks for supporting my
contention (and by extention, Mr. Pierce's). Yes, I have the 500
package. Yes, I have Dish Network. And the results are exactly as I
claimed, which you tried to claim was due to my shoddy cabling
choices. Time for you to eat some crow. You tried to make the "facts"
fit your hypothesis.
Now, I'm sorry that you don't have the most current technology
available to you, despite all of the money that you've thrown at the
situation, but I can tell you that if you ever go DVR, you'll never go
back. Now, I have no idea whether or not the DVR process itself
creates visible compression, but it certainly could be a contributing
factor in my system. I don't have a "plain Jane" box to compare it
with.
Just for giggles, I hooked up RCA cabling last night to see if you
could have been correct. As far as I could see, it made no impact on
compression artifacts. Also, to test the content theory, I went to
what I consider the worst offender, NBC and watched a little of Scrubs
during prime time. It was the same with either cable. This is current
"real time" broadcasting.
Throw up some rabbit ears and check (or is Nashville too remote to
have an NBC broadcast outlet?) I'm sure your digital artifact problem
won't exist proving its your sat provider.
Well gee. That's what I said in the first place. And it sent you into
orbit.
What you said in the first place was smearing digital technology in a
broad scope.
No it wasn't. First of all, it was confined to satellite
transmissions. Second of all, it was clearly based on my personal
experience with a certain delivery system. You tried to DEFEND "DT" in
a broad scope, even though you didn't believe it yourself.
"I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
used in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME. "
You see? Even you agree that the satellite transmission of the 500
channel Dish Network package isn't all that good. And I maintain that
compression is part of the problem, if not most of the problem. the
reason i say that is that what I see is analogous to heavy compression
schemes with digital photgraphy (something that I have some experience
in). Maybe it's just coincidence that the banding that I see looks
like some of the lower rez jpeg levels.
What you really have is a problem with one Sat service provider (they
aren't equal you know) who isn't limited to providing ****ty service in
just the US and has nothing to do with storage.
I DON'T know that they aren't equal. And you apparently haven't even
SEEN a Dish Network 500 channel package and you might not have seen a
Direct TV similar package.
Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.
And you can't say that it isn't due to compression. In fact, these
artifacts can ONLY come from compression, as far as I know. I'm not
talking about snow, or raster, or herringbone, or any of the other
"signal strength" and "interference" issues. and since I DEFINITELY
have those issues, AND, you agree that my provider has problems with
their quality, my statement holds perfectly together. After all, I
didn't say *all* satellite transmissions, so it's absolutely true,
according to you.
You claimed (or implied at least) that it *couldn't* be the
satellite delivery system, that it had to be my cables and/or a "cheap
bottom-feeding receiver". Glad to see that you've come around.
I'm sure if you had the reciever you originally claimed to have...
your problems would be worse.
I don't know. As you said, the DVR portion *might* very well be
contributing, so a 'simpler" receiver *could* offer a better picture,
even if it doesn't use S-video. After all, RCA connectors didn't 'fix"
the problem that I described, even though the picture wasn't *quite*
as good in terms of sharpness as the S-video connection (but that's a
different issue).
But you chose to obfuscate and lie...
No, I chose to trick you inmuch the same way that Tom Nousaine's
friend's son tricked him by secretely substituting an SS amp for his
tube amp. And then, you started to try to make the "facts" fit your
hypothesis. *That's* the sort of "science" that you were asking about.
sacrifice any shred of moral character you had... just to play your
debating trade game. Hope it was worth it.
Well, since you don't seem to have learned anything from this
excercise, it probably wasn't.
And no, I can't seem to find a single
channel where there's NO compression evident, although some of the
content providers are better than others (ESPN and FX being pretty
good, for example).
It was rather foolish of you to use your cable system to try to
discredit my claims about satellite reception. I hinted that I
suspected that when I had cable, it was probably better. In fact, I'm
thinking of going back to cable because of it, especially since they
offer DVR now (they didn't offer it at the time I switched), DVR being
quite important to me at this point.
I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
use a particularly bad compression scheme.
It's not NBC you ****... its Dishnet
I have nothing to do with Dishnet, nor do they have anything to do
with me.
Then why does your sat service provider have a website... dishnet.com?
Why don't you look closer at that website and then compare it to this
one:
http://www.dishnetwork.com/
Then get back to me.
Keep grasping at straws in frantic efforts to acquire a point in your
game. Let me know when you score.
OK, now that you've gone to
http://www.dishnetwork.com/, I suppose
it's time to say 40 love.
I got my Dish Network system from a different retailer. and
yet, NBC has a problem that is far worse than most of the other
channels on my system, so I *suspect* (please take careful note of the
word) that much of it *might* have something to do with the product
that they deliver to the satellite provider.
that creates your problem which
may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
chain?
Hmmm, did you think about the fact that if I "pull it out of the
chain", I'd get no signal from the satellite?
So now you have an integrated DVR/receiver.
Well yes. That's why I made the TIVO-esque remark. That's why I've
been talking about rewinding and pausing live TV. If you're curious,
I have the older 5 series receiver that you might have seen when you
went to "dishnet".
I guess in your king of
the hill appreciating world... you have plenty of time to waste.
Yes, i happen to like that show, because it's a damn fine show. It's
probably too "highbrow" for a San Diegoian like you though.
You seem to support Mr.
Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
the actual broadcast.
Yeah... for dishnet... not DirectTV..
i spoke about my own experience (I even capitalized the word ME in the
initial post). And that's just about 50% of the satellite delivery
systems in the US.
So you personally have 50% of the sat delivery systems in the US.
Thats one hell of an accomplishment their Dave.
How many other satellite delivery systems in the US are there than
DirectTV and Dish Net do you know? I still see an occasional 12 foot
dish floating around, but they are very few and far between (which is
why I said "just about").
I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence.
Check the web.. lots of dishnet subscribers complaining about digital
artifacts
Hmmmm, EXACTLY what I said. The very statement that you went after
like a rabid dog.
and dishnet compression. OTOH.. DirectTV complaints are
mostly signal strength related. Good signal.. good picture.
Well, perhaps I might consider changing, although I'm leaning toward
going back to cable at this point (sad that the price just keeps going
up and up and up on cable).
I'm guessing that
if someone has a large package from them, that they might also suffer
the same sort of images due to bandwidth limitations.
You're beyond dumb... what the hell do you mean large package? You
think they're using PtoP transmission? Its a broadcast you dip****..
everyone gets the same thing. They just control what you can
receive... not what they xmit.
You need to just purge your house of all things more technically
complicated than an alarm clock. I think Quaker is the best life
style for you.. except they'd expect you to quit lying.
Well, since my satellite receiver is far more advanced than your cable
box, I guess it's time to go back to your oatmeal.