Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:15:34 -0600, Do What?
wrote:

Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

Because it would be redundant. Many people already have as many as
three tuners, one in the cable/satellite box, one in the TV and one in
the VCR. Also, with as many as 1000 channels now available, the best
thing is simply to use the tuner in the cable/sat box, because none of
the TV or VCR tuners can keep up with the expanding channel selection.
Even if you don't have digital cable, it's likely that there are
channels that won't be tuned in by the conventional 124 channel tuners
built in to VCRs and TVs.

If you're looking to be able to bypass the cable box and run directly
from the cable company, there's no incentive for the manufacturers to
try and replace the conventional cable company setup. There would have
to be a reason for the receiver manufacturers to want to displace the
cable box and there isn't any.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:15:34 -0600, Do What?
wrote:

Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

Because it would be redundant.

Yes, but I suspect that the real reason, as it applies to digital cable, is
that there are different systems in use, with the cable box made especially
for that system, under contract to the cable provider.

And lots of people have satellite instead of cable. What would they use it
for?

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:15:34 -0600, Do What?
wrote:

Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

It would be a nice feature, but I agree with the other posters
that it would go unused by too many people to make it a worthwhile
inclusion. My setup's not exotic by any stretch, but between the TV,
the VCR, and the TiVo, I already have three cable tuners - I don't
need a fourth.

A feature that I think *would* be a benefit to a lot of people
would be if the average "run of the mill" home theater receiver could
convert composite video inputs into S-video outputs.

To use my system as an example, I had S-video outputs from my
TiVo and DVD player, but only a composite output from my VCR. Even
though I could connect all three components to my receiver, there was
no way to make the VCR composite signal appear at the receiver's
S-video output. As a result, I had to connect both the S-video and
composite outputs from the receiver to the TV, and switch inputs at
the TV depending on whether I wanted to watch an S-video source or a
composite source. I got tired of that in a hurry and just got a S-VHS
VCR that has an S-video output so I could eliminate all the composite
connections entirely.

As you say, home theater receivers are designed to be the hub
of the system, with all the A/V sources plugged into them, and
providing one output to the TV. Too bad you can't do that unless all
of your sources use the same type of output.

Scott Gardner

"Do What?" wrote in message


Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being slapped
onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller manufacturers.

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

The digital boxes should be standardized as well.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:21:10 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:15:34 -0600, Do What?
wrote:

Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

Because it would be redundant.

Yes, but I suspect that the real reason, as it applies to digital cable, is
that there are different systems in use, with the cable box made especially
for that system, under contract to the cable provider.

And lots of people have satellite instead of cable. What would they use it
for?

I wasnt really talking in todays terms for the very reasons you & the
others have stated... but previously, the past 10years say, it
woulda been a very cheap feature to add.
Everyone is always trying to 1-up the competitor... so I woulda
thought someone along the lines woulda tried it, but was just curious
if there was a specific reason as to why it wasnt.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being slapped
onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller manufacturers.

Exactly my thoughts w/ the basic cable subscriptions. A simple cable
tv tuner card can be had for around $25.
El cheapo vcrs can be had for around that price as well... so the
tuner itself coulnd't have been costly to include, but woulda been a
nice feature to some, even if redundant to most.

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

The digital boxes should be standardized as well.

True, but unlike the basic cable tuner of old, the cost to integrate a
digital tuner into a receiver is hard to justify... might even have
to go w/ a licensing fee as well w/ the new systems. Then there is
the whole issue of them being able to be updated by the cable co's
through the cable line.... bringing up the chance for a decent amount
of problems. And while the boxes themselve may be the same, since
they can be upgraded by the cable so themselves through the line,
there is a decent chance that you wouldn't be able to move from one
cable co to another w/o some sorta problem.
There's just too much cost, too much programming, too many potential
issue, etc etc in the digitals systems that a stand-alone box is
really the only way to go... but was still curious as to why we never
saw a tuner included w/ the basic 125 channel systems.

Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards digital, a
stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case w/ the standard
basic cable.

Because it would be redundant. Many people already have as many as
three tuners, one in the cable/satellite box, one in the TV and one in
the VCR.

I disagree. Obviously it woulda been redundant for some, maybe even
most, but not for all. As the hub of the entertainment center it
takes 1 button press to switch between all the a/v inputs (dvd, vcr,
game system, etc) that are output to the tv. But switching back to
tv also requires changing the input on the tv. Obviously, many used
the vcr as the tuner, but running the signal through 2 devices instead
of 1 never helped the output.
Also, many receivers for a decent time weren't programmable. Meaning
if you used the receiver for audio, you had to use two remotes... 1
for channels, one for volume.
Redundant, maybe... but woulda made things just a lil bit more
simplistic.


