Any recent 5th generation receiver chip news? I know this is an old topic, but I would like to know if there is any movement at all for LG or Casper chip receivers.

IB

Look for one in the New Directv MPEG 4 STB's soon

Thought I saw a post by Bob Miller at OpenDTV (http://www.freelists.org/archives/opendtv/03-2005/) mentioning he was getting one. -- John

I would like clarity and that thread was difficult to follow.

Who is making a 5th generation LG chip receiver and how much does it cost?

Do you have a link to a product announcement?

Is it a expensive satellite box or a stand alone terrestrial unit?

IB

I'd like to get one for my multipath-plagued NYC location. Can only recall from memory that someone speculated that the Miller receiver was a Hamut (sp?) model, but don't think anyone pinned this down. Seemed to be more a test acquisition than a store/online purchase. -- John

I think Bob mentioned he did get the box but he provided no details. And then disappeared.

Are you out there Bob? Click twice if you can hear me but can't talk. ;)

- Tom

Today Bob posted on a newsgroup that no 5th generation LG chip was available in a stand alone OTA HDTV tuner.

IB

I understand that the new DIRECTV H20 HD STB will have LG's new 5th generation ATSC chip set.

-Robert

Yea, but then you pay for all the satellite stuff. That's no good for people who just want OTA. I want/need a stand alone OTA box for $200. or less. I am sure LG will put one out some day with a 5th chip.

IB

Today Bob posted on a newsgroup that no 5th generation LG chip was available in a stand alone OTA HDTV tuner.

Bob's opendtv post (http://www.freelists.org/archives/opendtv/03-2005/msg00237.html)

Our latest test of a receiver using LG's 5th generation chip but not
made by LG was a major disappointment. It seems that having the LG 5th
generation chip is not what made the LG prototype we tested last summer
work so well.

We took it over to Mark Schubin's apartment and he can tell you what his
experience with it was. ...

It looks like whatever was tested as a 5th gen box at Mark Shubin's apartment last year was not just the new 5th gen chip but likely had some other special support circuitry added that I'm guessing is not yet cost effective to make.

Bummer. Back to waiting for Moore's Law to fix things. :(

- Tom

It's interesting that Miller is being discussed here at all. From what I've read of his postings on Usenet, IMHO the guy belongs in a straitjacket.

One word: Ugh.

Bummer. Back to waiting for Moore's Law to fix things. :(


Well, I saw today that Best Buy has a Toshiba SD-5970 up-converting DVD player on sale for $150. Sooner or later you will be able to buy a HDTV receiver that really works for $100.

IB

As an engineer I can tell you that he is not wrong about the issues with ATSC reception in areas of high multipath.

I too have been "forbidden" to discuss the great receiver debate.

It won't matter much longer anyway as traditional spectrum users are being regulated out of business by an FCC run by legal beagles who would change the laws of physics if they could..

Just how much longer can the industry wait for a receiver that lives up to the promises made in 1999 and 2000.

People on here blame broadcasters for all the problems in DTV, They complain about reception issues and the contortions they have to go through to get even basic functionality but no one complains about poor receiver design..its always the broadcasters fault...and in spite of what you think NAB doesn't represent all broadcasters.

Unless the broadcasters say otherwise (and allow their engineers to do so) we can only assume they support the current directions in receiver technology.

- Tom

I'm not sure we have enough information about this to jump to conclusions. Bob was told this was an LG 5th gen chip, but Mark Schubin said they couldn't tell by looking at it. Here are Mark Schubin's comments regarding the test at his aparement:
- maybe it wasn't a 5th-generation LG chip,
- maybe LG is doing stuff besides the 5th-generation chip that is important,
- maybe the broadcasters were doing strange things that day, or
- maybe some new building has created a new set of awkward multipath.

I think it is premature to conclude anything about the LG 5th gen chipset receivers at this time.

I think it is premature to conclude anything about the LG 5th gen chipset receivers at this time.

It is premature to conclude anything about any ATSC chipsets unless they are already shipping and we can play with them ourselves. There have been to many hyped announcements and subsequent disappointments for me to believe otherwise.

I think I'm guilty of (briefly) being one of the early chearleaders for the LG 5th gen chip. But the next time I'll definitely wait for solid reports of an actual selling consumer product. If that happens to be a functional version of the LG 5th (or 6th, or 7th) gen that would be just fine with me, but I'm no longer going to count on it.

In the mean time I guess it is safe to say they are not here yet.

- Tom

My point is how much longer can we ( the industry) afford to wait ..

DTV like any information transmission system, require both ends to perform in order for the system to work as advertised.

Broadcasters have no control over the receiver end of the link...

No one wants to hear from engineers...

The facts cannot be allowed to interfere with other motives.

Originally posted by inky blacks
Sooner or later you will be able to buy a HDTV receiver that really works for $100.

IB

IB, I'm sorry that you've been having such a tough time with OTA HDTV. :(

What receivers have you tried at your location that haven't worked due to multipath issues? What type of antennas- indoor.. outdoor..??

Originally posted by trbarry
Unless the broadcasters say otherwise (and allow their engineers to do so) we can only assume they support the current directions in receiver technology.

- Tom


In my case the ethics code for the Commonwealth of Kentucky prevented us from making a formal statement on the matter. (could have been considered an endorsement)

I'm afraid the real agenda is to eliminate all legacy users of spectrum ( those who got "free" spectrum) and re-farm it all to either new services or make the old users pay in some form.. The cost of the DTV transition for the incumbent broadcasters has been enormous and yet the receiver manufacturers ( who stand to make the most money from the transition) are still not in the game..


As I have said before, broadcasters who think they are in the television business are out of business..broadcasters who realize they are in the content distribution business will survive.

Traditional television is over..

I'm afraid the real agenda is to eliminate all legacy users of spectrum ( those who got "free" spectrum) and re-farm it all to either new services or make the old users pay in some form.. The cost of the DTV transition for the incumbent broadcasters has been enormous and yet the receiver manufacturers ( who stand to make the most money from the transition) are still not in the game..


As I have said before, broadcasters who think they are in the television business are out of business..broadcasters who realize they are in the content distribution business will survive.

Traditional television is over..
I just can't sit back and read this doom-and-gloom broadcaster junk without commenting. It takes quite an imagination to assume someone or some organization has a "real agenda to elminate all legacy users of spectrum and re-farm it out". Who are you accusing of this conspiracy? Why do they want to do it? How can you ignore the social and political consequences of the loss of free OTA television if it were to happen?

Folks, traditional television will be here for a long long time. And the receivers work for the vast majority of viewers. Relax and enjoy

In my case the ethics code for the Commonwealth of Kentucky prevented us from making a formal statement on the matter. (could have been considered an endorsement)

And I'm sure there are a myriad of other similar cases where a Junior Woodchuck merit badge oath or disapproving glance from a boss suppressed the urge to comment on the emperor's new clothes.

But if the NAB members (not just the networks) truly and collectively believed we needed something different I suspect they could find a way to say so.

But not if they believe going along will get them permanant multiple must carry on cable instead of the ability to broadcast to an actual receiving digital audience.

The problem is that neither the NAB nor the CE members believe there is money to be made in ATSC reception and that is becoming a self-fullfilling prophecy.

The networks have their own agenda.

- Tom

Originally posted by Rich Peterson
I just can't sit back and read this doom-and-gloom broadcaster junk without commenting. It takes quite an imagination to assume someone or some organization has a "real agenda to elminate all legacy users of spectrum and re-farm it out". Who are you accusing of this conspiracy? Why do they want to do it? How can you ignore the social and political consequences of the loss of free OTA television if it were to happen?

Folks, traditional television will be here for a long long time. And the receivers work for the vast majority of viewers. Relax and enjoy

Okay from the top:

1. Broadcast Flag mandate- Broadcasters are to be held liable if the content they transmit somehow ends up on the Internet.

2. Must carry- debate- Stations that generate new additional content are blocked from 75% of their potential audience.

3. BPL vs HAM Radio users and all legacy users below 30 Mhz. ( see BPL information at http://www.arrl.org)

4. AM radio was forced to install high frequency filters to reduce audio quality in the 1990s under the promise that radio receivers would be improved with better audio processing to make up for the loss.. didn't happen..

5. Clear Channel recently ordered all its AM stations not running music programming to reduce their audio bandwidth to 5 kHz. and 6 kHz for the music stations. They have also stated they are going to push to make this a national mandate.

6. Look at how many community radio stations have been transfered to nationwide conglomerates.

7. The only requirement is a single FTA DTV program stream at least as good as the analog ...what about when the analog is gone?


The goal of the FCC has changed.. its new role is revenue oriented:

The old services eat spectrum and that spectrum is worth money to Congress.. so to get the spectrum back (so they can auction it) they have to remove the old users..

Kinda like what was done in the 1800's with the Native Americans..

Originally posted by trbarry
And I'm sure there are a myriad of other similar cases where a Junior Woodchuck merit badge oath or disapproving glance from a boss suppressed the urge to comment on the emperor's new clothes.



As a employee of the Commonwealth the penalties are severe... termination of employment, fine and jail..

NAB doesn't represent the bulk of the stations.. No networks are part of NAB anymore and most small market stations can't afford to join.

Originally posted by Solfan
IB, I'm sorry that you've been having such a tough time with OTA HDTV. :(

What receivers have you tried at your location that haven't worked due to multipath issues? What type of antennas- indoor.. outdoor..??

I use a built in tuner in my Toshiba 51HX93 that I think is an ATI. I have to use two indoor antennas in parallel (Silver Sensor and Megawave) hooked up to a Zenith indoor antenna amp. It does not work without the amp! I have tried all the possible combinations and this combination works best for me. I still get dropouts and Fox is very undependable. The buzz is or WAS that the 5th LG chip would mean I could just use one antenna and no longer be forced to get up and move the antennas around when I switched stations. It all works, but with unnecessary effort and complexity.

IB

I think most of us here on this forum like HDTV enough that we can find ways to receive it if we really want. But I suspect that for many of us that has also involved a certain amount of grumbling, cursing, and a wonder why it has not been made just a bit easier.

I also have fiddled with antennas at different residences and have so far always been successful at it. But I'm also now obviously quite p*$$ed about finding that LG is not going to market the promised 5th gen boxes that sounded good enough to dramatically change the public image of how easy it is (or isn't) to get OTA HD.

- Tom

As a employee of the Commonwealth the penalties are severe... termination of employment, fine and jail.

William -

Reading back over my comments I see that I was unnecessarily sarcastic. It's been a long day. Sorry.

Can you elaborate a bit more on this legal censorship that stops you and others from commenting on ATSC?

- Tom

I forgot to add two more to the list:

1. The FCC is pushing to authorize unlicensed devices to operate on "unused" TV spectrum. This is before translators. LPTV or out of core assigned stations have even had a chance to make the transition..

2. If you have a BUD C-band system be aware the FCC has recently authorized UWB devices on 3650 MHz. This is just below the lower Edge of C-Band downlink frequencies..

I have little doubt that OTA TV is not now as important as it once was. But during that time of importance the broadcaster's and network's interests were apparently a bit more aligned and they did some very successful lobbying for things like exclusive carriage areas, cable must-carry, and probably others.

Now the interests of the networks and broadcasters are diverging and OTA is becoming marginalized by cable and satellite. As the broadcaster's importance wanes it is probably no surprise that they lose some of their protected status and the regulation seems gradually less friendly.

Any broadcasters just relying on cable carriage or hoping for more of it may have a rough time in the future. And I also suspect the affiliate network contracts may become a bit less broadcaster friendly.

To reverse or slow this trend I suspect the broadcasters would indeed have to start thinking about broadcasting again, in digital. And that would require the insistance on 5th gen or better STB's that actually work.

The broadcasters mainly supply value added in only two ways. It is only partly in supplying local content (or ad's). The remainder is in being able to reach those folks not subscribing to cable or satellite. And I do not think broadcasters are giving priority to this issue in the coming digital world. Again, they need to insist on working digital STB's and TV's. Their survival depends on it.

- Tom

trbarry,
you have a PM

March 16, 2005

Four Out Of Four Congressional Leaders Agree: Analog Cut-Off Date Needed To Complete DTV Transition

CEA’s 10th Annual HDTV Summit Focuses On The End Of Analog; Success Of HDTV



With the end of the analog television era in clear sight, digital television (DTV) government and industry leaders convened for the Consumer Electronics Association’s (CEA) 10th annual HDTV Summit - “The Analog Cut-Off: What Will It Take? What Are the Opportunities?” Four congressional DTV leaders led a chorus of support for the establishment of a hard cut-off date for analog television broadcasts that resounded throughout the conference.

“Soon, DTV will be known as TV,” said CEA President and CEO Gary Shapiro as he opened the conference. “The standout will remain HDTV. CEA has aggressive projections for future HDTV sales, but how American consumers will judge our work remains to be seen and largely depends on our actions going forward.”

Stating CEA’s support for a date-certain for the analog cut-off, Shapiro laid out policy prescriptions for the swift completion of the DTV transition, including Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforcement of cable industry reliance upon the same security as consumer electronics manufacturers. Shapiro also pushed for DTV promotions by all industries involved in the transition.

Several members of Congress addressed the crowded convention center during morning keynotes, all expressing their support for a date-certain for the end of analog broadcasts The first keynote speaker, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, indicated he would introduce legislation on the issue later this spring or summer.

“Everybody wants the certainty of a set date except for the broadcasters,” Barton said. He stated that the projected $4 billion to $5 billion windfall that is expected from the auction of the returned spectrum could help fund the transition costs for those consumers who cannot afford to buy digital tuners. He concluded by encouraging Summit attendees to get involved on Capitol Hill and educate lawmakers about how the digital transition affects consumers.

“I’m on the same page as Joe Barton,” said Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Fred Upton (R-MI), as he took the podium following Chairman Barton. “The cut-off could be financed by the proceeds of the spectrum auction. Education is a critical component in preparing the consumer.”

Senator John Ensign (R-NV), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness, completed the morning keynotes. “A date certain is what we need so there is predictability in the market so consumers will invest.” He added, “Educate members of Congress why a date certain is so important.”

The first panel session of the day featured industry experts and policymakers who weighed in on factors impeding the transition. Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, and CEA’s Shapiro immediately agreed broadcasters were the most notable hurdle to the transition. Defending his industry, MSTV President David Donovan countered that consumers were ultimately blocking the transition. The entire panel agreed more consumer education is needed by industry and Congress and that the best date for an analog cut-off is sooner, rather than later. Several argued, however, that the original date of 2006 is still the goal.

DTV trends and sales projections dominated an informative sales forecast panel moderated by Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Jon Healey. Panelists who had been “bearish” about DTV sales in the early years of the transition, noted that falling prices and increasing content were driving larger numbers of DTV sales than they had previously predicted.

“An important consideration for driving future sales is to sell the experience, including what HD shows are available, instead of just focusing on the technology,” offered panelist Philip Swann, CEO of TV Predictions. Fellow panelists Sean Wargo, CEA Director of Industry Analysis, and Josh Bernoff, Forrester Vice President and Principal Analyst, announced updated DTV sales projections. Wargo said DTV unit sales would reach 20 million units in 2005 alone, amounting to 36 million cumulative units sold since introduction; Bernoff was more cautious, projecting total DTV unit sales of 50 million from market introduction in 1998 through 2009.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), former Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, addressed Summit attendees during the 5th Annual Academy of Digital Television Pioneers Awards luncheon as he accepted his award for Best DTV Government Leadership. McCain, who also backs a hard analog cut-off date, expressed his support for Chairman Barton’s bill and pledged to continue to work so that millions would be able to appreciate high-definition television. Awards also were presented to other leaders in the digital television transition and content development. For a full list of award winners, visit www.ce.org.

