Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

Improvement is improvement no matter how you spin it.... this one is
a truly a no-brainer.

ScottW

Don Pearce said:

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

At last you understand. This level of service could be your video future
too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
house?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:18:01 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

At last you understand.

You think I didn't understand this before?

This level of service could be your video future
too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
house?


Almost - one annual fee covers as many as you want in one house. That
allows reception of the five analogue terrestrial channels - whether
on analogue, terrestrial or satellite digital plus a stack of BBC and
Independent digital channels. Other independent digital channels come
free, mostly shopping channels. There is also a terrestrial digital
pay service - no idea what is on that.

I don't particularly begrudge the money - among those five main
channels are easily the best programmes, and I really don't watch
anything else. That is one of the reasons why I resent the squeezing
of bandwidth because of the new added nonsense channels.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jan 2006 12:52:08 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.

So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.

I get the same artifacts when going directly from the converter box to
the the TV (which isn't digital, BTW). I have two choices, COAX or
RCA, and I don't have the choice of component video.

Then you need a need a new converter box. On dishnets web site only
the 111 doesn't have better video out than coax/composite.
That is bottom of the line.

Seriously... it's your receiver that sucks.


With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
look any better to him.

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box. My son-in-law
has a couple.. $15/month, record HD and ties into the programming guide.
TIVO just came out with and HD recorder.... I think they're toast.


Still, I'm saying that there are DEFINITE compression artifacts in
certain programming and not in others (or far less). This implies that
it's content driven, not delivery driven. Some of it COULD be hard
drive related though, since I don't seem to have ANY programming that
I could confuse with DVD.

And you said "cable guy". I'm talking about satellite service, NOT
cable. I can't do a direct comparison, but I don't remember such
artifacts when I had cable.

These
artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
Tonight Show, for example.

They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
you wouldn't have these problems.

Well, it doesn't. Either capability.

What kind of TV do you have?

A simple current Toshiba 32 incher.

If it's current it should have at least S-video inputs and probably one
component.

ScottW

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.

Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
delivery system that I am.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.

Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
delivery system that I am.

What was it you said Dave? Oh yes.. "I can certainly say that the
current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME."
which of course is utter hogwash and has nothing to do with your
experience. Another example of Weil talking out his ass.

Like I said Dave... enjoy your ****ty TV picture... you deserve it.
But if you want to fix it rather than just cry and make up ignorant reasons
for your it... start with a new Sat receiver.

ScottW

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up. It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers. Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much. Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!
To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel

** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:
Too easy. Been there, done that:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.

No they don't. Visual senses help us in assessing an overall
situation, but don't be fooled into thinking they aid in putting
together sound information. Visual/optical illusions are very common.

There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.

which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?

If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables. *THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
It would be a waste of time testing them.

More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
because they simply should not be there. That is why they are the ones
who should be tested. It is simply interesting.

Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?


Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not. If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice. Would you find such a
thing stressful?


I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...


Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public. The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Pearce says to Forwarder:

"Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart"

I understand that Pinkerton called Forwarder a "dickhead" before he got
a response in kind. This is par for the course for this self-announced
scion of Scottish aristocracy who used to sign himself Lord Pinkerton
of something or other..
An example of Pinkerton's debating style:
Sept1 2005 "Stereophile and cable theory"
I said:
"No, he simply *did not do it* when comparing level-matched or similar
gauge, especially with your preferred music signal.
Pinkerton:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."
2) I continued: " All the panelists did well comparing
uneven diameter cables when pink noise was played to them. The scores
were much worse when music was used as a signal and became awful when
similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
noise.
Pinkerton answers:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****. "
3) " I understand that 16 Gauge vs. 24
gauge over 50" means 1,70db volume difference. Six out of eleven
panelists failed to hear this difference in 5 (out of fifteen) tries
or more. I have, with my elderly ears, no difficulty hearing 1db volume
difference between the two speakers when my stepped volume control is
moved without my knowledge- but of course I'm not ABXing".
Ludovic Mirabel
Pinkerton answers:
Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."