Also, with as many as 1000 channels now available, the best
thing is simply to use the tuner in the cable/sat box,

Agreed... like I stated originally. Obviously it's not even an
option to consider now. But was just curious as to why it was never
at least tried in the past.


There would have
to be a reason for the receiver manufacturers to want to displace the
cable box and there isn't any.

Sure there was. Coulda had one more option than the competitor, for a
minimal cost. Before programmable remotes were standard, it coulda
replaced another remote. Ableit not by a geat deal, would made
day-to-day use just a lil bit easier for those that used it.

"Do What?" wrote in message
news
They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-TV tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being
slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller
manufacturers.

Exactly my thoughts w/ the basic cable subscriptions. A simple cable
TV tuner card can be had for around $25.

El cheapo vcrs can be had for around that price as well... so the
tuner itself couldn't have been costly to include, but woulda been a
nice feature to some, even if redundant to most.

These little TV front-end in-a-tin box OEM products look like $5 parts to
me. They are thoroughly standardized and commoditized. They do have visibly
mediocre video performance compared to even a middle-of-the line TV set.
Features like 3-line comb filters are rare or missing.

OTOH, there are higher-end products like "MYHD"
http://www.digitalconnection.com/Pro...deo/mdp120.asp .

Obviously w/ the cable co's trying to push everyone towards
digital, a stand-alone box is needed, but that was never the case
w/ the standard basic cable.

The digital boxes should be standardized as well.

True, but unlike the basic cable tuner of old, the cost to integrate a
digital tuner into a receiver is hard to justify... might even have
to go w/ a licensing fee as well w/ the new systems.

The licensing of set-top boxes should be something that is initiated by the
purchaser, and completed over the host cable system.

Then there is
the whole issue of them being able to be updated by the cable co's
through the cable line.... bringing up the chance for a decent amount
of problems.

Historically, problems like these have been solved at some point. We're just
not at that point, yet so it seems.

And while the boxes themselves may be the same, since
they can be upgraded by the cable so themselves through the line,
there is a decent chance that you wouldn't be able to move from one
cable co to another w/o some sorta problem.

Industry standards address issues like these. The big problem is that once
standards like these exist, the market for set top boxes has become
commditized. Then there is cut-throat competition among the set-top box
producers, which they obviously want to avoid as long as possible.

There's just too much cost, too much programming, too many potential
issue, etc etc in the digitals systems that a stand-alone box is
really the only way to go... but was still curious as to why we never
saw a tuner included w/ the basic 125 channel systems.

Well, it didn't happen!

Right now it is questionable whether the nexus of a modern HT system is the
A/V receiver or the HTPC...

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:29:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home theater
receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these? (or
have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup, just
your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not include a
cable-tv tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being slapped
onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller manufacturers.

ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of future
TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact that it
would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated receivers, I
doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that the poster was
asking about.

For such a tuner feature to really be useful these days, it would need
to be cable-ready and the 125 channel sound cards that you're talking
about wouldn't be very useful for a growing number of consumers. And
they will never address the interactive aspect of modern cable and
satellite boxes.

You might as well ask why receivers don't include integrated DVD
players.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:06:03 -0600, Do What?
wrote:

Because it would be redundant. Many people already have as many as
three tuners, one in the cable/satellite box, one in the TV and one in
the VCR.

I disagree. Obviously it woulda been redundant for some, maybe even
most, but not for all. As the hub of the entertainment center it
takes 1 button press to switch between all the a/v inputs (dvd, vcr,
game system, etc) that are output to the tv. But switching back to
tv also requires changing the input on the tv. Obviously, many used
the vcr as the tuner, but running the signal through 2 devices instead
of 1 never helped the output.

But those systems are still there. So now, you've got the consumer
paying for a *third* tuner.

Also, many receivers for a decent time weren't programmable. Meaning
if you used the receiver for audio, you had to use two remotes... 1
for channels, one for volume.
Redundant, maybe... but woulda made things just a lil bit more
simplistic.

I think they were looking at the fact that you couldn't buy a VCR *or*
a TV without a built-in tuner and so, there wasn't a huge need to
provide a third one.

Also, with as many as 1000 channels now available, the best
thing is simply to use the tuner in the cable/sat box,

Agreed... like I stated originally. Obviously it's not even an
option to consider now. But was just curious as to why it was never
at least tried in the past.