The future of the analog spectrum and the end of the 18-year DTV transition were the topics of discussion in the final session of the Summit, entitled “Beyond HD Technology: Opportunities for the Returned Analog Spectrum.” Moderator Drew Clark of the National Journal’s Technology Daily led a dialogue on how companies expect to participate in the 700 megahertz band. Panelists from the information technology and wireless industries pointed to numerous possible uses, including public safety and third-generation (3G) wireless services, such as full streaming video. The panelists also debated whether licensing the spectrum space would inhibit technological innovations and whether wireless communication would be the best use of the newly freed space.

The 10th annual HDTV Summit concluded with an HDTV prize drawing from ESPN HD and speculation about what next year’s Summit will have in store. Many agreed the 11th annual HDTV Summit will likely focus on financing the cut-off date and continued broadcaster resistance.

The first panel session of the day featured industry experts and policymakers who weighed in on factors impeding the transition. Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, and CEA’s Shapiro immediately agreed broadcasters were the most notable hurdle to the transition. Defending his industry, MSTV President David Donovan countered that consumers were ultimately blocking the transition.
I think this is totally unfair to broadcasters and consumers. The CE companies certainly have done things to impede the transition. Why are STBs still not widely available or promoted? Why did the CEA sue to stop the tuner mandate? Why do CE companies oppose putting warnings on analog sets?

I spend most of my career in the TV Broadcasting business, working for Ikegami, Nucomm and with the Hitachi Professional TV Broadcast Group as a systems engineering manager and business development manager.

I have gone to the past 24 NAB Shows and my recollection of why NBC, ABC and CBS dropped out of NAB was strictly because of the rapid rise in NAB membership for the three networks. FOX and most independent broadcasters are still active members and so are most professional broadcast manufacturers.

In fact, almost without exception all station Chief Engineers and most of the engineering staff of every broadcast station including the three networks still go to every day of the NAB convention. The reason for dropping membership was the cost and that fact that membership was totally unnecessary to get all of the benefits of the NAB Show.

Rich, we have access and sell an enormous volume of the best ATSC/NTSC/QAM set top box. We do experience a shortage every once in a while as the demand is very high, but overall we have access and sell through very well to any and all very happy consumers this terrific box everyday.

-Robert

"In fact, almost without exception all station Chief Engineers and most of the engineering staff of every broadcast station including the three networks still go to every day of the NAB convention. The reason for dropping membership was the cost and that fact that membership was totally unnecessary to get all of the benefits of the NAB Show."

That the way it used to be: Now is different,

Engneers can go if :

1. Pay their own way.
2. Pay their expenses.
3. Take vacation time to go..
4. Make sure someone is available to cover in case of trouble.
5. Are on call 24/7....


Trust me I know...

(NAB attendee 4 of last 5 years)

William I am sorry we don't agree on this. I have heard of station budget cuts that forced some engineering staff to stay home or pay their own way. But I assure all three networks send many engineers from all O& O stations with all expenses paid and on company time. More proof is that NAB attendance is up every year.

BTW, did anyone know that NAB will have its first NYC show at the Jacob Javits Convention Center this year.

That may be the case if the station is an O and O, but its not the case for the rest of the stations.

You said every station and every engineer...

<<The reason for dropping membership was the cost and that fact that membership was totally unnecessary to get all of the benefits of the NAB Show.>>
Simply not correct. Sorry.
The reason, the ONLY reason several major networks dropped NAB membership was because the NAB did not support, in fact opposed, the networks agenda of loosing the ownership restrictions.

I have checked with both Zenith and LG customer service. Here is what I have been told re the 5th gen chip. LG has dropped all production of Zenith STBs, has taken STBs "In House". All LG branded STBs will continue to use the 4th generation chip. LG is putting their 5th generation chips ONLY in their branded integrated TV sets.
My guess is this a hard-ball marketing ploy to force sales of their line of TV sets.

I personally think this is rotten. Zenith, historicaly one of the finest US consumer electronics manufacturers and a key R & D player in the development of the US Digital Television system, as well as the developer of the "5th Generation" chip, has been gobbled up by an commercialy agressive asian country. It now appears that we can not have the best possible Digital TV unless we buy their TVs. I can hardly blame LG or Korea for trying to get as big a piece of the action as they can. It is just another nail in the coffin for the US, economicly and technologicaly.

Korea is to be admired for the giant strides they have made industrialy. The incredible emergence of LG, Samsung, Korean ship builders, Korean auto makers, bridge constructors and many other heavy industries as world leaders is truely breathtaking.

Meanwhile we sit on our laurels, argue and whine, while selling ourselves out. Our biggest export is scrap for crying out loud!! We are a net importer of food!! (Oh, i guess that is ok because our agricultrue land will be better used to build more condos and shopping malls!) Some of the richest farm land in California has been plowed under to build massive freeway interchanges and enormus shopping plazas. Manufacturing in our state? Locheed aircraft-Gone. Proctor and Gamble-Gone. General Motors-Gone. Firestone tire and rubber-Gone. Hughes Aircraft-Gone. McDonnel-Douglas aircraft-Gone Ford Motor Co.-Gone. Boeing-fadeing fast. With the dropping of the import quotas on China, the textile industry in CA will be packing up soon. Well, that would give us cleaner air to breath, except for all the exhaust from trucks hauling cargo containers from Los Angeles ports through town on the way to US markets.

Sorry guys, I only ment to post about the elusive "5th Generation" chip that got our hopes up. Never meant to get on this rant.

<<Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, and CEA’s Shapiro immediately agreed broadcasters were the most notable hurdle to the transition.>>

OUTRAGEOUS!! Just egregious! Those of us in OTA broadcasting have struggled heroically with new, unfamiliar technology to put out the best possible digital pictures. Our employers have invested hundreds of millions in duplicating their nationwide distribution networks, install new transmitters, towers and antennas as well as studio facilities. They have spent untold millions in converting a large portion of prime time programming to HD. All this while, even now, one of the biggest retailers in the country refuses to stock OTA STBs, has down played digital and HDTV. even trained it sales staff to tell shoppers OTA Digital TV "doesn't work", and now sells it only because the law requires integrated sets in the marketplace.

While most broadcasters jumped through huge hoops for seven years, everyone else squabbled over modulation standards, refused to carry local Digital on cable systems, dragged their feed on development of less expensive STBs and tuners. In general, everyone that could, the FCC and some posters here included, threw sand in the face of the broadcasters.

Yikes!! Is fairness out of date? Something soooo previous century?

<<Kinda like what was done in the 1800's with the Native Americans..>>

And in the 1900s!

(Geez! I'm getting to be such a curmudgeon! Bet you guys wish I'd shut up by now!)

Originally posted by Tony Nx
I have checked with both Zenith and LG customer service. Here is what I have been told re the 5th gen chip. LG has dropped all production of Zenith STBs, has taken STBs "In House". All LG branded STBs will continue to use the 4th generation chip. LG is putting their 5th generation chips ONLY in their branded integrated TV sets. My guess is this a hard-ball marketing ploy to force sales of their line of TV sets.

If they'd offer to replace the 4th generation chip in my Zenith HDTV with a 5th generation chip, I'd be a happy camper. What they're doing is slapping me (and all other early adopters) in the face for buying their television in the first place - I wanted to buy an external 5th-generation STB to use on that television (and for time-shifting, which is a different story.) So now my choice is to live with the reception that was built-in, or buy a whole new television?

In the meantime, Samsung claims to have developed a similar technology and they're working on making STBs integrating it. I'll end up buying their competitor's product because they're leaving me out to dry.

Honestly, this is a short-sighted, stupid decision on LG's part. They could sell millions of STBs with this chipset and they're choosing instead to shut themselves off from that market. When people go out and buy a new television, tuners are built-in nowadays. The decision to buy a STB and the decision to buy an HDTV are separate decisions - few people are going to invest $1000-$3000 in a new television just to get an upgraded tuner, especially if they have an HDTV now.

LG needs to be called to the table on this one. Booooooooo!

More likely later generations will reappear in discrete boxes as we get closer to the transition and the small numbers of HDTV monitors have the large number of analog TVs added to the pool of eligible sets. There will certainly be incentive at that point to sell your latest & best reception technology.

While most broadcasters jumped through huge hoops for seven years, everyone else squabbled over modulation standards...
The only group I saw squabbling over modulation standards were broadcasters. Who else?


Oh, I almost forgot.......Bob.

Rich,

Broadcasters want a system that works reliably and has ease of use to the consumer....

How many people on here have been through many iterations of their antenna system just to get their decoders to work??

In my opinion, the mod standard IS the biggest problem (even worse than PSIP)... second only to the pack of lies that the keep coming from the receiver side of " its just around the corner"... I think CEA has no intention of stopping the sales of analog sets or fixing the DTV decoders as most people don't watch television via OTA reception...



The 1999 COFDM consumer settop boxes would still preform rings around the current generation of ATSC chipsets..


Most people here bought into the idea that C***M would kill HD .... that was completely wrong as the Europe is considering HD right now...

If the reception could have been done in a moving vehicle at 60 miles an hour driving in New York City imagine how easy it would have been to pick up at home... I remember you saying something that no one would want mobile television... Look at the number of LCD displays mounted on seat backs as you drive down the road and tell me there is no place for mobile video or data..

It has been proven that the theoretical C/N advantage 8-VSB is supposed to have over C***M is bogus in the real world.

It has also been proven that 8-VSB is not as resistant to impulse noise as first thought as DTV on VHF-Lo is still very problematic...


The emperor has no clothes.....

Engineers evaluate.... politicians legislate...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Peterson
[B]The only group I saw squabbling over modulation standards were broadcasters. Who else?


Can't think of anyone else, and the only Broadcaster that really raised a fuss in favor of COFDM was Sinclair group. But it did really muddy the waters. Caused several of the largest players in the receiver area to pull back their development efforts due to the uncertainty. Really stopped the Digital transition dead in the water for quite a while.

The argument over COFDM can go on 'till the cows come home. Just as with religion and politics, personal preference is more of a factor that empirical data.

Reality is the FCC and industry are NOT EVER going to start back to square one and blow off 18 years of Research, testing, channel allocation studies and Billions of $ of installed hardware! It is absurd to think so. It is time to let this issue die!

It is silly to think that would be done just so people with more money than they can possibly spend in a lifetime can have a HDTV in every seat of their Hummer to keep the brats quiet on the way to soccer! (Sorry folks, it was just toooo much fun to throw in this last snotty remark!)

By the way, this "Anything European is better, Everything American sucks" crap is getting really tiresome! Take a look in Tijuana Mexico and see how many Mercedez-Benz autos are kept running by a guy living in a shack with a dozen tools and a bumper jack. Old GM & Ford autos are running all over the place!

This reminds me of all the "OH! Woe is me! I am stuck with NTSC instead of PAL" nonsense. I have evaluated pix from both, each has advantages. There was no great superiority of one over the other, after we got past the early stages.

P.S. Whatever the method, PAL vs NTSC / VHS vs Beta / COFDM vs 8-VSB,
it is good enough that most of us spend way too much time watching it!

Can't think of anyone else, and the only Broadcaster that really raised a fuss in favor of COFDM was Sinclair group. But it did really muddy the waters. Caused several of the largest players in the receiver area to pull back their development efforts due to the uncertainty. Really stopped the Digital transition dead in the water for quite a while.

Well if you ask me it seems that many years later the waters are still somewhat muddy. And Sinclair is now an ATSC chearleader so I guess it's not their fault anymore.

I'm personally very skeptical about the slow roll out rate of good ATSC receivers but I don't really think that means the problem is my fault either.

If it is possible to market good 5'th gen boxes at reasonable prices then someone should prove it by selling some of them.

Do they still need more time??? ;)

- Tom

I still think it is a good idea to e-mail LG and express your displeasure at their not selling 5 generation OTA receivers. Talk of a company boycott might wake them up.

IB

Let’s not get carried away. The 5th generation chip set is still not available in any devise yet.

Just because someone is speculating that LG has some grand plan to corner the market on HDTV sets by being the only integrated ATSC HDTV with the 5th generation tuner doesn't mean it's actually LG's master strategy plan to conquer the world.

LG has proven to be the innovator in STB technology, leap froging past Samsung and all other STB manufacturers. LG can have both markets when it's new ATSC tuner is available and I don't think they would overlook either market. LG, its employees, dealers and customers will have our cake and eat it too.

Give this great company a chance to complete the development of its next generation tuner and let’s see what new products they offer. We may see LG license other STB manufacturers the technology or possibly come out with them integrated into LG or other TV’s first, no one actually knows. What we do know is HD is terrific, available today and the future is very promising.

In the mean time if you want to enjoy the best and most reliable HD available buy the best and very affordable LST-4200A.

-Robert

Sinclair endorsed 8-VSB on the evidence in the 5th Gen prototype receiver... nothing more.. read the opendtv forum...

Now we are seeing that that unit is another failed magic bullet..

Sinclair was the most visible proponent of C***M but not the only one...

8-VSB was developed by Zenith when it was an American company, it is now
part of LG Electronics based in South Korea...(which was 8-VSB only but has added the C***M option now for mobile services)

No tests involving dynamic multipath were ever done on the 8-VSB system until AFTER it had been declared the standard..

If we were using the "other" standard we could have taken advantage of the receiver development that had already taken place and have a better product now.. instead we chose to re-invent the wheel and haven't even caught up.
(the channel spacing issue is easy to overcome with a simple filter).

Sinclair never pushed for a complete switch they did ask that the FCC allow both modes of operation so stations could make the choice. They even offer to replace every ATSC decoder in the country at their expense.

Again, CEA didn't care as most people are on cable and satellite, they didn't want to put ANY digital tuners (regardless of format) in the new sets..

I'll bet the FCC lurks this board (and the local reception board), and that is why they are scared to set a hard date...reception is just too hard for most people who depend on OTA television.

There is no equipment available that I know of for E-VSB at this time plus it will require a major retrofit of the DTV system to work..

Cable has more than 83% of the paid subscriber market. DIRECTV and Dish Network combined have less than 17%.

-Robert

LG has the chip in place in its new TVs. It's already out there. They are withholding it from stand alone OTA tuners to force us to buy their TVs. There strategy is to make more money. Our strategy should be to make them do the right thing and allow people who already own TVs to buy a stand alone OTA unit with the best technology. The rest is just happy sales talk.

IB

I am a large LG direct authorized dealer and do not know of any current LG TV that has the 5th generation ATSC tuner.

I'm on your side. Please don't misunderstand my comments as anything else. I am optimistic about HDTV and it's future.

Why would LG make the best current ATSC STBs (the LST-4200A, LST-3510A, LST3410A PVR) and not continue along the same path. LG also makes terrific ED and HDTVs.

-Robert

Answer:

Because the FCC hs mandated that ATSC tuners be in integrated sets but they did not mandate the production of settop decoders.

Originally posted by William Smith
Answer:

Because the FCC hs mandated that ATSC tuners be in integrated sets but they did not mandate the production of settop decoders.

Thanks William, but I still don't understand why:

1. We don't send our letters to the FCC.

2. Why would LG not be motivated to make 5th generation ATSC tuners as they have a history of making cutting edge ATSC tuners up until now and they always made TV's at the same time. Why didn't LG hold back the current superior ATSC STBs and only make them for their HDTV's before? The same product and market conditions existed in the past, currently and in the future.

-Robert

Originally posted by William Smith
Sinclair endorsed 8-VSB on the evidence in the 5th Gen prototype receiver... nothing more.. read the opendtv forum...

This is mostly a moot point since the vast majority of folks will still get their DTV from cable or satellite.

This is mostly a moot point since the vast majority of folks will still get their DTV from cable or satellite.

That is true but also one of the most destructive ideas of this whole transition. Because of friendly must-carry legislation broadcasters see their future as brokering networks to cable. If it weren't for must-carry many marginal broadcasters would not be in business now. But the remainder would be striving for healty ditital TV from OTA broadcasting. And the better ones would still be on cable, and getting paid for it.

- Tom

Originally posted by William Smith
Sinclair endorsed 8-VSB on the evidence in the 5th Gen prototype receiver... nothing more.. read the opendtv forum...