I did not respond. I didn't know how.
I think Forwarder should be congratulated for answering in kind and in
spades. It worked . Pinkerton shut up and the RAO air cleared just a
little bit.
Moderate IQ level and aggressive sociopathic behaviour are not mutually
exclusive. Plenty of examples in recent history.
Ludovic Mirabel

..

said:

Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
audible differences do not "really" exist.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
..

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.


Could that actually be the reality?
I have seen discontinuous looks (live events)
on baseball and football fields.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:43:48 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.

Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
delivery system that I am.

What was it you said Dave? Oh yes.. "I can certainly say that the
current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME."
which of course is utter hogwash and has nothing to do with your
experience. Another example of Weil talking out his ass.

Oh bull****, you overgrown baby. You don't even HAVE a satellite
system and it's YOU that's talking out of your ass.

Like I said Dave... enjoy your ****ty TV picture... you deserve it.
But if you want to fix it rather than just cry and make up ignorant reasons
for your it... start with a new Sat receiver.

Once again, if it were an issue with the cabling or the method that I
used to link receiver with TV, it would affect ALL of the programs, so
you're just full of **** again.

Go back to your big tasteless lobsters, you poor excuse for a man.
Just goes to show that money can't buy class.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:58:42 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.


Could that actually be the reality?
I have seen discontinuous looks (live events)
on baseball and football fields.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. The patches actually shift
unevenly (it's a compression artifact).

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:11:56 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



said:

Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
audible differences do not "really" exist.



No George, you have this wrong. The purpose of the test is to allow
somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
change it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.




Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
and more channels want to get in on the act.

Quantity will win over quality every time, I'm afraid.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

wrote in message
ups.com...

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up.

Liar.

It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers.

It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.

Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much.

The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that hype.

Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!

Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.

To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel


There is no way to do any such test that will convince you ever. You
completely ignore the fact that DBT is the standard for all research into
subtle audio difference.

** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:
Too easy. Been there, done that:



You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results of
previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:43:48 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.

Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
delivery system that I am.

What was it you said Dave? Oh yes.. "I can certainly say that the
current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME."
which of course is utter hogwash and has nothing to do with your
experience. Another example of Weil talking out his ass.

Oh bull****, you overgrown baby. You don't even HAVE a satellite
system and it's YOU that's talking out of your ass.

My buddy has DirectTV with the NFL package and HD. No problems on
his setup.
I know another guy on dishnet and he agrees... their lowend receivers
are ****.

You really think dishnet could survive with this quality of service if
it was network wide?

Like I said Dave... enjoy your ****ty TV picture... you deserve it.
But if you want to fix it rather than just cry and make up ignorant reasons
for your it... start with a new Sat receiver.

Once again, if it were an issue with the cabling or the method that I
used to link receiver with TV, it would affect ALL of the programs, so
you're just full of **** again.

Sure Dave.... all programs have the same pixel change rate....
programming you watch is mostly static with moving mouths only.
Amazing your ****ty setup can't even handle the cartoon network.


Go back to your big tasteless lobsters, you poor excuse for a man.

Last time I had Lobster they called 'em slippers. But I don' t even
really like lobster so I don't WTF you're raging about. Obviously,
neither do you.

Just goes to show that money can't buy class.

I think what is really shown is that ignorance is bliss. Give you
a little knowledge and your bliss bubble is broken. Tell us why you
have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?

ScottW

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up.

Liar.

It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers.

It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
people can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.

Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much.

The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
hype.

Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!

Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.

To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel

There is no way to do any such test that will convince you ever. You
completely ignore the fact that DBT is the standard for all research into
subtle audio difference.

Hey, it has been a pretty good troll...

** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:

Too easy. Been there, done that:

You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results
of previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.

We're talking articles of faith here - nothing that upsets as many golden
ear applecarts as ABX could possibly be valid, right? ;-)

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.




Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
and more channels want to get in on the act.

Quantity will win over quality every time, I'm afraid.

d

I hope you are wrong. There is still an acceptable standard that has yet to
be decided on by the public. Of course they aren't always the best judges,
as in the case of VHS winning out over Betamax.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


said:

Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
audible differences do not "really" exist.



They certainly prove that the non-existent ones don't exist, which covers a
lot of gear and virtually all wire and interconnects.

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up.

Liar.

It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers.

It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.

Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much.



The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that hype.

Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!

Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.

To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel



** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:
Too easy. Been there, done that:



You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results of
previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below find the "arguments" that the slight forger NYOB has to offer
in a discussion that seemed serious before the clowns danced in..
Argument #1
Liar.
Argument #2
It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
Not a QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to show where and when "it was done" and how
would anyone other than the slight forger " know it"
Argument #3
The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that hype
The question is for the nth. time. Quote one single published monitored
"test" report in which a resonably-sized listener panel recognised
differences between ANY, ANY, ANY comparable audio components. ANY,
ANY, ANY**
Argument #4
There is no way to do any such test that will convince you ever. You
completely ignore the fact that DBT is the standard for all research into
subtle audio difference.
One single QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to a comparison of ANY,ANY,ANY audio
components for their musical reproduction properties with a POSITIVE,
POSITIVE, POSITIVE outcome: "yes, we heard a difference". Not gossip
about "all research"
Argument #5
I said:
Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!
Slight forger answers:
Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.
The hypothesis is that ABX/DBT reveals (ie. does not conceal) audio
differences. Still no EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.
It is evidence of my character flaw- inability to resist
a polemic- that I bother answering someone who not only is a true
believer but also a true believer ready to lie, invent and forge (
forgery evidence by request!- any time- it will be a pleasure).
Ludovic Mirabel
** Mr. Krueger, You're not seriously quoting your PCABX listeners'
experiences, not
moderated for statistical validity, listening equipment and ambience
etc. etc.as "evidence".
You had some contacts with genuine researchers. Did nothing rub off?

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET.


You're misleading and obfuscating as usual, Mirabel.

An ABX between a good SS amp and some representative SET would be fine with
me.

I just don't want to be the sucker who is in charge of acquiring the SET.

Use a speaker with a typical impedance curve, and it should be a slam dunk.

Of course I don't think we'll get any refereed journal to publish our
results. No news.

On 17 Jan 2006 09:46:10 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Tell us why you
have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?

It was the top end a couple of years ago, but you're wrong about it
being the "absolute bottom of the line". If things have improved, then
my wishes have been fulfilled. However, I'm not willing to take the
word of someone who quotes another person on the internet or tries to
compare disparate systems (even your friend's system isn't analogous
to mine, since he has HD *and* is on a different network - if he has
no artifacting, then that's great and is good news. Plus, I'm not sure
that you even know what to look for, since you seem to be more
concerned about how video looks on a cell phone.

Now, why don't you have live pause capabilities? One would think that
someone who finds sports so important to the video medium would be
able to use it. Plus, considering how constipated you come off on this
forum, it comes in handy during your extended bathroom visits.

Now put on your "slippers" and have some sole for lunch.

dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 09:46:10 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Tell us why you
have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?

It was the top end a couple of years ago, but you're wrong about it
being the "absolute bottom of the line".

Here's Dishnets current line of receiver offerings.
The 111 is the only one listed that doesn't at least support S-video.
http://www.dishnet.dishontheweb.com/technology.jsp

Its clearly bottom of the line.

So let me quess Dave... when you signed up for dishnet you took the
"free" equipment package...didn't you?

If things have improved, then
my wishes have been fulfilled. However, I'm not willing to take the
word of someone who quotes another person on the internet or tries to
compare disparate systems (even your friend's system isn't analogous
to mine, since he has HD *and* is on a different network - if he has
no artifacting, then that's great and is good news.

Maybe if you could do some research and understand you'd find that
dishnet with their 500 channel offering is often described as the worst
of the sat suppliers. Of course this has nothing to do with the
content sourcing networks or digital TV in general as you would have us
believe. Its your crappy equipment on your crappy sat service
provider.

Plus, I'm not sure
that you even know what to look for, since you seem to be more
concerned about how video looks on a cell phone.

Spin spin spin..... Just pointing out that I do get to see highly
compressed video that looks pretty good... coming to a cell phone near
you before the end of this year.

Now, why don't you have live pause capabilities? One would think that
someone who finds sports so important to the video medium would be
able to use it.