I think it was a cost/vs redundancy issue (especially at the price
point that you mention). By the time that receivers became "AV"
receivers, cable and satellite had already made huge inroads. Before
that, people didn't think so much about integrating their video
systems, with the exception of the audio portion of audio/video.

There would have
to be a reason for the receiver manufacturers to want to displace the
cable box and there isn't any.

Sure there was. Coulda had one more option than the competitor, for a
minimal cost.

But it's doubtful that even that "minimum cost" would have been able
to be integrated in the type of cheap receivers that you are talking
about without bumping it into a new price niche. If the chip (or card)
cost the manufacturer $10 (for example), now you're talking about
probably another $30 tacked on to the price of the receiver. Now, a
$199 receiver is a $230 and it's not an advantage with its former
direct competitors. It's now compteting with a different class
entirely.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
Before programmable remotes were standard, it coulda
replaced another remote. Ableit not by a geat deal, would made
day-to-day use just a lil bit easier for those that used it.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:29:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-tv tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being
slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller
manufacturers.

ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of future
TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact that it
would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated receivers, I
doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that the poster was
asking about.

Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in receivers
ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's question is a good
one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver? It would at worst
differentiate itself from the other 100 or more look-alikes that it competes
with on the shelves of the big-box stores and web sites.

For such a tuner feature to really be useful these days, it would need
to be cable-ready and the 125 channel sound cards that you're talking
about wouldn't be very useful for a growing number of consumers.

Actually, 125 channel video cards are growing trend in mainstream PCs.
Microsoft has even come out with a special version of XP that among other
things, supports them. You need to get out more, Weil.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...on/default.asp

And they will never address the interactive aspect of modern cable and
satellite boxes.

Never is a big word. That vision thing has long eluded you, Weil. I still
remember the rant you went on when I first suggested that people replace CD
changers with hard drives. It was such a stupid idea that 100,000's of
people now walk around with them in their pocket.

You might as well ask why receivers don't include integrated DVD players.

You obviously don't get out enough, Weil. Time to stop listening to those
ancient Klipsch Cornwalls and speakers from your classic-but-broken
collection, and stick your nose out of the door while the sun still shines.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:46:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:29:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-tv tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being
slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller
manufacturers.

ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of future
TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact that it
would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated receivers, I
doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that the poster was
asking about.

Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in receivers
ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's question is a good
one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver? It would at worst
differentiate itself from the other 100 or more look-alikes that it competes
with on the shelves of the big-box stores and web sites.

I addressed that in my earlier post. It's a matter of margins. At the
price points that's being talked about, every dollar is vital to keep
a receiver at its current price level. Niches tend to fall in $25 (or
so) increments. Once you've built another $25 - $30 to the price of a
receiver, suddenly you're compteting with more powerful receivers, and
you've just traded off one feature for another, and power is probably
a more motivating factor for most people who are shopping for that
sort of receiver.

For such a tuner feature to really be useful these days, it would need
to be cable-ready and the 125 channel sound cards that you're talking
about wouldn't be very useful for a growing number of consumers.

Actually, 125 channel video cards are growing trend in mainstream PCs.
Microsoft has even come out with a special version of XP that among other
things, supports them.

This doesn't mean that the card will displace their cable/satellite
box though. It's useful for those who want to watch TV on their PC at
work, or on their computer at home. It's *not* as useful as a
replacement for the cable pox at the point of someone's HT system.

You need to get out more, Weil.

Isn't it funny how you can't stay civil in *any* conversation with me?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...on/default.asp

And they will never address the interactive aspect of modern cable and
satellite boxes.

Never is a big word. That vision thing has long eluded you, Weil. I still
remember the rant you went on when I first suggested that people replace CD
changers with hard drives. It was such a stupid idea that 100,000's of
people now walk around with them in their pocket.

Once again, you can't stop with the personal attacks. That's fine.

However, considering the different formats for interactivity (which
has laready been addressed by someone else), I can't see how it would
*ever* be accomplished, especially since it's going to ba rare thing
just to have the decoder chip in a very few receivers in the first
place.

For a receiver to address the interactivity of *my* satellite box, for
instance, it would also have to add a phone jack.

You might as well ask why receivers don't include integrated DVD players.

You obviously don't get out enough, Weil. Time to stop listening to those
ancient Klipsch Cornwalls and speakers from your classic-but-broken
collection, and stick your nose out of the door while the sun still shines.

More personal attacks.

I think that history bears out *my* take on things.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:46:35 -0600, Do What?
wrote:

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being slapped
onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller manufacturers.