Now we are seeing that that unit is another failed magic bullet..

Sinclair was the most visible proponent of C***M but not the only one...

8-VSB was developed by Zenith when it was an American company, it is now
part of LG Electronics based in South Korea...(which was 8-VSB only but has added the C***M option now for mobile services)

No tests involving dynamic multipath were ever done on the 8-VSB system until AFTER it had been declared the standard..

If we were using the "other" standard we could have taken advantage of the receiver development that had already taken place and have a better product now.. instead we chose to re-invent the wheel and haven't even caught up.
(the channel spacing issue is easy to overcome with a simple filter).

Sinclair never pushed for a complete switch they did ask that the FCC allow both modes of operation so stations could make the choice. They even offer to replace every ATSC decoder in the country at their expense.

Again, CEA didn't care as most people are on cable and satellite, they didn't want to put ANY digital tuners (regardless of format) in the new sets..

I'll bet the FCC lurks this board (and the local reception board), and that is why they are scared to set a hard date...reception is just too hard for most people who depend on OTA television.

There is no equipment available that I know of for E-VSB at this time plus it will require a major retrofit of the DTV system to work..


Yes, we're all very unhappy the wrong modulation system was chosen.

Imagine how many opportunities for datacasting/mobile advertising ("services") and other types of business ventures have been missed.

:rolleyes:

It is curious though because occasionally our Congress persons talk about digital TV.

And yet in the last few years I don't think I've ever any of them ask "Are HDTV receivers good enough now to complete the transition?" or "Can we complete the digital transition without adequate indoor reception?".

I don't know if that means that everyone there thinks things are just fine or if they have all just agreed not to talk about that part.

- Tom

Originally posted by Tony Nx
[...] and the only Broadcaster that really raised a fuss in favor of COFDM was Sinclair group.


Here is letter the NAB, NBC, and ABC sent to the FCC asserting the inadaquacy of 8-VSB and the better performance of COFDM on June 16, 2000:

DIGITAL TELEVISION AND 8-VSB (http://www.digitaltelevision.com/cofdm/abc_nbc_letter.htm)

"Why would LG make the best current ATSC STBs (the LST-4200A, LST-3510A, LST3410A PVR) and not continue along the same path."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they want to maximize their profits by forcing us to buy all new LG TVs, which do contain the new receiver chip. The sets containing the new chips were well advertised by LG and they should be out there by now or will arrive any day. I forget the model numbers, but they are their new LCD or LCOS rear projection models and some plasmas I believe. I didn't pay much attention to model names as I just bought a Toshiba last year and have no intention of buying a new TV. LG had press releases on the subject. At the same time they tell people they have no intention of releasing the new chip in a stand alone tuner. They have made their policy quite clear. Buy their TV, or go without a chip that works.

Please, folks, drop the TV format debate. It's pointless. We have our system and better chips will make it work. China, not Europe, has the best system coming on line because they started later and built on the work of others. But once you have a system you have to stick with it and we are not going to adopt the European or Chinese system. The one we have is good enough, we just need LG and others to sell us the correct receiver technology. Better to write LG letters than debate pointless issues here.

BTW, I do not believe the new stuff Bob Miller recently tested had the 5th chip in it at all. I think he was misled by some employee who did not know which chip is which.

IB

Originally posted by trbarry
And yet in the last few years I don't think I've ever any of them ask "Are HDTV receivers good enough now to complete the transition?" or "Can we complete the digital transition without adequate indoor reception?".


The wheels of political and regulatory "progress" do at times seem to turn so slowly in some cases they can't keep up with the "DTV bus" ....

But I wonder if there is any chance we will at least have receivers(before analog shut off for instance) which comply with some sort of minimum receiver performance guidelines, such as ATSC "Receiver Performance Guidelines" A74 recommended practice?

There is article on it here (Although the article is very recent, I actually downloaded the A74 Document from ATSC site last June) :

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/atsc/F_Whitaker-03.09.05.shtml

I also wonder if the CE manufacturers don't put workable receivers in sets or STB's if FCC might eventually require at least some minimum performance guidelines for receivers .... It seems like to me it might be a good idea, although I don't know if A74 is enough ...

I haven't heard much about it lately so am planning on spending part of my afternoon rereading some of comments submitted to FCC concerning receiver performance guidelines per Docket # 03-65. See http://wireless.fcc.gov/spectrum/proceeding_details.htm?proid=291

and/or input 03-65 under proceeding field here to access the comments from interested parties. The comments themselves are downloadable via the "view" links in the list of commenters/comments etc in PDF format : http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

Also here are links to a few good articles that also relate to the issue of DTV receiver performance:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/digital_tv/f_digital_tv.shtml

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/digital_tv/f_DTV_interference.shtml

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/digital_tv/Features_Rhodes-01.19.05.shtml

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/digital_tv/SignalBehavior.shtml

There is no debate (thanks to the FCC)...we are stuck with 8-VSB...

My point is that the truth was out there and people do want mobile services.. The broadcaster could have done both of those better than anyone but TPTB killed the future of the industry (Please don't tell me HD is the killer app.... look at what happened to Voom)..

My argument is that unless the receiver issue is fixed, the industry is at a standstill... With the high power mandate just around the corner, stations will start to really bleed red on their DTV services...just how much longer do we have to wait ..... and how much longer can broadcasters continue to financially shoulder most of the burden of this transition?

Stations spoke about their concerns about 8-VSB but the FCC didn't listen...

Th European system is no good at distance and is subject to interference from light switches, etc. Mobile TV is ridiculous and a bad thing for society. Passangers should enjoy the scenery when driving in a car and drivers should watch the road, not watching TV. The fact that some people want it just shows the lack of mental balance and poverty of spirit of the American public that always has to be entertained. The mind has to find peace it itself rather that constantly feeding itself input.

HDTV is the thing, and all TV should be in HDTV, and that will happen. It will be cheaper for stations when they do switch over and turn off their analog signal. They will have just one electric bill instead of two. You can look at it as an energy conservation measure.

The new chips make the debate about standards pointless. With full power and new chips I think 99% of the people will be happy with our system and surprised at how good it is.

IB

Originally posted by William Smith
(Please don't tell me HD is the killer app.... look at what happened to Voom)..

Ok ... I won't. But ... rest assured that the only reason I was/am interested in "digital" TV was as a way to get HDTV.

I'd be happy to have "mobile tv" in my car just as soon as we figure out how to make all cars and trucks and buses et al drive themselves and no longer require fossil fuels. :D

The new chips make the debate about standards pointless. With full power and new chips I think 99% of the people will be happy with our system and surprised at how good it is.

But we have all heard this before. Maybe it is true this time. Maybe it will be true next time. Or maybe it won't.

I personally feel like a fool for having sung the praises of the new LG/Zenith chips after reading a year ago about the successful Shubin tests.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 6 times and I have serious cognitive problems!

- Tom

Tom,

I think you will be happy with the LG chip when you get one. I don't think you were fooled this last time.

IB

I think you will be happy with the LG chip when you get one. I don't think you were fooled this last time.

Do you have any information at all to base this on?

- Tom

Just the fact that Sinclair tested it extensively and liked it. I don't take Bob Miller's word for anything, and I do not think he has tested any recent 5th boxes because I don't think they exist. The chips are only in new TVs, not in boxes at this point, and low level LG employees and dealers, from my own experience, don't know what chip is what. Sinclair has tested and hated all the past boxes, but loved the ones with the 5th LG chips. They have no motive to get all happy about a new chip unless it really works. Sinclair have a proven track record of hating HDTV receiver chips. If they like this one, it must work!

IB

Sorry IB,

Real world testing has revealed that the signals work to the same distance and both EXCEED the analog grade B coverage...

By using UHF instead of VHF-Lo the impulse noise (light switch) issue is moot..

Originally posted by William Smith
Sorry IB,

Real world testing has revealed that the signals work to the same distance and both EXCEED the analog grade B coverage...

By using UHF instead of VHF-Lo the impulse noise (light switch) issue is moot..

That is not what the FCC found in tests and that is why they chose our system instead of the European system. They wanted the same coverage area as analog and the Euro system would not cut it. I have never seen any tests which support your claim.

IB

... and I do not think he has tested any recent 5th boxes because I don't think they exist.
.
.
.
Sinclair has tested and hated all the past boxes, but loved the ones with the 5th LG chips.

Do the darn things exist or not? And do you now trust Sinclair because they say the (non-existent) boxes perform well and distrust Bob because he says they don't?

Again, if the darn things do exist and work properly then when the heck will someone sell one of them to me? It is futile to debate the properties of non-existent boxes.

And after five generations it seems foolish to just accept vendor promises.

- Tom

Sinclair tested a LG demo box, which was a 4th chip receiver with the new 5th chip stuck in. There are no 5th boxes for sale according to LG, and they have no plans to release any soon. The chips do exist and are or will soon be available in LG TVs soon. LG must have a warehouse full of 4th chips they want to sell first, and in the mean time force people to buy their new TVs with 5th chip installed. I am sure they will sell 5th chip OTA boxes in the future, but only when LG feels it will profit them the most.

IB

IB,
For the record..

The test the FCC supported ( endorsed by MSTV and ATSC) used a COFDM transmitter monitor with no channel filter to compensate for 6 MHz. channels instead of 8. Literally within hours of the release of test results, Sinclair took an off the shelf DVB decoder( with a modified IF filter for 6 MHz.)to each location that failed using COFDM and were able to receive the signal. So many engineers hit the web to get the product information for the COFDM transmitter monitor that site was revised with a notice that the product was not to be used for off-air testing as it did not have proper filtering..

All this was presented to the FCC... its in the record..

As are the reception demonstrations preformed for both the House and Senate Commerce committees.

Originally posted by sregener
I'll end up buying their competitor's product because they're leaving me out to dry.

Honestly, this is a short-sighted, stupid decision on LG's part. 100% correct.

LG will regret this decision, because their competition will eat their lunch.

Here is a link to the Sinclair LG 5G press release (from LG's web site):

SINCLAIR PLEASED WITH PROGRESS IN DTV RECEIVER TECHNOLOGY [June 8, 2004] (http://sic.lge.com/news_5.htm)

Wait a couple of weeks...

Originally posted by William Smith
Wait a couple of weeks...

Wait for what?

-Robert

"Why would LG make the best current ATSC STBs (the LST-4200A, LST-3510A, LST3410A PVR) and not continue along the same path."

I think the PVR is actually the key to this . . . I've come to realize that in the long term I don't want a set-top box at all, since getting it to record onto VHS or DVD is such a hassle (leave it on, set to the right channel, set recorder to "line in," etc.), and leaves you with lower than HD resolution after all that.

Supposedly taking one of those $250 HDTV receiver cards (MDP-130) and dropping it into a $300 low-end computer is the best way to get an HDTV recorder now, and it's supposedly "fifth generation" . . . but I can't help thinking that if it's true, some manufacturer will do the equivalent, better than I could, and sell it for $500.

Any day now?

Originally posted by William Smith
Wait a couple of weeks...
What is that supposed to mean??? Could it be the childish attitude of "I know something you don't know but I'm not telling..."?

Please...tell the whole story or skip the teasers.

Wait until Sinclair has a chance to test this unit... the information you reference was dated last summer and was based on the prototype decoder.



Here is the info from the top of the demod chip itself...

5th Generation
VSB/QAM Receiver
LG Electronics Inc.
LGDT3303
0421

I have asked for a photo of the decoder chip so you can't accuse me of faking it..

At the January '05 CES show, other than my usual meetings with sales and sales management, I had the opportunity to spend time with the Korean STB engineers. We spoke in broken English about the American market, CableCard access and 5th generation ATSC tuners.

One of the lessons I took from our meeting is that it's these Korean product managers and engineers who are the major decision makers on what and which products come to the market and when. With the moderate sales volume of ATSC STBs, which are also low priced, they are not highly motivated to quickly develop and manufacture ATSC STBs. I understand they are working on the final stages of one or more 5th generation ATSC STBs, but as with all companies, future product development information is very limited.

I don't see this as a grad plan to sell more LG HDTVs. I encourage everyone I speak with at LG to build 5th generation STB ASAP. LG is well known a a pioneer blazing the road with new inviiative advanced digital technology in everything they build. In fact, the LST-4200A has some enhanced circutity which makes it perform much like the 5th generation receivers.

Today I have personally written to LG about the delayed delivery of the LG 5th generation ATSC STBs and I will post any response I receive from LG.

If you don't buy LG products purely based on the information I have read here you are making a mistake buy passing on the best quality and valued consumer electronics available.

-Robert

Originally posted by inky blacks
"Why would LG make the best current ATSC STBs (the LST-4200A, LST-3510A, LST3410A PVR) and not continue along the same path."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they want to maximize their profits by forcing us to buy all new LG TVs, which do contain the new receiver chip.

I assume this is simply your guess as to their reasoning. I have some other more plausible guesses. Perhaps production quantities are insufficient to supply the new chips to use in their new TVs, fulfill any existing contracts (was there not news that they were going to supply US Digital with the 5th gen chip?), AND make their own STB. Perhaps given the market conditions (rapidly dropping prices of STBs), they do not feel it would be profitable to manufacture a STB using the 5th gen chip at this time. Sales of STBs have not set the world on fire. Note that the LST-4200A is being discontinued mid-year, only the LST-3410A and LST-3510A will remain in production.

Robert

Originally posted by William Smith
My argument is that unless the receiver issue is fixed, the industry is at a standstill... With the high power mandate just around the corner, stations will start to really bleed red on their DTV services...

Okay, time to put our money where our mouths are. I just took a bunch of freeze-frames of my reception, both digital and analog. I posted the results here:

http://www.geocities.com/Figbert/8vsb.html

8VSB works. Really. My 4th-generation Zenith chipset seems to prove it.

Which model STB or HDTV are you using with the 4th generation chip set?

Your analysis of close and distant reliable reception seems to support my post listed two up from yours.

-Robert

I can drive down the street with a portable TV and at least listen to television ( if not watch it) .. try that with 8-VSB. remember with DTV no lock means no video or audio.


Don't get me wrong I never said 8-VSB didn't work.. I have said I don't think it was the best choice and its going to take a lot of work to make it perform to people's expectations in the real world.

I hope CEA is up to the task... but I have been bit by the 5th gen receiver promise... and there is little to no push to establish basic receiver performance standards.. so yes I am skeptical...


Barton has closed the door on any modulation changes as they feel (based on the performance of a $300 RCA set) the signal does replicate NTSC..

Case Closed...

Originally posted by inky blacks
"Why would LG make the best current ATSC STBs (the LST-4200A, LST-3510A, LST3410A PVR) and not continue along the same path."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they want to maximize their profits by forcing us to buy all new LG TVs, which do contain the new receiver chip.

That would assume that anyone other than people in this forum knows what the hell a 5th generation chip is. Most people think that DVDs or any other wide screen signal are high definition. I'll bet if you asked a person on the street what ATSC is, they'd think it was some sort of government program. To know that you're in a multipath-prone region, and that a 5th generation chip set will help you pull in your ATSC signals indicates a level of knowledge that a corporation cannot count on to sell their products.

It's more likely that they are trying not to undercut the sales on the 4200A which is only about (how long?) six months into its sales cycle with news of a better STB that is more than six months away from hitting the stores. Why harm your present sales with news of a future release?

In any case, there is no one forcing anyone to do anything. There are a lot of drawbacks to a market-based economy, but one of the good things is where a consumer spends his/her money on luxuries is up to the consumer. This is TV and not a hospital bill.

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
Which model STB or HDTV are you using with the 4th generation chip set?

Your analysis of close and distant reliable reception seems to support my post listed two up from yours.


Zenith C32V37

I don't disagree with most of what you've posted. I'm a little less "enthusiastic" about LG after their decision not to put 5th-generation chipsets in STBs, especially since they initially announced that they would be available 2nd quarter 05.

I want LG to make 5th generation STB as much, if not more than anyone. However, lets not forget that we have an excellent 4th generation STB already available now.