Never felt the need to relive history... I might like to record but
live pause and being stuck in the past never appealed to me. But rest
assured Dave, if I went that route I wouldn't be doing it with obsolete
technology like you are.. and then complaining about the results.

Plus, considering how constipated you come off on this
forum, it comes in handy during your extended bathroom visits.

Now Dave, try to control your envy. It isn't my fault you shell out
good money for ****ty video.

ScottW

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.




Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
and more channels want to get in on the act.

Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
problem.

Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?

http://www22.verizon.com/about/commu...echnology.html

Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.

ScottW

Don Pearce wrote:




The purpose of the test is to allow
somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
change it.


Yeah, why don't you first prove that your stupid audio testing work --
something that you at the moment could only assert.




Pearce Consulting

nyob123 wrote
George M. Middius wrote
elmir2m said:



Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
audible differences do not "really" exist.


They certainly prove that the non-existent ones don't exist, which covers a
lot of gear and virtually all wire and interconnects.


"They" should refer to the people that design the experiment.

You need to pull your head out of your ass once in a while Bozo.

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:11:56 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



said:

Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

I believe you have that wrong. The opposite is true. Pearce and his
simple-minded followers promote the "tests" in order to "prove" that
audible differences do not "really" exist.



No George, you have this wrong. The purpose of the test is to allow
somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
change it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Pearce says:
The purpose of the test is to allow
somebody to prove that they can hear a difference between items -
something they can at the moment merely assert. If you can show me an
aspect of my protocol that would indicate otherwise, I will gladly
change it.

Don't change it. Show that it does serve to show "differences between
items". Show that it WORKS. Just a few good references!
If you do you'll make history of science. It will be the first time
that a tool for sure- fire tool for distinguishing one painting
reproduction from another, one violin from another, one clarinet from
another and so on and on was invented and experimentally proved to
work.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

On 17 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 09:46:10 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Tell us why you
have the absolute bottom of the line dishnet receiver, Dave?

It was the top end a couple of years ago, but you're wrong about it
being the "absolute bottom of the line".

Here's Dishnets current line of receiver offerings.
The 111 is the only one listed that doesn't at least support S-video.
http://www.dishnet.dishontheweb.com/technology.jsp

Its clearly bottom of the line.

So let me quess Dave... when you signed up for dishnet you took the
"free" equipment package...didn't you?

If things have improved, then
my wishes have been fulfilled. However, I'm not willing to take the
word of someone who quotes another person on the internet or tries to
compare disparate systems (even your friend's system isn't analogous
to mine, since he has HD *and* is on a different network - if he has
no artifacting, then that's great and is good news.

Maybe if you could do some research and understand you'd find that
dishnet with their 500 channel offering is often described as the worst
of the sat suppliers. Of course this has nothing to do with the
content sourcing networks or digital TV in general as you would have us
believe. Its your crappy equipment on your crappy sat service
provider.

Plus, I'm not sure
that you even know what to look for, since you seem to be more
concerned about how video looks on a cell phone.

Spin spin spin..... Just pointing out that I do get to see highly
compressed video that looks pretty good... coming to a cell phone near
you before the end of this year.

Now, why don't you have live pause capabilities? One would think that
someone who finds sports so important to the video medium would be
able to use it.

Never felt the need to relive history... I might like to record but
live pause and being stuck in the past never appealed to me. But rest
assured Dave, if I went that route I wouldn't be doing it with obsolete
technology like you are.. and then complaining about the results.

Plus, considering how constipated you come off on this
forum, it comes in handy during your extended bathroom visits.

Now Dave, try to control your envy. It isn't my fault you shell out
good money for ****ty video.

Well, now I can reveal the truth...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.

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. 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. You seem to support Mr.
Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

Now, I hope that you're able to get past your anger and have a
constructive day...

dave weil said:

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.