Exactly my thoughts w/ the basic cable subscriptions. A simple cable
tv tuner card can be had for around $25.
El cheapo vcrs can be had for around that price as well... so the
tuner itself coulnd't have been costly to include, but woulda been a
nice feature to some, even if redundant to most.

You have to look at *need*.

There's no perceived need by the consumer - no demand for the feature.
They don't have to pay for a basic cable box. If they *did*, that
would be a different story and it probably *would* have been included
in the feature set.

For those who don't have cable (a fairly small subset of the market),
they didn't demand such a feature since they already had to decide
which of the existing tuners to use. And some of *those* people
without cable probably didn't even use their receivers.

Remember that receivers came to AV rather late in the game. By that
time, most people already had the hookups that they wanted. Sure, they
could audio and video over as passthrough items in their receivers
(many of them probably had already moved audio over), but they were
probably already used to having to switch from VCR to TV or switch
inputs on their TV.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:46:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:29:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy
with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-TV tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are
being slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of
smaller manufacturers.

ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of
future TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact
that it would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated
receivers, I doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that
the poster was asking about.

Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in
receivers ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's
question is a good one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver?
It would at worst differentiate itself from the other 100 or more
look-alikes that it competes with on the shelves of the big-box
stores and web sites.

I addressed that in my earlier post. It's a matter of margins.

And of course, Dave Weil is always 100% right about *everything*

Your theories are bogus. The world isn't that much of a rigidly-defined
place.

For such a tuner feature to really be useful these days, it would
need to be cable-ready and the 125 channel sound cards that you're
talking about wouldn't be very useful for a growing number of
consumers.

Actually, 125 channel video cards are growing trend in mainstream
PCs. Microsoft has even come out with a special version of XP that
among other things, supports them.

This doesn't mean that the card will displace their cable/satellite
box though.

Of course Weil, I never said any such thing. So this becomes another one of
your straw man "debating trade" arguments.

It's useful for those who want to watch TV on their PC at
work, or on their computer at home. It's *not* as useful as a
replacement for the cable pox at the point of someone's HT system.

It seems to me that avoiding a "cable pox" is at least as desirable as
avoiding the chicken pox.

You need to get out more, Weil.

Isn't it funny how you can't stay civil in *any* conversation with me?

Just like you Weil to pretend that an anticipatory strike is actually an act
of aggression. You and Al Quida should compare notes especially given that
they are at least marginally successful while you're a total failure.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...on/default.asp

And they will never address the interactive aspect of modern cable
and satellite boxes.

Never is a big word. That vision thing has long eluded you, Weil. I
still remember the rant you went on when I first suggested that
people replace CD changers with hard drives. It was such a stupid
idea that 100,000's of people now walk around with them in their
pocket.

Once again, you can't stop with the personal attacks. That's fine.

It's also a very factual comment, Weil. If you would admit that you're not
Mr. Perfect 100% of the time, things could be different. It's too bad that
this lack of vision thing doesn't infect virtually everything that you say
around here. Prefer vinyl much?

However, considering the different formats for interactivity (which
has already been addressed by someone else), I can't see how it would
*ever* be accomplished, especially since it's going to be rare thing
just to have the decoder chip in a very few receivers in the first
place.

As I said in another post, its an open question whether the nexus of modern
HT systems will be receivers or a HTPC. There's already a sort of
reverse-osmosis creeping in, taking the form of time-shifting satellite
receivers. Those are just limited-function HTPCs with a hidden OS interface.
Ditto for any of the game boxes.

For a receiver to address the interactivity of *my* satellite box, for
instance, it would also have to add a phone jack.

Again we see the well-known Weil lack of vision. Why would a person bother
putting a phone jack on a receiver in the 21st century? Wouldn't a LAN
interface (wired, wireless) be more to the point? Of course it would.
Doesn't Weil already use a LAN interface to surf the web? Why can't he put 2
and 2 together?

Hence my former comments about HTPC versus receiver. About 20 years ago some
people scoffed when I predicted that in time nobody would bother building
something as mechanically complex as a typewriter without putting a CPU in
the box. A lot of people nodded. Today, its already true that nobody builds
something as technically complex as a receiver without putting a CPU in the
box. It's only a matter of time until that CPU grows, and grows, and...

You might as well ask why receivers don't include integrated DVD
players.

You obviously don't get out enough, Weil. Time to stop listening to
those ancient Klipsch Cornwalls and speakers from your
classic-but-broken collection, and stick your nose out of the door
while the sun still shines.

More personal attacks.

Weil, they are just more factual comments about the absolute hilarity of
your comments about receivers that don't include integrated DVD players or
phone jacks.

I think that history bears out *my* take on things.