Further, considering that permanently mounted, fixed, home/commercial ATSC usage is by far the most popular.

Better antenna design development can help improve 8VSB ATSC reception in the limited applications where it's needed.

I believe even the limited in-motion ATSC market can benefit by new mobile multi-directional narrow beam receptor antenna that will select the best signal and reject all others.

-Robert

Originally posted by sregener
Zenith C32V37

I don't disagree with most of what you've posted. I'm a little less "enthusiastic" about LG after their decision not to put 5th-generation chipsets in STBs, especially since they initially announced that they would be available 2nd quarter 05.

LG will produce it's 5th generation ATSC STB, it's just not coming as fast as we and LG would like. As Robert123 wisely said it's not LG top priority plus new advance digital product development is frequently delayed by most manufacturers. The DIRECTV HD DVR came out more than 1 full year after DIRECTV promised it.

-Robert

Originally posted by William Smith
Don't get me wrong I never said 8-VSB didn't work.. I have said I don't think it was the best choice and its going to take a lot of work to make it perform to people's expectations in the real world.


I think the gist of what you've been saying is that television stations are losing their shirts to put out digital signals that few people can receive. And with the full-power requirements coming up, they're going to lose more. Now, if this isn't a slap at the current receiver technology and it's ability, I don't know what is.

I can tell you that my wife isn't exactly a videophile, and she thinks digital upconverts of analog programming now looks "fuzzy." She looks at analog pictures, whether at a friend's house with cable, or on our own with an antenna, and says, "ick!"

In the meantime, I have to depend on out-of-market reception for ABC and CBS because ABC is running at 4.9kw from the base of their tower, and they're 45 miles or so away. CBS is running a respectable 200kw, but they're on the roof of their station, which is over 60 miles away. Neither of these, in my opinion, is "doing their part" to ensure coverage of their DMA. And I live in the largest city in my DMA, with over 100,000 citizens. This ignores the public television station that *still* isn't even on the air!

But I'm wondering what it is you think the public is expecting. After all, if you look at the analog images on my website, only one of them would be deemed "watchable" by many people. The others are a snowy and ghosty mess where you couldn't write down a telephone number if it appeared at the bottom of the screen. Are you saying that people with that kind of reception should expect to get flawless digital reception? What kind of technology would permit that kind of reception, especially at the weak power levels many stations have chosen to use to back their digital signal with?

I've told my friends that once the local stations do go live with full-powered signals from antennas placed higher than ant level, they'll get great reception of all the digital signals with a simple Channel Master 4221 strapped to their chimney. I tell them this because I've seen how easy digital reception is with a moderately-powered signal.

I think the #1 problem with the digital transition has been that many people have compared VHF analog reception to UHF digital reception, which is as close as you can get to comparing horses and apples. And yes, we have a long way to go before any digital UHF signal is going to be as easy to receive and as able to penetrate buildings as analog VHF has. Maybe somebody needs to rewrite the laws of physics for that to happen.

At least in my neck of the woods, it isn't the CEA that isn't doing its job - it's the broadcasters.

But when the engineers and station people like yourself come on this board and tell people that this stuff doesn't work - which flies in the face of real-world experience by an awful lot of us - do you really think average people are going to go rushing down to the electronics superstore and buy a tuner? Go find the nearest mirror, point directly at it, and you'll have a good idea where the blame belongs for stations who go into the red with their digital broadcast signals.

Originally posted by elicross
In any case, there is no one forcing anyone to do anything. There are a lot of drawbacks to a market-based economy...

I don't want to go too far down the economic bunny-trail, but this has to be corrected.

The FCC is forcing licensees to broadcast digitally or face the revocation of their liceneses. They have set minimum power requirements, minimum coverage areas, and minimum programming requirements for broadcasters. This is not a market-based economic program. The FCC is requiring tuners in televisions manufactured for sale. This is government control over the means of production, pure and simple.

The digital television revolution in America is not being driven by the CEA or the broadcasters, or the market. It is being driven exclusively by the US federal government.

"they'll get great reception of all the digital signals with a simple Channel Master 4221 strapped to their chimney."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue with the 5th generation LG chip is that it allows indoor antenna users to get adequate digital reception. The other chips do not in most cases. It was reported that the LG chip not only reduced interference from ghosting, but also required just 1/4 the signal strength to get a stable picture.

If you have the luxury of an outdoor antenna, you situation is not so critical and a 4th generation chip may be all you need, but huge numbers of people live in apartments and are not allowed to install an outdoor antenna. That is the issue,...adequate indoor reception.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
The issue with the 5th generation LG chip is that it allows indoor antenna users to get adequate digital reception. The other chips do not in most cases. It was reported that the LG chip not only reduced interference from ghosting, but also required just 1/4 the signal strength to get a stable picture.

If you have the luxury of an outdoor antenna, you situation is not so critical and a 4th generation chip may be all you need, but huge numbers of people live in apartments and are not allowed to install an outdoor antenna. That is the issue,...adequate indoor reception.


I'm sure the 5th generation chipset is wonderful. In fact, I want one because I have so many weak signals (even after they go full power, they'll still be weak due to distance.) I also have occasional breakups of distant stations when airplanes decide to fly over my house.

I don't think the majority in America live in apartment buildings. When I did live in an apartment, they had a "community antenna" that was free for all to use. Granted, it didn't get very good reception, but based on my results with digital reception, I'm willing to bet it would have been enough to get stable signals.

I think what most people seem to want is unreasonable - they want perfect digital reception in places where the analog picture is simply unwatchable. The fact that this might even be technically possible is a miracle of modern technology, not a flaw of any transmission methodology. (Again, we have to compare like to like. If their analog is on VHF and the digital is on UHF, that's not a fault of the transmission standard. The different frequencies act differently.)

Originally posted by sregener
I think what most people seem to want is unreasonable - they want perfect digital reception in places where the analog picture is simply unwatchable. The fact that this might even be technically possible is a miracle of modern technology, not a flaw of any transmission methodology. (Again, we have to compare like to like. If their analog is on VHF and the digital is on UHF, that's not a fault of the transmission standard. The different frequencies act differently.)
Very well put. Before anyone can say "I have a problem receiving digital TV, and it is unreasonable", the first criterion must be "Can you receive a ghost-free analog signal on a nearby channel with the same antenna?". If the answer is "No", then it is unreasonable to expect good digital reception. Yes, it may happen some day, somehow, on some stations, with some receiver(s), but don't expect it. The one problem that can be put on broadcasters is limited power output compared to their analog signal.

I have a hard time imagining that 8VSB/ATSC demodulator 'generations' were something like '10% better than the last' through the fourth generation and this magical fifth one is 300% better than the fourth generation...

Originally posted by sregener
I think the gist of what you've been saying is that television stations are losing their shirts to put out digital signals that few people can receive. And with the full-power requirements coming up, they're going to lose more. Now, if this isn't a slap at the current receiver technology and it's ability, I don't know what is.

Yes it is the receiver folks turn to take some of the wrath of the public.

You can't find a sales droid who knows anything about HD or DTV other than "you have to have satellite or cable"...




But when the engineers and station people like yourself come on this board and tell people that this stuff doesn't work - which flies in the face of real-world experience by an awful lot of us - do you really think average people are going to go rushing down to the electronics superstore and buy a tuner? Go find the nearest mirror, point directly at it, and you'll have a good idea where the blame belongs for stations who go into the red with their digital broadcast signals. [/B]

I never said it didn't work .. I did say it's not as good as it could be..

If you check our paperwork you will see we have been running 16 DTV transmitters at their full authorized power since the day we fired them up. The first station went on in August 1999, most in 2001 and 2002 , and the last in March 2003.

Well ahead of the FCC mandated timelines..


Most of our stations are operating at about 50kw EARP. Had the FCC stuck to their formula for DTV power the levels would have been half that.. Our testing has proven that as far as distance goes the digital covers better than analog.

We have been doing our part....but we don't build receivers.

"I think what most people seem to want is unreasonable - they want perfect digital reception in places where the analog picture is simply unwatchable. "

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

In what magic land is an analogue OTA TV signal watchable on a 50" or larger TV?

So why did we switch to digital at all? That was the main point! Digital has the promise to cure all the ills of analogue reception. Even in the best of situations, analogue TV pictures are flawed and muddy. Digital is crystal clear, and ghosting should not be a problem as that can be addressed and corrected electronically through signal processing.

I live in a city where I get all the stations digitally, but when the wind blows some stations break up. Others drop on and off for no obvious reason. A stronger signal and better electronic signal processing could easily cure all the problems I am having with reception. If the scheduled July boost in broadcast power makes my reception allot better, I may not even need a 5th chip, but trouble caused by the wind blowing the trees around is not likely a problem of low signal power.

LG has great new chip and other better chips are in the pipeline. Which chip is best will be found by consumer testing, but right now LG is the only proven winner. Maybe the others will be as good, but they have not been tested by skeptical 3rd party users. ATI has a long history of making erroneous claims of "cracking the code" for great indoor digital reception. LG has not just claimed it, they won over their worst skeptic, Sinclair Broadcasting. That is quite a victory for them, but now they have to let us buy their chip without purchasing their expensive televisions to go with it.

IB

Originally posted by William Smith
You can't find a sales droid who knows anything about HD or DTV other than "you have to have satellite or cable"...

I never said it didn't work .. I did say it's not as good as it could be..

...We have been doing our part....but we don't build receivers.

First of all, sales droids who get paid minimum wage have been uninformed for decades. This is nothing new, and it's not about to change. As others have said in other forums, "If you want service, why do you go to the cheapest place in town?" Digital television is new, and it is different from what came before. We keep hearing about how educational television is, and how people learn information from it and retain it better than from other sources (both of these are claims I would challenge, but that's another story,) so why is the television industry so slow to toot their own horn on this? Last night, I watched WCCO-DT as they began their night of HD programming. WCCO is a CBS O&O station. They had a little "HD" icon in the middle of the screen, much like NBC had a "In Stereo" icon in the 80s. That was it. No mention that this is available over-the-air. No mention that HD is free. Just an "HD" icon that is, I guess, supposed to tell people that they could be watching the program in HD if they could find out from somebody else how to get it.

I'll quote a few things you've said in this thread:

"People on here blame broadcasters for all the problems in DTV, They complain about reception issues and the contortions they have to go through to get even basic functionality but no one complains about poor receiver design..

The cost of the DTV transition for the incumbent broadcasters has been enormous and yet the receiver manufacturers ( who stand to make the most money from the transition) are still not in the game..

In my opinion, the mod standard IS the biggest problem (even worse than PSIP)... second only to the pack of lies that the keep coming from the receiver side of " its just around the corner"...

My argument is that unless the receiver issue is fixed, the industry is at a standstill... With the high power mandate just around the corner, stations will start to really bleed red on their DTV services..."

You may be doing your part in broadcasting a high-powered signal, and for that I congratulate you. In my experience, it's rare that stations in small to medium markets went full powered until they were forced to. But there's another issue here.

You're here as a person on the "inside." You're a guy who is supposed to know about digital television, and when you appear here, you speak as an expert. How could anyone reading the above quotes from you not reach the conclusion that ATSC 8VSB isn't ready for the masses? How could anyone not conclude that the best thing to do is to wait until these new magical boxes arrive? How could anyone who is on the fence not say, "This guy's job is to provide a reliable signal, and he's saying that it can't be done yet"?

That was my issue. That is my point. You, by proclaiming how much greater COFDM would have been, and by complaining about how awful STBs are (and granted, first and second generation boxes were pretty bad) today, are making sure that people aren't going to run out and make the transition to digital television. It is people like you who insist that what we have doesn't work that lead people not to buy. It's not the CEA. It's not the STBs themselves (because the new ones are quite good.) It's the "MrDTV"s and "William Smith"s of the world who keep screaming about how bad things are that is keeping this technology from moving forward.

I thought the Congressional demonstration was impressive. They had their antenna indoors, pointing out a window into an enclosed court. IOW, multipath hell. The analog signal looked awful. Yet they could get a perfect, dropout-free digital signal. The STBs have arrived. They work. Maybe they could be better (but I think we can say that about just about anything in this world, can't we?) but they're pretty darn good.

Originally posted by William Smith


5. Clear Channel recently ordered all its AM stations not running music programming to reduce their audio bandwidth to 5 kHz. and 6 kHz for the music stations. They have also stated they are going to push to make this a national mandate.



Just wondering, William, what's their motivation behind this?

Originally posted by inky blacks
In what magic land is an analogue OTA TV signal watchable on a 50" or larger TV?

So why did we switch to digital at all? That was the main point! Digital has the promise to cure all the ills of analogue reception. Even in the best of situations, analogue TV pictures are flawed and muddy. Digital is crystal clear, and ghosting should not be a problem as that can be addressed and corrected electronically through signal processing.

Maybe your definition of "watchable" and mine aren't the same, but before I bought my HDTV, I had a 46" television I watched at the "way-too-close" range of 7'. I had an antenna on my roof. I got watchable analog signals of all my local stations, some over 50 miles away. They weren't "perfect" but I didn't have to squint to read the score, and I didn't have to guess where the baseball was. I had cable for a while, and my antenna beat their picture hands down. I have a friend who has a 54" widescreen HDTV monitor, and his analog pictures from his antenna look so good his friends are asking him if the picture is high def.

We switched to digital because it offered greater resolution, and the promise that minor reception flaws wouldn't be apparent. In our area, one of the stations sent their analog picture over microwave before converting it to digital, and the analog picture from the station looked better than the digital one on my set because there were no MPEG2 artifacts on the analog version and the color depth was higher. Digital is not always better. Digital is a different transmission method than analog. Source matters. And when using lossy compression like MPEG2, bit rates matter. I've seen horrible-looking digital programming, and great-looking analog.

Anyone who thought that digital promised to cure all the ills of analog reception without introducing some new ones of its own was mistaken. You never have snow or ghosting on a digital picture as a result of problems with reception. But you can have dropouts, freezes, and macroblocking. The fact is, you can maintain a "perfect" picture longer with digital than with analog due to FEC, but that perfect picture doesn't last forever and no one ever claimed it would. If it did, I'd be getting stations from 1,000 miles away because "digital cures all the ills of analog reception."

"5. Clear Channel recently ordered all its AM stations not running music programming to reduce their audio bandwidth to 5 kHz. and 6 kHz for the music stations. They have also stated they are going to push to make this a national mandate."

I'm with Dave....what is their motivation? And, why do they think all AMs should destroy their signals?

Sounds like my Denon "NAB SuperTuner" and all that stuff I have for AM reception can just go to the dump. (Of course, what I heard last week, when I did a bit of AM BCB DXing, turned my stomach enough to give up on the AM "talk" stuff anyway :( .)

There is a post in Opendtv this morning that states the reason the settop boxes are not being deployed with 5th gen components is the cost of the technology versus the market price of settop decoders. They can simply hide the cost better in an integrated set.

One more time, if the CEA makes the product they promised ... not a problem.. but as an engineer I hate vaporware and missed deadlines.. we were promised 5th gen units last Christmas.. now it looks like the 5th gen technology will never be in settop boxes anytime soon. LG is planning to retire the 4200A this summer so what does that leave...


The real demonstration was the Sinclair COFDM demo in those same chambers where they carried an antenna the length of the room at a running pace with the no breakups on the monitor...

The 8-VSB antenna was taped to the window with orders not to move it..

According to these observations by Mark Schubin, there appears to be more to outstanding ATSC receiver performance under adverse reception conditions than simply the inclusion of a 5th generation LG chip:


QUOTE:
- I was asked not to discuss a test at my apartment a few weeks ago of a
non-LG set-top box reportedly containing the LG 5th-generation chip. Now
it appears I am permitted to do so. I will still refrain from mentioning
the brand:
<http://www.freelists.org/archives/opendtv/03-2005/msg00237.html>
In brief, the performance was nothing like that of the LG prototype.
Whereas the LG prototype was truly plug-&-play, with no significant antenna
positioning or orientation required, the new box required extremely careful
antenna positioning and orientation and, even then, was unstable when we
walked around the room (it seemed sensitive to vehicular traffic outside,
too). WCBS-DT was received less reliably than at any time since the second
generation boxes.
END QUOTE

Above is from the 03/21/05 Mark's Monday Memo.