I have the impression that the picture from a DVR recording is not quite
as sharp as when you watch HDTV live. It's still miles ahead of the
standard TV picture, though.

dave weil said:

I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

The cause of your compression might not be NBC per se. On my cable feed,
the NBC station is about the same as CBS. ABC and HBO might be a hair
better, but it's not an obvious difference. However, I get more
artifacts and freeze-ups on ABC shows than any other network. Also,
sometimes on NBC shows, the widescreen HD version disappears for part of
the show, and all you get is the standard 4x3 version. Then it'll
randomly switch back to the HD version. Do you have that problem with
Dish? I'm sure it emanates from the source, i.e. the local broadcast
station.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:18:46 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



dave weil said:

I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

The cause of your compression might not be NBC per se. On my cable feed,
the NBC station is about the same as CBS. ABC and HBO might be a hair
better, but it's not an obvious difference. However, I get more
artifacts and freeze-ups on ABC shows than any other network. Also,
sometimes on NBC shows, the widescreen HD version disappears for part of
the show, and all you get is the standard 4x3 version. Then it'll
randomly switch back to the HD version. Do you have that problem with
Dish? I'm sure it emanates from the source, i.e. the local broadcast
station.

I don't do HD.

I'm not willing to guess about HD because I don't have it. The reason
that I guess it's NBC is because I get the same sort of "smearing"
when I watch reruns of West Wing on Bravo as when I watch the new
shows on NBC. The artifacts are quite similar. That's why I guess that
it's a storage issue. Plus, I don't get that level of smearing on many
of the other channels on Dish. Also, when I watch the news on the NBC
affiliate, the quality is much better in terms of artifacts (but you
can still see some compression being used). I haven't watched in a
while, but it seems to me that the NBC late night shows aren't
*nearly* as bad either, although they *are* worse than, say ESPN. So
there might be some problems converting and storing filmed programming
as opposed to video, but other network's programs being broadcast on
3rd party channels don't seem to be affected so badly. for instance,
right now, Spin City's on FX. It's not NEARLY as bad, although there
*is* some compression visible.

It's probably a combination of the DVR, the transmission *and* the
storage means since presumably there's compression being used in each
case.

What's funny is the importance that I now attach to DVR. It has really
changed the way I watch TV. Sometimes I even time shift when I don't
have to, just so that I can watch *live* and zip through the
commercials in about 5 seconds. I no longer have to worry about
missing something because the phone rings, or when I have to go run
errands. I just let it run and come back and rewind to the point where
I stopped watching. Or, when I'm doing oher things in other parts of
the house, I can set up an autotune to a program that's going to start
in a couple of hours and I don't have to worry about getting back to
the TV to change the channel, PLUS, I don't even have to worry about
getting back to the TV at the start of the program (or, if I decide
not to watch the program live, I just record it. I can be 20 minutes
late back to the program and just rewind. and it makes it very easy to
record live music on the late night shows. I don't have to be captive
at the start of the perfromance. I can miss it by almost an hour and
still go back and record it (although this means that I'll miss
everything after that until "real time" because once you stop the
recording, it sends you back to current time, at least on my
receiver).

It's so pervasive in its influence that I sometimes wish I had it in
my car when I'm listening to NPR on my way to work and I realize that
I missed a name or a reference and I almost catch myself reaching for
the rewind putton g. I would rather give up a little visual quality
than to lose DVR at this point. I guess I need to turn in my Arnold
Krueger-issued Luddites Unite membership card.

Well, KIng of the Hill is on, so I suppose I should go now. Oh wait, I
don't have to. I can just rewind. In fact, I think I'll do that so
that I can skip the commercials

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.

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.


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.

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 that creates your problem which
may be aggravated by your DVR... did you try pulling it out of the
chain?

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.. and absolutely not for cable or
digital broadcast.
Once again you guys take a problem that is currently lim

Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

Now, I hope that you're able to get past your anger and have a
constructive day...

I can see why you live alone Dave.

ScottW

George M. Middius wrote:
dave weil said:

I'm pretty convinced that it's mostly a storage issue. NBC seems to
use a particularly bad compression scheme. You seem to support Mr.
Pierce's contention that there's a bandwidth issue as well in terms of
the actual broadcast. Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

The cause of your compression might not be NBC per se.

Definitely isn't.

On my cable feed,
the NBC station is about the same as CBS. ABC and HBO might be a hair
better, but it's not an obvious difference.

It all depends on the source material. INHD and Discovery channel
has a lot of content filmed in native HD. Its spectacular..... Some
of the sporting events have HD cameras and look great... some are just
upconverted and don't look so good. Sometime they don't even bother
with widescreen and send 4x3 in NTSC rez on the HD channel. Its
blatantly obvious though. Sometimes inHD offers an old movie they
digitized from film... its not close to native HD.