Weil, history bears out the fact that sensing the future or even grasping
the present is way over your head. We've got your past embarrassing comments
about hard drives for music storage, and your ludicrous current comments
about receivers with phone jacks and integrated DVD players. One nice thing
about waiting tables in a bar is that the technology doesn't change THAT
fast, or at least management can keep you isolated from it, eh Weil?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:30:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:46:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:29:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy
with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-TV tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are
being slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of
smaller manufacturers.

ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of
future TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact
that it would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated
receivers, I doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that
the poster was asking about.

Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in
receivers ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's
question is a good one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver?
It would at worst differentiate itself from the other 100 or more
look-alikes that it competes with on the shelves of the big-box
stores and web sites.

I addressed that in my earlier post. It's a matter of margins.

And of course, Dave Weil is always 100% right about *everything*

I certainly am right about my opinions on the matter. And I clearly
expressed that my comments have been my opinions.

Your theories are bogus. The world isn't that much of a rigidly-defined
place.

It is in the marketplace. There are definitely niches that
manufacturers compete in. They try to beat each other in the same
niches. They don't try to place receivers in different niches in
direct competition.

For such a tuner feature to really be useful these days, it would
need to be cable-ready and the 125 channel sound cards that you're
talking about wouldn't be very useful for a growing number of
consumers.

Actually, 125 channel video cards are growing trend in mainstream
PCs. Microsoft has even come out with a special version of XP that
among other things, supports them.

This doesn't mean that the card will displace their cable/satellite
box though.

Of course Weil, I never said any such thing. So this becomes another one of
your straw man "debating trade" arguments.

But what I mentioned is what the basis for this "growing trend" is,
not to displace the cable/TV/VCR tuner box that we are talking about.
It's about getting TV funtionality on a PC.

It's useful for those who want to watch TV on their PC at
work, or on their computer at home. It's *not* as useful as a
replacement for the cable pox at the point of someone's HT system.

It seems to me that avoiding a "cable pox" is at least as desirable as
avoiding the chicken pox.

Probably so. I know that's why I left Comcast.

You need to get out more, Weil.

Isn't it funny how you can't stay civil in *any* conversation with me?

Just like you Weil to pretend that an anticipatory strike is actually an act
of aggression.

It is.

It's your method. You talk about how bad things are here on RAO but
you can't keepyourself from perpetuating the anger and misery.

You and Al Quida should compare notes especially given that
they are at least marginally successful while you're a total failure.

Who is "Al Quida"? I'm guessing that you mean al-Qaida or Al- Qa'ida.
If so, I'm guessing that in a year or so, sl-Qaida will be the new
Nazi in some USENET law about losing arguments.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...on/default.asp

And they will never address the interactive aspect of modern cable
and satellite boxes.

Never is a big word. That vision thing has long eluded you, Weil. I
still remember the rant you went on when I first suggested that
people replace CD changers with hard drives. It was such a stupid
idea that 100,000's of people now walk around with them in their
pocket.

Once again, you can't stop with the personal attacks. That's fine.

It's also a very factual comment, Weil. If you would admit that you're not
Mr. Perfect 100% of the time, things could be different. It's too bad that
this lack of vision thing doesn't infect virtually everything that you say
around here.

I don't think things will *ever* be different when it comes to how you
converse with me. This post proves it. I didn't say *anything*
untoward to you and you couldn't help yourself.

Prefer vinyl much?

Yes I do. Sometimes.

However, considering the different formats for interactivity (which
has already been addressed by someone else), I can't see how it would
*ever* be accomplished, especially since it's going to be rare thing
just to have the decoder chip in a very few receivers in the first
place.

As I said in another post, its an open question whether the nexus of modern
HT systems will be receivers or a HTPC. There's already a sort of
reverse-osmosis creeping in, taking the form of time-shifting satellite
receivers. Those are just limited-function HTPCs with a hidden OS interface.
Ditto for any of the game boxes.

If what you say is the case, it simply bolsters *my* argument.

For a receiver to address the interactivity of *my* satellite box, for
instance, it would also have to add a phone jack.

Again we see the well-known Weil lack of vision. Why would a person bother
putting a phone jack on a receiver in the 21st century?

Because, to have the interactivity of my satellite receiver, you would
*have* to have a phone jack, since that's how it communicates. If I
want to pay my bill through my satellite receiver, it has to be
connected to the phone line. If I want to order pay-per-view without
an additional ordering fee, it has to be done through the phone jack.
That's just the way they do it.

Wouldn't a LAN
interface (wired, wireless) be more to the point? Of course it would.
Doesn't Weil already use a LAN interface to surf the web?