Note that Bob Miller speculated that an ATSC tuner featuring great performance may be prohibitively expensive to build into an STB but that the added cost above the use of a 5 genneration chip might be "buried" into the cost of including it in a monitor/receiver. I assume this is what you were alluding to, William.

LG uses other components in its circuity to improve the ATSC performance. Filters and isolators help to reject weaker reflected signals so the receiver does not have any interference from multi-path.

As I said in my earlier post, the LST-4200A is a perfect example of this LG advanced ATSC digital technology development. The LST-4200A performs better than other LG 4th generation receivers.

-Robert

The famous test of the 5th chip was supposedly a LST-4200A box with a 5th chip plugged into it.

I don't buy any of the arguments and I don't believe the 5th chip is more expensive. It is just a different chip and chip prices decline like anything else. I do not believe the recent test was of a box that actually had a 5th chip in it.

IB

Originally posted by David McRoy
Just wondering, William, what's their motivation behind this?

Per John Littlejohn,

It does two things...

1 reduces the AM bandwidth to allow the transmitter power to be concentrated in the narrower bandwidth giving it more "punch" and making it stand out on his radio.. ( he claims to have not noticed any loss of audio quality from the change either)

2. Its makes AM IBOC easier..

My thought is that is how they will get nighttime IBOC operation approved...

They are planning to petition NRSC and the FCC to mandate this change to all AM stations.. (can't have anyone sounding better the CC can we...)

Originally posted by William Smith
...as an engineer I hate vaporware and missed deadlines.. we were promised 5th gen units last Christmas..

The real demonstration was the Sinclair COFDM demo in those same chambers where they carried an antenna the length of the room at a running pace with the no breakups on the monitor...

The 8-VSB antenna was taped to the window with orders not to move it..

As a consumer, I hate vaporware, but I strongly prefer missed deadlines to shoddy product development. IOW, when my money is on the line, I want the product to work more than I want to have it on my desk when they originally promised. LG, IIRC, said they were going to ship 5th-gen receivers in 2005. I don't recall hearing them promising anything in 04.

We all know that COFDM offers certain advantages over ATSC 8VSB in mobile uses. Just like PAL offered some advantages over NTSC. But NTSC technology made incredible leaps and bounds above PAL in the 1980s, and now NTSC is undeniably the superior transmission mechanism. COFDM has a "head start" just like PAL did. But the race is going to be longer than 10 or 15 years. ATSC 8VSB's "problems" are solvable using technology. COFDM's flaws are not.

The question to face in America today is no longer one of picking one standard over the other. That decision was made and set in stone years ago. The question is whether or not ATSC 8VSB works today, using antenna and receiver technology that is available today, for the vast majority of viewers. Given tests like the one in Congress (whoever saw someone running across a room holding an antenna?) with the 8VSB receiver, and the thousands of real-world cases where people have reliable reception of digital signals using current equipment, the answer has to be yes, ATSC 8VSB has arrived, it is good, it works, and people shouldn't be afraid to try it.

Crying over how much better COFDM could have been doesn't accomplish anything. Complaining about ATSC 8VSB's inferiority to COFDM only encourages fence-sitters to remain seated because they want to pick the eventual winner - just like VHS vs. Betamax, DVD-Audio and SACD, Divx vs. DVD. They probably haven't read enough, and don't care enough, to know that this debate is a dead one.

ATSC 8VSB works. Today. For almost everyone. Period.

Originally posted by William Smith
There is a post in Opendtv this morning that states the reason the settop boxes are not being deployed with 5th gen components is the cost of the technology versus the market price of settop decoders. They can simply hide the cost better in an integrated set.


For most consumers, there's also the expectation that tuners (NTSC or ATSC) be built into their TV's, even if most people never use them anymore. Perhaps they (LG) see the seperate OTA STB market as a temporary phenomenon much like the UHF converter market of old.


PS: I would not be surprised to see D* eventually drop the ATSC tuners from their HD STB's once all the new sats and HD/digital LiLs are deployed.

Originally posted by William Smith


The real demonstration was the Sinclair COFDM demo...


Oh, PUH-LLLLEEEEASE... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Solfan
Oh, PUH-LLLLEEEEASE... :rolleyes:
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Now I know where William is getting his doom-and-gloom broadcaster's perspective from...the OpenDTV forum. It is about the only place where COFDM is still discussed in the context of US DTV and the feeling that 8-VSB doesn't work (which readers of this forum knows to be false) continues to be spoken as if it is the truth.

William, don't be taken in by Bob, Dermot, and the rest of the anti-8VSB crew... it will only cause you unnecessary concern. Remember, even Sinclair came out to publicly support the new 8-VSB technologies demonstrated by LG and included in their new HDTV sets. And as Robert keeps reminding us, the 4200 works very well.

Personally, I wish people would shut up about COFDM. I am tired of hearing about it and it is a pointless discussion. Be concerned about how to make our system better and get LG to release technology they already have.

IB

I'm not taken by anyone..I work in the industry and using real world data the answer is that 8-VSB is still inferior ...( even using the 4200A).

Several other companies are planning to use COFDM to run video to cell phones...

Sinclair endorsed 8-VSB based on a prototype receiver that hasn't be duplicated yet.. I 'm hoping to catch Mark in Vegas to talk to him about the test receiver and its performance..

I do have a question though..

Why do you care which scheme is picked?

If your tuners were replaced or you get programming from satellite or cable you wouldn't know the difference.


Curious ...What's your motive?

.... I know mine (I believe broadcasters cannot survive on just reception in the home as future is mobile and portable.)

Curious ...What's your motive?

.... I know mine (I believe broadcasters cannot survive on just reception in the home as future is mobile and portable.)
My motive is HDTV. The more the better.

To me portable means you can move a set anywhere, set it down, plug it in, and it will receive OTA TV. ATSC works fine for that now and it will get better. I think the demand for mobile reception of broadcast TV ranges from very small to non-existant. I feel sorry for you if you are pinning your business plans on that....

Sooner or later broadcasters are going to realize that HDTV is the one and only DTV application that will actually cause people to go out and purchase the necessary equipment to receive it. Mobile won't, portable won't, nor will other data services. If you want to be successful focus on providing the most compelling HDTV content in the highest quality you can.

So how does the modulation standard affect your motive? Both COFDM and 8-VSB can support the bitrates necessary for HD broadcast.

Since some of the advanced codecs can support two HD feeds in 19 Mbps are you against modifying the standard to allow the use of those codecs?

Or should we always be stuck with MPEG-2 only?

New/better technologies will evolve ... just as older technology will not be supported..

I'll bet if the FCC hadn't mandated ATSC tuners in the integrated sets LG wouldn't be installing them.


No technology based industry will be able to survive 50 years without change ever again..

"broadcasters cannot survive on just reception in the home as (the) future is mobile and portable"

---------------------------------------
That is an insane statement if you are talking about television. There certainly is a future for mobile computer use and other data streams, but people like to sit on a couch in their own home to watch a movie on a big screen TV. There is no big "future" for mobile television as no one cares about it except you and Bob Miller. Some idiot accused me of being Bob Miller in disguise, so I know how that feels. I won't accuse you of being Miller, but I do accuse you of being just as unrealistic and off base in your ideas. The FCC and the broadcast networks are not going to change our TV standard to COFDM and anyone who thinks they will has been drinking too much tainted Coolaid.

IB

I didn't say they would change the standard either ... I am stating these issues for the record.

1. If there is no demand for mobile video then please explain the craze of putting DVD players with viewscreens in vans, SUVs, and RVs?

2. I would like to see you lug an HD set into the stands at a football game to watch the game.. or take it outside to watch a game from your deck...

3. I don't see anyone making an TV band radio with ATSC capability either..


My point is these appliances exist TODAY for analog television and they do work..people will expect the same from digital..

It's not a good idea to keep pushing C**** mobile video here.

It apparently doesn't even work well in countries that presently use it.

This German forum seems to have some eye-openers:

http://forum.digitalfernsehen.de/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=50

You can use bablefish and translate, look for a thread called
"AW: Mobile receipt in the car!? Antenna??"
On page two, I believe.

Most posters there recommend using DIVERSITY C**** receivers.

This unit sells for ~$650.00

http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.zenec.com%2fflash%2findex_flatuner.ht ml

How interesting they need to use a system like this for the consecrated C**** DTV mobile system. Postings indicate that reception falls apart in inner city areas, so dual, triple or quad antenna systems are discussed there regularly.

Some people say mobile video is useless on the highways.

Others say just forget about mobile video, it doesn't work, just use DVD.

Oh, well... Next? :p

Originally posted by William Smith
Or should we always be stuck with MPEG-2 only?


Always is a long time. I can see the day coming when we'll have an SD MPEG-2 stream and the rest of the data will by MPEG4. There's nothing in the ATSC standard that would preclude this.

This is part of the reason why we have the FCC and their standards - because technology always advances, but people don't have unlimited funds to keep up. If we change the broadcast standards too frequently (and remember, we don't even have 50% penetration with MPEG-2 receiving equipment yet,) consumers will be less likely to buy something, choosing instead to wait for the "next big thing."

Given how fast technology moves, even if we made the decision to adopt MPEG4 today and all new decoders were made to handle it, by the time we had widespread penetration of MPEG4 decoders, MPEG5 or MPEG6 would be the hot technology.

Always is a long time. The days of two-dimensional television are numbered, don't you think? Is MPEG-2 a good compression scheme for holographic displays? Probably not.

I agree

I feel that since the FCC has issued on order on software radios it will someday have to make that same order for other types of media services (including television).

or they will reclaim all the television broadcast spectrum and auction it to the highest bidder..

Originally posted by William Smith
I didn't say they would change the standard either ... I am stating these issues for the record.

1. If there is no demand for mobile video then please explain the craze of putting DVD players with viewscreens in vans, SUVs, and RVs?

2. I would like to see you lug an HD set into the stands at a football game to watch the game.. or take it outside to watch a game from your deck...

3. I don't see anyone making an TV band radio with ATSC capability either..

My point is these appliances exist TODAY for analog television and they do work..people will expect the same from digital..
1. The number of video displays in vehicles is actually a very small percentage of the overall number of vehicles. Of this very small percentage, a small percentage of them would be interested in broadcast TV. These systems are typically used for entertainment for kids on long trips where DVDs work just fine and broadcasting is inconvenient due to moving in and out of coverage areas while driving.

2. What a silly comment. The ATSC system works fine for carrying a small receiver into a football stadium or onto a deck. Of course an HDTV set would be overkill for a tiny display, but that is totally irrelevant. Eventually manufacturers will make small portable ATSC sets.

3. I don't see it either, but if there is a demand they will be built.

1. I disagree as I see the number of video displays in vehicles increasing as well as the uses of those displays. Broadcasters can send more than just video..

2. OK when?

Analog units are available now... The closest thing I have found to portable ATSC reception is a laptop with a USB datacast receiver and antenna. (SD only), or a mini ITX based PC with a DTV tuner card. ( can do both SD and HD on a LCD screen).. Reminds me of the SNL "New Russian Mini Cam! (Only took 6 people to move it)".

My point is 7 years later and we are STILL no closer to having replacement equipment...

Your last point is telling...

Where is the demand?...Most of the receivers manufacturers seem to feel there is no demand for ATSC products..and broadcasters can't change their minds alone.

Originally posted by William Smith
2. OK when?

Analog units are available now... The closest thing I have found to portable ATSC reception is a laptop with a USB datacast receiver and antenna. (SD only), or a mini ITX based PC with a DTV tuner card. ( can do both SD and HD on a LCD screen).. Reminds me of the SNL "New Russian Mini Cam! (Only took 6 people to move it)".

My point is 7 years later and we are STILL no closer to having replacement equipment...


Probably when the technology becomes ubiquitous. How long after the start of NTSC did portable televisions come about? Who, in their right mind, is going to carry a $750 television into a sports arena, even if it can fit in the palm of their hand? Theft happens. People drop things. Beer gets spilled. The replacement cost has to be pretty low before people will even want a portable HD set. And who cares if it downcoverts to SD? Do you really think people care about the quality of their television picture when they're sitting at the game? Videophiles they're not.

And how do you know how close we are to having replacement equipment? I've seen several manufacturers come out with "one chip" solutions for ATSC 8VSB reception, and that's a first step to getting a portable device. Processing power has gotten cheaper and more powerful, another requirement. LCD screens have less power consumption today than they did a decade ago. The list goes on and on.

People who are so addicted to television that they have to take a TV to a football game are idiots. I don't think we should make public policy to pander to a few fools. Those people need therapy and less television, not more.

IB

Who, in their right mind, is going to carry a $750 television into a sports arena, even if it can fit in the palm of their hand? Theft happens. People drop things. Beer gets spilled. The replacement cost has to be pretty low before people will even want a portable HD set.

I currently carry around a $600 cell phone/palm pilot everywhere I go. It would be useful if it was also a TV. My daughter's cell phone also just happened to be an FM radio. She didn't plan for or demand this feature but seems to really love it now. Apart from cell phones not being or needing full HDTV I fail to see the distinction.

- Tom

About 11 years ago I purchased a small portable television with a 2" LCD screen (NTSC of course). I bought it for my Kids to watch in the car when I picked them up from their Mom's house which was a 1 1/4 hour drive from my place. They were bored with the ride.

The reception was so terrible that they only tried it a couple of times. The picture would go in and out at best. It was totally unwatchable. Portable NTSC does not work.

The only time I ever used the TV was after the '94 Northridge earthquake. I sat im my living room with no electricity and carnage all around me but I could watch TV on the little screen. I had to find the good spot in the room and good orientation for the TV antenna.

Rick R

The reception was so terrible that they only tried it a couple of times. The picture would go in and out at best. It was totally unwatchable. Portable NTSC does not work.
Rick,

Your point is well taken, but I want to clarify one thing so we are all communicating clearly: By "Portable", broadcasters mean viewers carry the set somewhere, put it down, and then watch it. By "Mobile" they mean viewers watch while moving. I think what you meant to say was Mobile NTSC doesn't work and I agree.

Portable NTSC is generally accepted to work OK. So will portable ATSC.

So is your point is that since NTSC portable television is finicky... DTV should be too?..

Shouldn't we try to improve on NTSC using 50 years of knowledge rather than just duplicate it....?

This just-announced $229 Humax USA receiver (http://www.freelists.org/archives/opendtv/03-2005/msg00552.html)(HFA100) seems like the mfgr of the model I mentioned earlier that Bob Miller tried out. Not sure about the model, whether it has a 5th-gen chip, or if it's the model that did poorly compared to the unavailable LG-chip model getting rave reviews last year. Anyway, just an FYI. -- John

EDIT: Notice Peter Putman tried out (http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/du42py10xsan.htm) the HFA100 last year, so seems it's not all that new. Maybe just a price drop.

LG is not going to let Humax sell a 5th generation receiver with their special chip before they do. As I said before, I do not believe the recent tests by Bob involved the 5th chip.

IB

I posted the information from the top of the chip in Bob's unit.. it states plainly its a 5th gen chip...

Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make any less of a fact.

Can you repost please?

IB

From my previous post:

03-21-05 10:27 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for William Smith Click here to Send William Smith a Private Message Visit William Smith's homepage! Find more posts by William Smith Add William Smith to your buddy list Visit this user's gallery. Show Printable Version
QuickEdit
Quick Edit
Subject:
Message:



Show Signature? Subscribe to Thread? Close

Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
William Smith
Advanced Member

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Lexington,Kentucky,USA
Posts: 813


Wait until Sinclair has a chance to test this unit... the information you reference was dated last summer and was based on the prototype decoder.