However, I get more
artifacts and freeze-ups on ABC shows than any other network. Also,
sometimes on NBC shows, the widescreen HD version disappears for part of
the show, and all you get is the standard 4x3 version. Then it'll
randomly switch back to the HD version.

I find ABC to be good. The one HD channel that has issues is WB and
its mostly audio dropouts with some pixeling. Definitely signal loss
on the feed. No way to tell if thats at the source... the local
broadcaster... the cable company or what. But it is definitely
restricted to WB.
The signal path gets so convoluted as the cable companies have to pick
up the local guys content (adds) it just mucks things up. I liked it
back when satellite just went blank during commercial breaks.

ScottW

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:18:46 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Well, KIng of the Hill is on, so I suppose I should go now. Oh wait, I
don't have to. I can just rewind. In fact, I think I'll do that so
that I can skip the commercials

Are you allowed to watch shows on Fox?

ScottW

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

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.

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

Guess you're ****ed to have been shown that you let your personal
feelings override your "science".

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. 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.

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. 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?

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. I can't tell you about Direct TV, and frankly, I'm
not willing to take your word for hearsay evidence. 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. But, unlike you,
I'm not willing to declare this since I haven't auditioned them. I
tend to comment on personal experience. I'm not willing to pretend
authority on something that I haven't seen for myself. You might try
it sometime.

and absolutely not for cable or
digital broadcast.
Once again you guys take a problem that is currently lim

I hate when problems are lim.

Now this is just speculation on my part, because
I don't have cable any more and I can't watch NBC to see if cable
treats it any better (maybe I'll just ask a cable-equipped friend to
switch to NBC during network prime time the next time I'm over).

Now, I hope that you're able to get past your anger and have a
constructive day...

I can see why you live alone Dave.

Well, I guess you can't.

On 18 Jan 2006 11:02:28 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:18:46 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Well, KIng of the Hill is on, so I suppose I should go now. Oh wait, I
don't have to. I can just rewind. In fact, I think I'll do that so
that I can skip the commercials

Are you allowed to watch shows on Fox?

Of course, especially since most of their "entertainment programming"
is the very stuff that their news outlet rails against.

Strange that you watch ABC, because we know how you feel about Mark
Halperin.

BTW, sorry that you feel a bit outsmarted today. I didn't mean to
impact your job performance.

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.
Nothing to do with NBC or "storage compression".

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. If you had any character you'd have
a problem with yourself... but you don't.

Guess you're ****ed to have been shown that you let your personal
feelings override your "science".

What "science" Dave?

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.

"I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being

use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME. "

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.

Your statement is simply irrepairably flawed.


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. But you chose to obfuscate and lie...
sacrifice any shred of moral character you had... just to play your
debating trade game. Hope it was worth it.

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?

Keep grasping at straws in frantic efforts to acquire a point in your
game. Let me know when you score.

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. I guess in your king of
the hill appreciating world... you have plenty of time to waste.

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.

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 and dishnet compression. OTOH.. DirectTV complaints are
mostly signal strength related. Good signal.. good picture.

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.

ScottW

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.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
:
: "Don Pearce" wrote in message
: ...
: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:
:
: As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
: the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
: There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
: be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
: standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
: that doesn't reflect future reality.
:
: d
: I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
: on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
: picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
: the
: picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
: projection.
:
: One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
: that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
: that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
: improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
:
:
:
:
: Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
: the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
: and more channels want to get in on the act.
:
: Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
: companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
: problem.
:
: Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
:
: http://www22.verizon.com/about/commu...echnology.html
:
: Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.
:
: ScottW
:
actually, it says:
"
a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
a.. as much as 20 times faster than today’s fastest
a.. high-speed data connections."

which is pretty nondescriptive.
around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
fiber capacity. 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
capacity link

some problems with ftth rollout:

world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate the US
alone would take decades of production

the associated cost is not equipment, nor fiber cost, it's the digging that
is extremely costly - it'll have to be paid for in some way to make ftth viable

Rudy