I use a phone line to surf the web. Connected to a DSL modem.

Why can't he put 2 and 2 together?

Yes, that's a good question.

Hence my former comments about HTPC versus receiver. About 20 years ago some
people scoffed when I predicted that in time nobody would bother building
something as mechanically complex as a typewriter without putting a CPU in
the box. A lot of people nodded. Today, its already true that nobody builds
something as technically complex as a receiver without putting a CPU in the
box. It's only a matter of time until that CPU grows, and grows, and...

And yet, they *still* aren't putting tuners in the box. they are just
getting to the point where a few very expensive receivers *might*
offer on in the future. It's doubtful though that the type of
receivers that are the point of this discussion will offer them.

You might as well ask why receivers don't include integrated DVD
players.

You obviously don't get out enough, Weil. Time to stop listening to
those ancient Klipsch Cornwalls and speakers from your
classic-but-broken collection, and stick your nose out of the door
while the sun still shines.

More personal attacks.

Weil, they are just more factual comments about the absolute hilarity of
your comments about receivers that don't include integrated DVD players or
phone jacks.

As I said earlier, to offer the functionality of my current satellite
reciever, the AV receiver would HAVE to have a phone jack. Which is my
point. Even *you* see how ridiculous this whole thing is.

I think that history bears out *my* take on things.

Weil, history bears out the fact that sensing the future or even grasping
the present is way over your head. We've got your past embarrassing comments
about hard drives for music storage, and your ludicrous current comments
about receivers with phone jacks and integrated DVD players. One nice thing
about waiting tables in a bar is that the technology doesn't change THAT
fast, or at least management can keep you isolated from it, eh Weil?

More personal attacks.

Let's not forget the topic and that's why bottom-feeding receivers
haven't offered TV tuners. In your haste to disagree with me, you've
boxed yourself out of the most logical argument.

shrug

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message Buy with.


A feature that I think *would* be a benefit to a lot of people
would be if the average "run of the mill" home theater receiver
could
convert composite video inputs into S-video outputs.

To use my system as an example, I had S-video outputs from my
TiVo and DVD player, but only a composite output from my VCR. Even
though I could connect all three components to my receiver, there
was
no way to make the VCR composite signal appear at the receiver's
S-video output. As a result, I had to connect both the S-video and
composite outputs from the receiver to the TV, and switch inputs at
the TV depending on whether I wanted to watch an S-video source or a
composite source. I got tired of that in a hurry and just got a
S-VHS
VCR that has an S-video output so I could eliminate all the
composite
connections entirely.

This problem could be solved easily at the TV set. Just make the set
so it switches to whichever input has a signal on it. Since only one
device is on at a time, only one input is active. An alternative is
to have a remote code to select which input is active. Most TV sets
currently have a toggle function to select the input; which input you
select depends on which one you are at when the button is pushed. If
each input has a unique code, it could be addressed by a universal
remote at the same time the source is selected. IOW, the problem is
easily solvable, but our Sonys and Panasonics of the world have not
seen fit to address it.

Norm Strong

Arny Krueger wrote:

These little TV front-end in-a-tin box OEM products look like $5 parts to
me. They are thoroughly standardized and commoditized. They do have visibly
mediocre video performance compared to even a middle-of-the line TV set.
Features like 3-line comb filters are rare or missing.

Correct. My ancient Sony VCR, which has numerous other glitches and wear
related problems(nearly ten years old) - it has a superior tuner to the
TVs and well - everything else in the house. It makes an excellent Cable
tuner.

The other VCR? worse than a TV tuner card. Ick.

Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-tv tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being
slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller
manufacturers.

ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of future
TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact that it
would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated receivers, I
doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that the poster was
asking about.

Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in receivers
ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's question is a good
one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver? It would at worst
differentiate itself from the other 100 or more look-alikes that it competes
with on the shelves of the big-box stores and web sites.

I addressed that in my earlier post. It's a matter of margins. At the
price points that's being talked about, every dollar is vital to keep
a receiver at its current price level. Niches tend to fall in $25 (or
so) increments. Once you've built another $25 - $30 to the price of a
receiver, suddenly you're compteting with more powerful receivers, and
you've just traded off one feature for another, and power is probably
a more motivating factor for most people who are shopping for that
sort of receiver.

Im thinking you are under estimating how many people walk into a chain
store and make their decision solely based on the lil info card that
has only 3 lines of a description on it.