Here is the info from the top of the demod chip itself...

5th Generation
VSB/QAM Receiver
LG Electronics Inc.
LGDT3303
0421

I have asked for a photo of the decoder chip so you can't accuse me of faking it..

I accept your word, but it does not make a bit of sense for LG from a marketing point of view. If Humax is not using the chip with quality co-components, they will only give the 5th chip a bad name and hurt LG sales when they do deliver the goods themselves. Usually a producer will want to be first to market with a proprietary product of their own design. I will e-mail Humax and ask them what's up.

IB

I just spoke with Humax on the phone and they said they have no 5th LG chip receiver for sale. They said if they have a box in development it is experimental and not ready for production.

IB

For those who are new to this subject, here is a rehash of news stories about the LG 5th generation over-the-air HDTV receiver chip, which LG claims has a 94% success rate, much higher than any previous chip. I believe the Casper chip only claims a 85% success rate.

If you want this chip, I suggest you e-mail LG and ask them to bring a product to market in a stand alone HDTV receiver as soon as possible.

Write to: customerservice@lge.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200402/kt2004022318342811800.htm

Top Digital TV Chip Supplier

By Kim Sung-jin
Staff Reporter

LG Electronics developed a digital television receiver chip that significantly improved reception of digital broadcasting signals, the electronics giant said on Monday. With the new chip, the company eyes to become world's largest digital TV chip supplier by 2007.

The company said on Monday that its newest receiver chip boasts the best digital broadcasting signal reception rate of 94 percent, much higher than similar products on the market at the moment.
LG's so-called fifth-generation digital TV receiver chip improved the digital TV signal reception rate from fourth-generation chips that had signal reception rates of some 60 percent on average.
``Our newest receiver chip will help solve the so-called 'multiple-ghost phenomenon,' which refers to poor digital signal reception caused by skyscrapers in urban centers. In a recent field test by a local TV station, Our newest receiver chip demonstrated a signal reception success rate of 94 percent,'' a company spokesman said.

The company's chip also enables a digital TV set to receive both terrestrial and cable digital-TV broadcasting services with a single receiver chip. Terrestrial digital broadcasting is based on vestigial side band (VSB) whereas digital cable broadcast is based on quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM).
LG Electronics predicts the receiver chip will greatly stimulate digital TV demand at both home and abroad as it greatly reduced digital TV signal reception failures indoors and in urban areas.
The company has obtained 60 patents for its fifth-generation digital TV receiver chip, developed at a cost of 8 billion won ($6.9 million) over the past two years. It developed the world's first digital TV receiver chip in 1997.

With the development of its digital TV receiver chip, LG Electronics aims to emerge as the world's largest digital TV chip supplier by 2007 by securing 50 percent of the global market.
The company's new receiver chip is likely to greatly appeal to the U.S. market, of which 70 percent is controlled by cable TV firms.

The latest chip development will also put LG Electronics in an advantageous position in the international race to meet the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's digital tuner mandate, which requires TV makers to equip at least 50 percent of their 36-inch and larger TVs with a terrestrial digital TV tuner/decoder by July 1.

Meanwhile, LG Electronics expects more than $100 million revenue from royalties paid for its technological patents on the VSB transmission standard, which will be adopted by the United States from next year.
----------------------------------------------

http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_sinclair_praises_new/


Sinclair praises new LG Electronics DTV receiver chips

Jun 11, 2004

Sinclair Broadcast Group, a severe critic of early DTV reception, said in the latest generation of DTV receiver technology that significant improvements will mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals using simple indoor antennas.

Sinclair’s previous concerns were based on 8-VSB modulation standard DTV signals with strong dynamic multipath (ghosts) and varying signal levels. Earlier-generation receivers were unable to handle these signal conditions.

Nat Ostroff, Sinclair’s vice president of new technology, said that he is pleased to see the progress made by Zenith (a brand of L.G. Electronics) that will allow consumers to easily receive free digital television broadcasts in their homes. He said that broadcasters and consumers could now look forward to a robust DTV service delivered over-the-air without having to subscribe to cable or satellite.
He added that this is especially timely because of the FCC-mandated rollout of millions of large-screen HDTV receivers with integrated over-the-air tuners beginning this summer.
Informal joint field tests, conducted last month in Baltimore by representatives from Sinclair and Zenith, involved testing reception at sites Sinclair had previously identified as having difficult multipath conditions. Many of these sites did not have successful reception with early generations of receivers investigated by Sinclair.

Sinclair said results of the new trials show dramatically improved reception with the receiver built around a new DTV chip developed by LG Electronics. The fifth-generation integrated circuit allows it to lock onto signals in severe multipath environments even when the ghosts have long delays or are larger than the main signal.

Ostroff said that, with indoor reception now more viable, broadcasters need to examine their current transmitting power levels to assure that they deliver an adequate signal inside the home, and consumer electronics manufacturers need to ensure that breakthrough technologies such as this are available in the market.

Field data was collected from multiple DTV stations at numerous sites, including parking garages and sidewalk locations, many without direct line of sight to the transmitter. Simple indoor antennas were used to explore the improvements that have been made in indoor reception and ease-of-use in moderate and strong signal areas.
The fifth-generation receiver chipset tested will be introduced by LG Electronics later this summer.
------------------------------------------
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/N_Zenith.shtml

News: by Bob Kovacs

Is DTV Reception Problem Solved?
Zenith's receiver draws kudos

WASHINGTON
The scramble to switch television broadcasting to digital sometimes overlooked what occurred at the final link in the over-the-air broadcast chain: the viewer.

Although megabucks have been spent to upgrade stations and simultaneously transmit analog and digital signals, stable and reliable over-the-air DTV reception has been a crapshoot. However, the latest generation of DTV receiver technology from LG/Zenith seems to have solved the worst of the problems and is receiving praise from both broadcasters and other interested parties.
Dubbed the "fifth-generation" receiver, the new technology has converted some early DTV skeptics into believers.

"The performance that we got out of the fifth-generation receiver was as good as what we had seen with COFDM," said Nat Ostroff, president and CEO of Ai and vice president of new technology for Sinclair Broadcasting in Hunt Valley, Md.

Ostroff recently observed tests of the LG/Zenith fifth-generation receiver at several particularly difficult reception locations in Baltimore, where Sinclair conducted tests of earlier receivers and comparison tests using COFDM modulation. He had been outspoken in his criticism of the early adoption of the 8-VSB modulation scheme by the ATSC, pointing out that field tests up until now showed that reception in many places was simply impossible.

THE CLIFF EFFECT

The 8-VSB transmission system adopted by the ATSC for DTV transmission in the U.S. has had many critics among broadcasters and television insiders, primarily because--until now--consistent reception in a typical viewing environment was tricky at best. The term "cliff effect" described what too often happened when watching DTV off the air using earlier equipment: Either the signal looked perfect on the TV or it completely dropped out, as if falling off a cliff.
The fifth-generation receiver was far more immune to the cliff effect during Sinclair Broadcasting's tests of the receiver.

"We had always said that all we are interested in was a viable over-the-air receiving system and we didn't have it," Ostroff said. "When 8-VSB can be received as well as a COFDM signal, we'll be the first to declare that to be the case and congratulate the winner, and that's exactly what we've done."
Ostroff was enthusiastic about the potential of the fifth-generation receiver.
"It's the only receiver so far that enables reception indoors with simple antennas," he said.
The tests Ostroff witnessed in Baltimore used a simple bow-tie antenna and he said reception was unperturbed by the movement of people in the vicinity and even active vehicle traffic just a few feet away.

Sinclair Broadcasting's tests were informally duplicated and confirmed by Mark Schubin, a well-known consulting engineer on television issues and the creator of "Mark's Monday Memo" that discusses issues in broadcasting.

Schubin has tried various 8-VSB DTV receivers in his New York apartment with virtually no reception success, until he was able to test an LG LST-3100A receiver--a fourth-generation model--that had been upgraded with the fifth-generation DTV receiving and processing technology.
Like Ostroff, Schubin reported that reception was stable while using a simple set-top UHF antenna and people moved around the room.

"It was possible to find a location and orientation that caused problems, but I had to really try," Schubin said in a recent issue of the memo.
Richard Lewis, vice president of research and technology for Zenith, said that the inner workings of this latest DTV receiver are a blend of well-known techniques as well as some proprietary designs.
"The fifth-generation is a much more radical approach," Lewis said. "It uses a 50 microsecond equalizer window to handle pre-ghost or post-ghost [multipath] and was really focused on indoor reception and ease-of-reception with simple antennas."
Earlier generations of receivers could also do pre- and post-ghost correction but did not have the long pre-ghost window that the latest generation has.
"The main change was a departure in architecture away from what had been used [previously]," Lewis said. "It is proprietary so I can't really get into the details, but it was a chance to throw out the old design book and take a fresh start at it."

FAVORABLE RESPONSE

Other interested parties have all responded favorably to the tests done with LG/Zenith's fifth-generation receiver.

Mark Richer, president of the ATSC, has been a leading proponent of 8-VSB modulation used in the U.S. for digital broadcasting.
"It has always been my view that 8-VSB receiver technology would advance quickly," Richer said. "In this highly competitive marketplace, you are going to see rapid advancement of DTV receiver technology from a number of manufacturers."
Manufacturers feel that after years of vilification by broadcasters, finally they've been vindicated.
"We've said over the years that ATSC reception would improve and I'm glad that we were proven right," said Mike Petricone, vice president of technology policy for the Consumer Electronics Association.

Sinclair Broadcasting's Ostroff said that his company is so excited about the new possibilities of DTV that it produced public service announcements to promote DTV for consumers. The spots are not specific to Sinclair and the company is offering them free of charge to any broadcaster as a way to generate viewer interest in DTV.

Others pursuing LG/Zenith's technology include USDTV, the Salt Lake City broadcaster that has launched a pay over the air DTV service using spectrum pooled from participating broadcasters. The company recently announced it will use fifth-generation DTV receiver chips in its latest set-top box and expects to ship the product by the end of this year.
Lewis said that Zenith expects to ship the product this fall.
-------------------------------
IB

Those are some impressive claims. For awhile I tried to start a collection of Zenith/LG claims to have solved multipath problems. Most were lost in a hard drive crash but the following is the oldest I'd found:

- Tom

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

Friday 4 April 1997

Zenith claims first with ICs for US HDTV system
Simon Parry
Zenith Electronics claims it has developed the industry's first ICs for
the digital HDTV terrestrial broadcast transmission system adopted by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The two ICs will demodulate the digital television signal transmitted by
broadcasters. Zenith invented the FCC approved VSB (vestigial sideband)
digital transmission technology at the heart of the ATSC DTV standard.
The chips are expected to be available later this year.
Laboratory testing of first-generation chips shows compatibility with
the FCC-adopted VSB transmission system, according to Paul Snopko,
Zenith's R&D director.
The VSB chip-set, manufactured by LG Semicon, includes two Asics, one
for synchronisation and equalisation and one for channel decoding. The
sync/equaliser chip locks the receiver to the VSB signal and removes
NTSC co-channel interference and multipath distortion (ghosts) from the
received signal. The channel decoder chip corrects errors in the
received signal using Reed-Solomon and trellis coding error correction
methods.

Tom,

That is an interesting antique news story. Chips have come a long way since then, incorporating analogue tuners, QAM tuners, and multiple ancillary functions all in one chip. Reminds me of a magazine advertisement I still have for a "blazingly fast" 386 computer chip. I think by next year there will be a number of tuners for sale using the good 5th chip in the proper way and we will be discussing which box is the best deal for the money.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
LG is not going to let Humax sell a 5th generation receiver with their special chip before they do.

Why not? They are in business to make money. If they can sell the chips to other manufacturers, I don't see any reason they would not.


If Humax is not using the chip with quality co-components, they will only give the 5th chip a bad name and hurt LG sales when they do deliver the goods themselves. Usually a producer will want to be first to market with a proprietary product of their own design.

They will be. I'm sure their integrated TV sets will be first to market using the new chip. Their performance can certainly be judged by these, can they not?

Robert

I can only say what is logical and usual industry practice. If Honda develops a new energy efficient engine, are they going to put it in an Honda Accord first or first sell the design to GM to put in a Chevy Malibu first? The prestige and highest retail value go to the first company on the market.

It may be that LG is just jerking us all around. They reportedly announced they were discontinuing their top model, the LST-4200A. Why would they do this unless they planned to introduce a new state of the art tuner to replace it? Why this has been so delayed is unknown, but I expect they will release a 5th chip tuner. I just want them to do it as soon as possible.

IB

One possible reason for delay in new STB's is the broadcast flag. That legislation is supposed to become active in July but is now uncertain because of the court challenge.

The broadcast flag makes STB's more expensive to manufacture and if the challenge is successful then nobody would either make or buy [a bf-complient] one. OTOH, no new boxes will probably be announced now without broadcast flag support because they would not be allowed to be manufactured after July if the BF is upheld.

That uncertainty and associated risk may mean no new boxes from almost anybody for the moment.

- Tom

Good point Tom. I remain an optimist, however, and believe in time all this will work out. Thankfully my local stations seem to have boosted their power recently and I am now getting Fox like gangbusters. Wish everyone could get good reception indoors as digital has the potential to be nearly perfect and easy with the right chips and full power broadcasting.

IB

I've pretty much given OTA reception in NYC, not too far from Schubin's location where last year's 5th-gen receiver seemed to solve the worst multipath problems.

Since then, a new all-in-one Empire State Building antenna has just been tweaked for maximum power from most HD stations. But, only ~9 blocks from the antenna, not a single station tunes with my Silver Sensor and outdated (year-2000) RPTV built-in HD tuner, which displays a horrendous string of multipath reflections in on-screen, fluctuating-signal, bar-graph form. My building, with its shielding, separates me from the ESB antenna, so reception is from nearby building reflections. That worked with CBS until this year, and several years back I could even tune NBC/ABC from the distant World Trade tower.

So news of any workable tuner would be great here. And from the seemingly magical reception of that LG/zenith tuner last year, something that advanced is all that would probably work at this location. (Get all but two HD stations from two cable systems.) -- John

I just sent Go Video several e-mail letters requesting they produce and sell a SOTA HDTV tuner using the LG 5th chip. Don't know what else to do.

IB

IB,
Is _any_ type of outdoor antenna not permissible for you? Or just rooftop types?

I'm asking because in C**** using countries, I've seen that they sometimes use on-the-outside-wall outdoor aerials where roof-top aerials can't be used.

[Indoor antennas there are usually not recommended due to impulse noise concerns].

One or two of those types may be the answer for you, for the time being at least. :)

Solfan,

An outdoor antenna would be against my apartment lease agreement.

My reception has gotten allot better this week because my main trouble station, Fox, suddenly started to put out a decent signal. I currently get Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, and two PBS stations, which is enough for me. We expect two more digital stations next year.

I am interested in this issue from a technical-hobby point of view, not just personal gain. It kind of irks me that more Americans do not realize that free over-the-air digital/HDTV is possible and could/can be excellent. In some European cities there are over 20 free digital stations in a single city. I don't like Comcast and paying cable bills, and the idea of free TV appeals to me. If I want to watch a movie I watch it for free in HDTV over the air or rent a DVD. Paying for the junk on Cinemax or HBO does not appeal to me.

I would like to not have to get up and move my indoor antennas (2 in parallel connected through an antenna amp) just to get ABC.

Thanks for asking.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
Solfan,

I would like to not have to get up and move my indoor antennas (2 in parallel connected through an antenna amp) just to get ABC.


IB


Are the 2 antennas really in parallel or do you use a combiner?

I use a Radio Shack combiner. I assume that puts them in parallel, but I may be wrong.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
I have to use two indoor antennas in parallel (Silver Sensor and Megawave) hooked up to a Zenith indoor antenna amp. It does not work without the amp! I have tried all the possible combinations and this combination works best for me. I still get dropouts and Fox is very undependable........ <snip> ...... It all works, but with unnecessary effort and complexity.....

............I use a Radio Shack combiner. I assume that puts them in parallel, but I may be wrong.

IB

Not to say you won't have problems no matter how much you go by the "antenna 101 book", nevertheless I'm not at all surprised you are having multipath problems with that setup ..... I assume by "Radio Shack" combiner, you mean a hybrid 2 way splitter/combiner(i.e. a standard 2 way splitter used backwards), and not a VHF/UHF combiner(or "joiner") such as CM #0549. The latter which would result in one antenna hooked to its VHF input being used solely for VHF reception, the other antenna hooked to UHF input on combiner would be used solely fir UHF reception .... ?

If my assumption is correct, given that you are using different antenna models then your antennas are certianly out of phase(at least on some/many frequencies). To properly combine antennas onto the same feedline into a "stacked array" of antennas for increased directivity(which can be beneficial for multipath difficulties) and/or gain, you must do all of the following :

#1). Use IDENTICAL antenna model(2 silver sensors for instance) for both antennas

#2). you must have both antennas aimed in same direction and with the "right" spacing/placement(1 wavelength apart at lowest frequency of use is probably good) of antennas

#3). the coax feed from the combiner to each antenna has to be of the exact same length

#4). the baluns(given a 300ohm antenna + the need for a balun to match antenna to the 75 ohm unbalanced feedline(coax)) should be in phase with each other.

Get any of those things wrong, and the antennas are out of phase, likely increasing multipath on at least some frequencies/channels, perhaps especially troublesome when dynamic multipath conditions(say when strong winds blow the trees around which could cause the dynamic multipath conditions at your location to be effected) are an issue.

What I mean by "out of phase" is -- the signal will arrive at one antenna(or portion of the antenna/feedline system) at a slightly different time than the other antenna ... other words, increasing multipath ..... What you have set up is similiar to what we call "random wire" antenna, which as you might imagine can produce quite unpredictable results.

There is an excellent article on how to properly stack antennas at below link -- I think that stacking antennas is probably most useful over a narrow range of frequency(such as a single TV channel) with frequency specific antennas rather than broadband antennas over a wide range of frequencies(such as UHF TV band), although some here have reported getting good results with a properly implemented stacked array of broadband UHF antennas :

http://pages.cthome.net/fmdx/stackant.html

The splitter I use is for TV & FM. I route the TV side to the SS and the FM side to the Megawave. I know this is against the book but it works much, much better than just a Silver Sensor plugged into the amp. I know it should not work, but it does, and I have to move around the antenna array less than using the SS alone, with fewer dropouts and more channels. Go figure.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
The splitter I use is for TV & FM. I route the TV side to the SS and the FM side to the Megawave.


What is the RS part #? Unless it's something they've had in the past that has been discontinued(I do know they used to have a VHF/UHF combiner with 75ohm ports), I can't seem to find anything that might match what you are talking about Other than this VHF/FM+UHF band seperator with a 75Ohm "combined" VHF/UHF input(for in from antenna), a 300ohm FM output, a 75OHM VHF output and a 300 ohm UHF output :

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F003%5F001%5F003%5F001&product%5Fid=15%2D1252 )

This is for seperating a feed from a VHF/UHF/FM antenna to seperate VHF/UHF inputs on "older" TV's and VCR's, also with with a 300 ohm FM output(the two screws, it's probably just a fairly broadband VHF "output", you could probably get say, TV channel 4 just as well off it as the VHF output) to go to a FM receiver ... I suppose you could use it "backwards" as well, but I'm not sure how well it will actually "combine" a antenna used for FM hooked up to those screws with a UHF(or VHF antenna) hooked up to it's UHF or VHF output and I also expect the isolation between VHF/UHF or VHF/FM with this to not be as good as say, a CM0549(VHF/UHF combiner/seperator) or the Winegard CA-8800 FM/TV band seperator/coupler discussed farther below.

Anyhow, If the part you are using to combine the FM+TV antennas is not a hybrid 2 way splitter(like this one http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F003%5F001%5F003%5F001&product%5Fid=15%2D1234 : in which case both ports would usually work fine for about 5MHZ to 900MHZ or higher, there is no seperate FM/TV input on one of these, each port works fine with all) and IS actually a FM/TV band seperator as you now seem to be saying is the case --- such as the Winegard CA-8800 shown on bottom of page here : http://www.winegard.com/offair/separatorsjoiners.htm ..... A part with a input labled "FM" and and input labeled "TV" ---- then you are doing things "by the book". If you are only using/need UHF for TV/DTV, you could also use a VHF/UHF combiner - using the VHF side for FM antenna would likely pass FM frequencies as well, and UHF for UHF TV/DTV frequencies and it would still be "by the book". If so, and especially if you are doing this with the part referenced in first link in this post the isolation between FM+TV frequencies may not be high enogh however, so the FM antenna may effect TV slightly( it should really only effect VHF however, but who knows).

Originally posted by inky blacks
I know it should not work

A lot of things can work given the "right" circumstances, even if they aren't "by the book". A paper clip, or short piece of wire, or grabbing hold of a piece of coax and using yourself as an antenna can work. The more "antenna"(even with a random wire antenna), the more signal capture area you have. So, even with a "random wire" antenna, it's possible in some cases for you to either be hitting a "hot spot" for reception of certian stations with the extra signal capture area, or I suppose it's even possible to have more signal gain with an "out of phase" antenna setup that nevertheless invites increased multipath difficulty than would be the case with a "properly configured" setup.

IF you are actually properly using a FM/TV band seperator/coupler as you seem to be saying you are .... in which case you are doing things "by the book" ..... say in order to combine seperate FM/TV antennas onto the same feedline so you can use a single coax feed to feed both TV/DTV receiver and FM receiver ...... but perhaps the isolation between VHF/UHF and FM input ports is still allowing the megawave antenna to have a slight effect on your VHF/UHF DTV/TV reception, or perhaps the antennas are just effecting each other due to their physical proximity to one another .. Remember, everything near the antenna(even you when you walk by it) is somewhat connected to it) --- :

Otherwise, I think what you are doing may be showing how you can still do things improperly(in which case, in this case I think you are actually inviting multipath to be a problem for you) to some extent with even earlier receivers, and it can still work in a strong signal area to at least some extent ....

Sorry for the long sentences, amazing how complicated it can get to try to explain something relatively simple ....

My divider looks like this one physically:

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F003%5F001%5F003%5F001&product%5Fid=15%2D1234

It has "TV" printed on one input and "FM" printed on the other. It also has printed on it "DLS 322." I may have gotten it from Parts Express, I forget, as I got it many years ago.

It is definitely passing UHF signals through both sides, as I move the Megawave around I can fine tune my reception. All my digital channels are UHF. I point the SS right at the transmitter and the Megawave slightly off to one side. It just seems to increase the size of the antenna so I get a stronger signal. My building has a metal roof and I am sure aluminum foil backed fiberglass insulation all around, and I am on the first floor with three floors about me. That is why I need the antenna amp.

I didn't plan to do it this way. I was just getting nowhere reception wise and hooked it up from parts I already had as a goof. It worked right away and works better than the Silver Sensor alone.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
It has "TV" printed on one input and "FM" printed on the other. It also has printed on it "DLS 322." I may have gotten it from Parts Express, I forget, as I got it many years ago.


That's similar to the Winegard CA-8800 TV/FM band seperator/combiner I provided a link to in last post, except it might have a little higher insertion loss and perhaps a bit less isolation between TV/FM ports .... I have a DLS 325 VHF/UHF Combiner/seperator laying around here somewhere that is similar except it seperates(or combines from seperate antennas) VHF and UHF instead of VHF/UHF TV and FM.

Originally posted by inky blacks
It is definitely passing UHF signals through both sides, as I move the Megawave around I can fine tune my reception.


It shouldn't be. It might be "helping" the antennas be more "connected", and might be passing a little bit of UHF signal through the "FM" port side, but it shouldn't be much. I expect most of the "improvement" you are seeing by adding the megawave is occuring because of it affecting the Silver sensor "through the air" and acting as a sort of extra "reflector" element. As I said in last post, anything near the antenna essentially becomes a part of the antenna itself, especially so another antenna/conductive material) if it is placed a wavelenth or less away from the antenna .... You should see that sort of effect to some extent from the megawave whether or not it's actually even hooked up to your DLS 322, or anything else ....

Try hooking the silver sensor only up to the FM side and compare your UHF DTV and analog recpetion compared to having the silver sensor only hooked up it the "TV" side and I think you'll see what I mean -- Unless your DLS 322 FM/TV combiner/seperator is "defective" ....

Jeff,

Your right! I disconnected the Megawave and tuned in a strong station just using the Silver Sensor and amp. Then I reconnected through the "FM" side of the combiner-splitter and lost the signal. It makes sense as I was using the Megawave just below the Silver Sensor, so it must have been re-radiating the signal upward to the Silver Sensor. Works sort of like the Select Antenna AM booster sold by C. Crane Company. So I guess I will just keep the Megawave unconnected and use it as a wireless booster. I wonder if anything else I could construct would help in the same way.

http://www.ccrane.com/select-am-antenna.aspx - Select Antenna

I was also worried that as my Silver Sensor is designed for UHF, I would have to get a VHF antenna when my local channels switch back to lower frequencies after they give back their UHF digital air space. The lowest channel will be channel 9, so I tried channel 9 in analogue with the Silver Sensor only and got it very well. So I guess the SS can go at least down to channel 9 OK. The next station up will be 13, then 16, etc, so I guess the SS will be enough, even after the switchover. Hopefully channel 9 is high enough so that it won't have a problem with discharge noise. It looks good in analogue.

I do find I get static on channel 34 analogue and 34.1 digital every day around dinner time, and I wonder if some neighbor's microwave oven is to blame.

Thanks,

IB

S. Korea's LG Strikes Digital TV License Deal with Sharp
Associated Press
March 29, 2005

South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. said Tuesday it has signed license agreements with Sharp Corp. and Mitsubishi Electric Corp. to provide digital television reception technology to the Japanese companies, Yonhap News Agency reported Tuesday.

The agreement, Yonhap said, is between LG's U.S. subsidiary Zenith Electronics Corp. and Sharp and Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America.

LG has been in talks with about 300 digital TV manufacturers, set-top box makers and broadcasting equipment vendors to license its digital TV reception technology, according to an LG statement that said licensing revenue is expected to reach about $100 million ''within several years.''

There was no indication how much the Japanese firms alone will pay for the license, which covers technology for U.S.-type digital television reception.

Originally posted by robert123
S. Korea's LG Strikes Digital TV License Deal with Sharp
Associated Press
March 29, 2005

South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. said Tuesday it has signed license agreements with Sharp Corp. and Mitsubishi Electric Corp. to provide digital television reception technology to the Japanese companies, Yonhap News Agency reported Tuesday.

The agreement, Yonhap said, is between LG's U.S. subsidiary Zenith Electronics Corp. and Sharp and Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America.

LG has been in talks with about 300 digital TV manufacturers, set-top box makers and broadcasting equipment vendors to license its digital TV reception technology, according to an LG statement that said licensing revenue is expected to reach about $100 million ''within several years.''

There was no indication how much the Japanese firms alone will pay for the license, which covers technology for U.S.-type digital television reception.
This information quells the theory that LG has a master plan to dominate the HDTV market by making their 5th generation ATSC tuner exclusively on LG HDTVs.

-Robert
VE Advanced Digital technology Dealer

Yea, but it does not mention 5th chip technology. LG holds the basic patent for 8-VSB, so we don't know exactly what level of technology they are talking about.

That said, I hope your right and LG will give their 5th chip technology to other companies as well as the proper design for the "front end" of the receiver to makes it work. Apparently, the 5th chip is no good at all without an expensive and specifically designed front end for that chip.

IB

BTW-

Does anyone know if the famed Linx Electronics "Casper" HDTV receiver
chip is dead? It was supposed to be a big improvement because it
synchronized ghost HDTV signals into one stronger signal. Linx claimed
a 85% success rate for it. Not as high as the 94% claimed for the LG
chip, but perhaps with an improved "front end" it could match the LG.
Neither the Linx nor Micronas Web sites mention it anymore. The Linx
site use to feature it. Linx was sold to Micronas last year.

RCA-Thompson was supposed to use the Casper chip in their products in
the Fall of 2005, but according to Bob Miller they will use their own
in-house chip for their stand alone over-the-air receivers.

What gives?

links:

http://www.micronas.com/produc_ts/overview/index.php

http://www.linxelectronics.com_/

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
Yea, but it does not mention 5th chip technology. LG holds the basic patent for 8-VSB, so we don't know exactly what level of technology they are talking about.

That said, I hope your right and LG will give their 5th chip technology to other companies as well as the proper design for the "front end" of the receiver to makes it work. Apparently, the 5th chip is no good at all without an expensive and specifically designed front end for that chip.

IB

They are talking about LG's 5th generation ATSC chip set.

You are 100% correct that the front end circuit design is critical to deliver premium performance.

In my past life I was the RF TV Broadcast systems engineer for Ikegami, Nucomm and Hitachi's professional broadcast division.

-Robert
VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Just got this word from Micronas.

"The Casper brand is owned by Disney so we couldn't continue using it. The part will be available in 2H05 in multiple flavors as Micronas DRX 394xH. We will contact you as soon as we have publicly available documentation."

By "2H05," I don't know if he means just 2005, and the "H" was just a typo, or the second quarter of 2005. I am not up to date on all the business slang terms.

This is good news for people who want better tuners.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
By "2H05," I don't know if he means just 2005, and the "H" was just a typo, or the second quarter of 2005.
He means 2nd Half of 2005. In other words before the end of the year. Great news!

ST Microelectronics is also licensing the Linx/Micronas Casper technology. And from ST's press releases, these should be showing up in receivers very shortly. I thought I remember them mentioning full production by the end of first quarter this year.

Bob Miller posted the following to the OpenDTV forum. He had asked an LG engineer why they weren't making a low-cost STB using their 5th gen chipset. He says this is their response:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Bob Miller,

The price of the 5th generation VSB chip is almost same as that of the 4th generation. Furthermore VSB portion is a little of a material cost of STB. Major portion come from HD decoder/CPU chip and can-type tuner.

The STB business division of LGE launched a few STB models in the USA market but they retreated from the STB busniess due to little profit.

I will do my every best to help XXXXXXXXX or any manufacturers providing STB to you using our 5th generation VSB chip enhancing the reception
performance of their STB.

Best regards.

XXXX XXXX XXXX
DTV Laboratory LGE,
tel : XX-X-XXXX-XXXX

Originally posted by Rich Peterson
The STB business division of LGE launched a few STB models in the USA market but they retreated from the STB busniess due to little profit.

It seems a shame that the retreated just when the business stood to gain some ground. I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for a better receiver...

Originally posted by sregener
It seems a shame that the retreated just when the business stood to gain some ground. I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for a better receiver...

And what or where could anyone find a better receiver than the current LG LST-4200A? Maybe some day, and maybe not, someone, LG or maybe even some other manufacturer may develop a better STB, but none exists today.

Why look elsewhere for a better receiver when none exists? If anyone wants a terrific and unquestionably the best ATSC/NTSC/QAM receiver it's available now.

-Robert

Originally posted by GSfromCT
ST Microelectronics is also licensing the Linx/Micronas Casper technology. And from ST's press releases, these should be showing up in receivers very shortly. I thought I remember them mentioning full production by the end of first quarter this year.

Do you have a link for this information? I checked out the
ST Microelectronics Web site and could find no mention of it, and a Goggle search turned up nothing as well.

IB

It seems a shame that they retreated just when the business stood to gain some ground.
At CES I spoke for some time about this with an LG executive. I don't know what his position was and his English was quite poor (but much better than my Korean) so communication was difficult. However, it became clear to me they were not staying in the low-end STB business in part because of the mandate. They felt since pretty much all of their sets later this year would have built-in tuners, there just wasn't enough future market to make the product development worthwhile. I tried to point out the 9 million HD monitors out there with no tuners, but he didn't seem to care. He also said sales of the 4200 were below plan which hurt also.