Take for instance:
http://tinyurl.com/w1sm (notice my post #17 & his response #18)
and then he came back in under 24hrs w/:
http://tinyurl.com/w1sr

The guy dropped $7800 on a home theater setup w/ only (afaik based on
his response) adivce from a football ng.

True, it may add $30 to the overall price, but some simple marketing
like and additional neon starburst that claimed "Built in cable tuner
- *1* connection to your tv" would very much appeal to the millions of
ppl that can't program a vcr, or like the guy above, over some
additional power.

I think it woulda been a nice add-on, even if it did tack on an
additional cost, for many people.

There is also another thing that hasnt been brought up. Even w/o a
tv-tuner include, just a coaxial RF output on the receiver woulda been
used by many, since many tv's didnt have rca inputs for a decent time.
Granted, about the same time the receiver went from audio-only to a/v,
rca inputs became standard on a tv... but a great deal upgrade their
systems in peices, one at a time... so many had an older tv with a
new receiver, but still had to run anything hooked up to the receiver
through the vcr to get the video to the tv.

I still think it woulda been a nice addon for some (not all)
receivers.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:22:05 -0600, Do What?
wrote:


Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...

Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.

They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-tv tuner?

Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being
slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller
manufacturers.

ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of future
TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact that it
would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated receivers, I
doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that the poster was
asking about.

Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in receivers
ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's question is a good
one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver? It would at worst
differentiate itself from the other 100 or more look-alikes that it competes
with on the shelves of the big-box stores and web sites.

I addressed that in my earlier post. It's a matter of margins. At the
price points that's being talked about, every dollar is vital to keep
a receiver at its current price level. Niches tend to fall in $25 (or
so) increments. Once you've built another $25 - $30 to the price of a
receiver, suddenly you're compteting with more powerful receivers, and
you've just traded off one feature for another, and power is probably
a more motivating factor for most people who are shopping for that
sort of receiver.

Im thinking you are under estimating how many people walk into a chain
store and make their decision solely based on the lil info card that
has only 3 lines of a description on it.

Take for instance:
http://tinyurl.com/w1sm (notice my post #17 & his response #18)
and then he came back in under 24hrs w/:
http://tinyurl.com/w1sr

The guy dropped $7800 on a home theater setup w/ only (afaik based on
his response) adivce from a football ng.

True, it may add $30 to the overall price, but some simple marketing
like and additional neon starburst that claimed "Built in cable tuner
- *1* connection to your tv" would very much appeal to the millions of
ppl that can't program a vcr, or like the guy above, over some
additional power.

I think it woulda been a nice add-on, even if it did tack on an
additional cost, for many people.

There is also another thing that hasnt been brought up. Even w/o a
tv-tuner include, just a coaxial RF output on the receiver woulda been
used by many, since many tv's didnt have rca inputs for a decent time.
Granted, about the same time the receiver went from audio-only to a/v,
rca inputs became standard on a tv... but a great deal upgrade their
systems in peices, one at a time... so many had an older tv with a
new receiver, but still had to run anything hooked up to the receiver
through the vcr to get the video to the tv.

I still think it woulda been a nice addon for some (not all)
receivers.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a nice bell-n-whistle, I'm just
pointing out probably *why* it never happened. And I think that a
feature like that wouldn't have been at home in the cheapest
receivers, but further up the food chain. After all, you've got to
have a reason to sell more expensive receivers, right? You don't want
to open with *everything* under the sun. You want to give people a
reason to spend more money on a better model, if they can afford it.

"dave weil" wrote in message


I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a nice bell-n-whistle, I'm just
pointing out probably *why* it never happened.

David Weil intellectual problem number one. Dave you aren't pointing out
probably why it never happened, you've presented your theory-of-the-moment
about why it didn't happen. You've collected no evidence to support your
claim that this was the most likely reason. You just made up a theory and
presented it as being revealed truth. First time through, you even left out
the "probably". So, to compound your intellectual dishonesty, you've even
been trying to backtrack and change what you actually said the first time
through.

And I think that a feature like that wouldn't have been at home in the
cheapest
receivers, but further up the food chain.

Irrelevant. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the receiver
manufacturers have lost track of what a receiver does. A receiver is the
combination of tuner and an amplifier. A tuner should tune the frequencies
people listen to and demodulate the signals that people listen to. At this
time people spend a lot of time tuning and listening to cable channels.
Since it is considered to be perfectly reasonable for A-V tuners to route
and amplify video signals, it is equally reasonable for receivers to tune
cable channels.

After all, you've got to have a reason to sell more expensive receivers,
right?

Great argument that points out the obvious failings of your earlier and
present erroneous pontifications, Weil. Even if the cheapest receivers lack
cable tuners in order to make the lowest possible price points, there's no
reason why a useful feature like a cable tuner couldn't be part of more
expensive receivers.

You don't want to open with *everything* under the sun.

Perhaps, but a cable tuner should have been a part of "Full-featured"
receivers.

You want to give people a reason to spend more money on a better model, if
they can afford it.

Agreed, and a cable tuner would provide additional perceived value for a
significant segment of the A-V receiver market, and justify the sales of
more expensive equipment.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:23:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a nice bell-n-whistle, I'm just
pointing out probably *why* it never happened.

David Weil intellectual problem number one. Dave you aren't pointing out
probably why it never happened, you've presented your theory-of-the-moment
about why it didn't happen. You've collected no evidence to support your
claim that this was the most likely reason. You just made up a theory and
presented it as being revealed truth. First time through, you even left out
the "probably". So, to compound your intellectual dishonesty, you've even
been trying to backtrack and change what you actually said the first time
through.

Reading through this post, I fail to see intellectual problem number
two.

Regardless, I *have* supplied evidence stated as personal opinion. You
fail to recognize my niche market theory, which is understandable
since you've never been invlolved in marketing receivers, and it's
been over 35 years since you've been involved in selling them, and at
that time, niches were spread further apart since you didn't have as
many receivers competing and manufacturers didn't generally have as
many models.

And I think that a feature like that wouldn't have been at home in the
cheapest
receivers, but further up the food chain.

Irrelevant. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the receiver
manufacturers have lost track of what a receiver does. A receiver is the
combination of tuner and an amplifier. A tuner should tune the frequencies
people listen to and demodulate the signals that people listen to. At this
time people spend a lot of time tuning and listening to cable channels.
Since it is considered to be perfectly reasonable for A-V tuners to route
and amplify video signals, it is equally reasonable for receivers to tune
cable channels.

Except that there are too many channels and too many different
standards to deal with. And in the earlier days (which is what the
poster was really talking about), this trend wasn't as pronounced.

After all, you've got to have a reason to sell more expensive receivers,
right?

Great argument that points out the obvious failings of your earlier and
present erroneous pontifications, Weil. Even if the cheapest receivers lack
cable tuners in order to make the lowest possible price points, there's no
reason why a useful feature like a cable tuner couldn't be part of more
expensive receivers.

But we wern't talking about those "more expensive" receivers. He
stipulated in the first post that it was the cheapest receivers that
he was talking about, and that's what I've focused my conversation on.
Please don't try to change the focus of the discussion at this point.
If you want to expand it to more expensive receivers - fine. In that
case, I would STILL maintain that it's the lack of consistant
standards of cable and satellite systems that will keep this feature
from becoming standard in receivers. This isn't analogous to AM/FM
tuners because of the standards issue.

You know that if it weren't *me* arguing this point, you would be
making it yourself.

You don't want to open with *everything* under the sun.

Perhaps, but a cable tuner should have been a part of "Full-featured"
receivers.

Once again, you're ignoring both the redundant and the standards
issues. The comparable analogy would be if turntables, cassette decks
and CD players always already had tuners built into them. If this were
the case, we couldn't have "receivers" anymore (or maybe only a very
few specialist receivers). We'd only have amps and preamps and
integrated amps. It's simply a matter of how the development stream
for video has evolved, which is different than the audio stream. Many
things between the two are starting to converge, but I doubt that this
will be one of them, where a TV tuner is standard in all receivers (or
any but a select few). In fact, I think that the average Joe is
already a bit flummoxed with the way receivers have set up these days
(from talking with a few of the average Joes). To add another layer of
programming, to make the remote even more complicated, to worry about
shrinking real estate on the receiver itself; all of these things work
against this trend that you foresee. Also, you didn't address the fact
that my receiver would need a phone jack to replace my current box.

You want to give people a reason to spend more money on a better model, if
they can afford it.

Agreed, and a cable tuner would provide additional perceived value for a
significant segment of the A-V receiver market, and justify the sales of
more expensive equipment.

But then we're not talking about the cheapest receivers any more.
Don't forget the focus of the original poster's question.

I still maintain that the lack of consistant standards will keep
manufacturers from embracing cable box chips in any but perhaps their
top two models, if even then. With the increasing inroads that
satellite systems like Direct TV are making, and their requirement for
things like phone lines to maintain full functionality, I doubt you're
going to see much action on this front. After all, these chips have
been available for as long as digital cable boxes have been available,
i.e. about 3 years now. If these sort of chips are going to be
embraced by consumer manufacturers, it's likely to be bundled in the
new "digital TVs".