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
Why look elsewhere for a better receiver when none exists?

I think you're not being fair here. Maybe it's the retailer in you, maybe not.

For those in inner-city apartments facing the wrong way, the current crop of receivers doesn't always cut it.

For me, I'm in a very bad situation for what I really want - I want stations that are 75+ miles away, with no line-of-sight, and I want them to be breakup free and always there, even when airplanes fly overhead or when it rains or it gets a little windy. Unreasonable? Probably - the analogs look like crap most of the time due to extreme snow (weak signals.) So the promises of receivers that are able to lock on with 1/4 the signal strength of current receivers has me interested.

I'm relatively happy with my Zenith built-in tuner. I get the stations I want a fair bit of the time. And it is my understanding that the 4th-generation chips (I think mine is third) do a little better with multipath and about the same for weak-signal reception. I don't need an incremental improvement. I need a miracle. And that's what Samsung and LG have promised... if only they'd deliver.

5th generation ATSC tuners are not more sensitive, just a little more selective, so they reject multi-path a little better. They will not help you pull in stations that are 75 miles away.

My point was to let consumer know that for 95% of the applications a very excellent HD OTA and Cable STB is here now, so why waite for something that 95% of the population does not need.

-Robert

Originally posted by inky blacks
Do you have a link for this information? I checked out the
ST Microelectronics Web site and could find no mention of it, and a Goggle search turned up nothing as well.

IB
Inky:
The STV0370 is licensed Linx/Micronas technology.
Here is the link from CES, hopefully it still works. I'm at work and for some reason my DNS doesn't think www.st.com is a valid address.
http://www.st.com/stonline/press/news/year2005/p1568h.htm

GsfromCT,

That link works fine. Thanks for the info.

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
5th generation ATSC tuners are not more sensitive, just a little more selective, so they reject multi-path a little better. They will not help you pull in stations that are 75 miles away.

So there's no truth to LG's claim that the 5th generation chipset enabled reception with 1/4 the signal strength of 4th generation models? And Samsung was making similar claims about their next-generation product.

My point was to let consumer know that for 95% of the applications a very excellent HD OTA and Cable STB is here now, so why waite for something that 95% of the population does not need.


Robert -

Sorry, but I do not believe you. I do not believe any OTA STB has yet been shipped that would meed the needs of 95% of OTA buyers.

- Tom

Originally posted by GSfromCT
Inky:
The STV0370 is licensed Linx/Micronas technology.
Here is the link from CES, hopefully it still works. I'm at work and for some reason my DNS doesn't think www.st.com is a valid address.
http://www.st.com/stonline/press/news/year2005/p1568h.htm
-------------
Here's the blurb. I did not see any reference to Micronas, but it did talk about resistance to multipath. IB
------------------------

Single chip demodulator supports ATSC and cable standards, and integrates OOB tuner for high-end 'cable ready' digital TVs

Geneva, January 6, 2005 - STMicroelectronics (NYSE: STM), one of the world's leading suppliers of System-on-Chip (SoC) solutions for digital TV and the largest supplier of silicon chips for set-top boxes*, has introduced a single-chip, fully integrated digital demodulator - the STV0370 - which is designed to be the front-end device in advanced interactive cable-ready digital TV receivers, and in terrestrial and cable set-top boxes (STBs) in the USA.

The new multistandard chip supports ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) standard A/53 Annex D (8VSB2) for use in digital terrestrial receivers, as well as the ITU-T J.83/B (US Cable) specification for cable TV. In addition its support for downstream interactive OOB (Out of Band) QPSK modulation and fully integrated superheterodyne down conversion tuner, which eliminates the need for external OOB tuner circuitry, will allow TV receivers that use the chip to be labeled 'digital cable ready' under FCC (Federal Communications Commission) regulations.

Combining this cost-effective digital demodulator with ST's industry-leading STi7710 STB decoder - a highly-integrated HDTV (High Definition TV) solution which implements HDCP security for its DVI/HDMI display interfaces, and features on-chip AAC audio and a hi-speed USB interface - creates for manufacturers the lowest cost platform available on the market which is able to meet the requirements of multiple high definition (HD) Digital TV standards worldwide.

"The STV0370 is ST market best in class HD demodulator designed for the US HDTV applications, enabling NIM manufacturer and STB makers the ability to cost reduce their system while giving viewers the advanced features they now expect as standard within the new fast growing HD market" said Armando Caltabiano, Retail Multimedia and Satellite Division General Manager. The STV0370 and STi7710 US TV platform is likely to enjoy the same success that the STV0361 plus STi5518 combination have achieved in European DVB-T with current 92 per-cent market share."

The chip is extremely robust against multi-path signals and echoes, offering enhanced indoor and outdoor antenna reception. It supports the CEA Antenna Control Interface Standard (EIA/CEA-909, parts A and B) which allows viewers to use Smart Antenna technology to optimize reception by electronically adjusting the antenna gain, polarization, and beam direction, rather than by physical positional adjustment.

For easy control by system software the STV0370 is managed through a 2-wire I2C interface. Its high level of integration minimizes overall parts and assembly costs for manufacturers; on-chip features include high-performance 10-bit and 8-bit analog to digital converters (ADCs), integrated SRAM for byte interleave processing so that no external memory is required, and dedicated I2C repeaters for tuner control to improve RF performance and increase digital noise immunity.

The new chip is produced using ST's state-of-the-art 90nm process technology, ensuring lower cost through the use of a smaller sized die, and reduced power consumption. It is supplied in a low-cost, small footprint LQFP 128-pin package with exposed paddle, and is available now in sample quantities. Full production of the device, priced at US$8.00 for large volumes, is planned for Q1 2005.

About STMicroelectronics

STMicroelectronics is a global leader in developing and delivering semiconductor solutions across the spectrum of microelectronics applications. An unrivalled combination of silicon and system expertise, manufacturing strength, Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio and strategic partners positions the Company at the forefront of System-on-Chip (SoC) technology and its products play a key role in enabling today's convergence markets. The Company's shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, on Euronext Paris and on the Milan Stock Exchange. In 2003, the Company's net revenues were $7.24 billion and net earnings were $253 million. Further information on ST can be found at www.st.com.

1 IDC Worldwide Digital Set-Top-Box Semiconductor Vendor Shares - November 2004
2 8VSB: 8-level Vestigial Sideband Modulation, the RF modulation format approved by the FCC for the ATSC HDTV digital television standard.

Sorry, but I do not believe you. I do not believe any OTA STB has yet been shipped that would meed the needs of 95% of OTA buyers.
95% may be a little high, but certainly the current generation of STBs work for the vast majority of viewers. That's why I think all the discussion surrounding the 5th gen chip is overblown.

Originally posted by trbarry
Robert -

Sorry, but I do not believe you. I do not believe any OTA STB has yet been shipped that would meed the needs of 95% of OTA buyers.

- Tom

Tom,

You seem to have been at this a long time. I am curious, what kind of antenna and receiver do you use? Do you get all the digital signals in your area or just some of them? How is your antenna positioned? I gather from previous posts that you do not use a preamp.

IB

ST Microelectronics is also licensing the Linx/Micronas Casper technology.
How do we know for sure ST Microelectonics' STV0370 uses the Linx technology?

Originally posted by trbarry
Robert -

Sorry, but I do not believe you. I do not believe any OTA STB has yet been shipped that would meed the needs of 95% of OTA buyers.

- Tom

Tom, I appreciate your position, but respectfully, we do not agree. I have based my post on the more than 1000 LST-4200As my company has sold since July 2004, with only one return.

Further we have spoken to most of the customers and read the avs forum and other forums with hundreds of other satisfied LST-4200A users. In fact, the only negative posts about this otherwise terrific HD STB is regarding a anomaly, where some HD clear QAM channels can not be accessed after 8:00 PM in the San Francisco area.

TV Broadcasters buy this box in very large quantity as well as HD enthusiasts and novices.

My substantial sales statistics represent a 99.99% approval rate. I was being conservative with my 95% estimate. The facts don't lie.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technologies Dealer

Originally posted by Rich Peterson
How do we know for sure ST Microelectonics' STV0370 uses the Linx technology?
Rich:
I don't know for sure. I am going on info from D-Luks. He posted this info titled "4th & 5th ATSC demodulators dictionary" in the old 5th generation terrestrial receivers thread here.
I wish he/she were around to comment further.

You seem to have been at this a long time. I am curious, what kind of antenna and receiver do you use? Do you get all the digital signals in your area or just some of them? How is your antenna positioned? I gather from previous posts that you do not use a preamp.

I get all the available digital networks (no local UPN) plus a couple of independents. I get adequate reception on most using either a F3Q or a HiDTV card. I three different residences in two states I have not found a place where I could not get adequate reception with my then current equipment as long as I was determined enough. That has included a half dozen PCHD cards and 2-3 STB's. My F3Q card also records Comcast QAM and I also have a Comcast HD/PVR, so I'm personally pretty well covered, using the above plus a fixed attic UHF only antenna, currently with a preamp also up there.

My objections instead stem from what I've had to go through to get that reception. I feel fairly strongly that OTA digital TV may have a tough time in the future if it does not provide easy indoor plug-n-play reception with set top antennas. That may be necessary to complete the transition. And, as I stated above, I'm fairly peeved with Zenith for deciding not to sell the only STB's that survived the Shubin test.

So while I'm obviously not needing another receiver myself I still believe life would be much easier for all HD fans if the marketed receivers were a bit better. Maybe Robert has not experienced a significant return rate but other vendors have, though possibly on other models. A high return rate is the kiss of death for electronics gear.

- Tom

Tom, I believe the high return rate on ATSC tuners would be on other manufacturers products.

-Robert

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
Tom, I appreciate your position, but respectfully, we do not agree. I have based my post on the more than 1000 LST-4200As my company has sold since July 2004, with only one return.

Further we have spoken to most of the customers and read the avs forum and other forums with hundreds of other satisfied LST-4200A users. In fact, the only negative posts about this otherwise terrific HD STB is regarding a anomaly, where some HD clear QAM channels can not be accessed after 8:00 PM in the San Francisco area.

TV Broadcasters buy this box in very large quantity as well as HD enthusiasts and novices.

My substantial sales statistics represent a 99.99% approval rate. I was being conservative with my 95% estimate. The facts don't lie.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technologies Dealer


We have discovered these units have two problems...

1. The units forget to stay in constant audio mode after a power failure.
2. Units will lock up if they are on and the transport stream is interrupted repeatedly (like rain fade during a storm) even if they are plugged into a UPS.

We have taught the Media resources folks at schools how to reset the units..

Originally posted by GSfromCT
Rich:
I don't know for sure. I am going on info from D-Luks. He posted this info titled "4th & 5th ATSC demodulators dictionary" in the old 5th generation terrestrial receivers thread here.
I wish he/she were around to comment further.

Is this the posted list you are talking about?

5th generation:

LG - LG3303 (same footprint)

ATi - T310/3

Broadcom - BCM3520/17

Oren - CAS-220

Micronas - DRX3942H (Linx )

ST (Licenced Linx technology) - STV0370

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
Is this the posted list you are talking about?

5th generation:

LG - LG3303 (same footprint)

ATi - T310/3

Broadcom - BCM3520/17

Oren - CAS-220

Micronas - DRX3942H (Linx )

ST (Licenced Linx technology) - STV0370

IB


Yup, that is it!

It has been VERY quiet in the OTA STB area. Broadcast Flag models will have to be coming out pretty soon, or are manufacturers waiting to see what the outcome of the court case will be?

I found this interesting summary of upcoming FCC digital tuner regulations.

quoted from the text:

"There is a loophole where manufacturers can continue to sell true monitors without a DTV tuner as long as they do not include NTSC (analog) tuners, as many plasma displays and front projectors are sold today."

http://www.insightmedia.info/news/FCCTunerMandate.htm

FCC Tuner Mandate-2005 Update

3.21.2005


2005 ushers in the next phase of the FCC tuner mandate. Here is an update on what is required of manufacturers, plus an overview of how some major players plan to respond.

Under the FCC order, TV manufacturers are forced to phase in integrated ATSC tuners into roughly half of all 25 to 35-inch TV lines by July 1, 2005. By July 1, 2006, all sets measuring 25 inches or larger must include digital TV tuning. In the final phase, all other sets between 13 inches and 24 inches must have ATSC tuners by July 1, 2007.

These are the more affordably priced TVs, hitting the bread-and-butter category for TV makers, as this segment appeals to a much larger audience than larger screen models affected by the mandate last year.

There is a loophole where manufacturers can continue to sell true monitors without a DTV tuner as long as they do not include NTSC (analog) tuners, as many plasma displays and front projectors are sold today.

TV makers are concerned over the lackluster response consumers gave the integrated sets in 2004, which featured a price premium of $300 and only offered uni-directional CableCARD functionality.

Most consumers opted for the monitor version, satisfied with the set-top box furnished by satellite or cable providers, which includes a digital tuner. Now adding a $300 price premium on smaller-size sets (many selling for under $500) in order to keep compliance with the '05 FCC mandate looks even less promising to manufacturers.

Here's how some manufacturers have responded. Thomson-TCL Electronics announced at CES that it will introduce seven RCA direct-view TV models featuring integrated ATSC tuner/decoders and 480i (interlaced) Standard Definition Digital TV (SDTV) image resolution.
Greg Bosler, TTE's North America Profit Center executive VP, said the company has been working diligently to offer an affordable solution to the DTV tuner mandate and has arrived at a system that will command a premium starting for as little as $100. An entry-level RCA 27-inch integrated SDTV will start at $269, he said. Screen sizes for new SDTV models - which are essentially analog televisions with digital tuners - are 27 inches and 32 inches in standard 4:3 aspect ratios. The company said it is targeting consumers who want to replace a TV in the bedroom or the den with something that is digital, but isn't high definition. RCA will also offer HDTV monitors in 27-inch and 32-inch 4:3 direct-view CRT screen sizes.

In an effort to avoid any additional consumer confusion, Sharp is biting the bullet early in the cycle and only shipping rear-projection TV sets with ATSC and CableCARD-ready tuners. Bob Scaglione, Sharp marketing senior VP, noted that some retailers have requested only ATSC and CableCARD-ready rear-projection TV products from vendors in 2005. He added that the [retail] price delta for integrated tuning isn't that much higher, so consumers are opting for full-tuner solutions, thinking they may need the capability in the future.
Sharp said it will include ATSC tuners in all 37-inch and larger AQUOS LCD-TVs by July 1, 2005, and for all LCD-TVs with 16:9 screen sizes below 37 inches, AQUOS offers a choice of integrated tuning, or HDTV monitors.

Toshiba Marketing VP Scott Ramirez said his company will continue to carry HDTV monitors through the first half of 2005, before transitioning the line over to 100% fully integrated HDTV sets. Ramirez added: "The market being what it is, the consumer is voting for HD monitors now. If we go to 100% compliance in March 2006, as we've requested, then probably in the first quarter of 2006, most companies will completely change over to integrated." The caveat for Ramirez is in LCD and plasma sets. "In flat panel, you are at a much higher price point, where the customer is looking for the highest technology," he said. "There, I think integrated products are much more sellable." The company is looking at offering a mixture of fully integrated and monitor-only flat-panel televisions in 2005, but the majority of the models will include ATSC tuning and digital CableCARDs.

Samsung planned to phase in integrated tuning into many of its DTV direct-view and rear-projection DLP displays around the middle of last year. But, in microdisplay rear-projection models, those plans were delayed by several months. This year, any model in the Samsung line with a screen size of 36 inches or larger will be introduced as a fully integrated DTV set, said Jim Sanduski, Samsung Visual Media Products marketing VP.

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
TV Broadcasters buy this box in very large quantity as well as HD enthusiasts and novices.

My substantial sales statistics represent a 99.99% approval rate. I was being conservative with my 95% estimate. The facts don't lie.


You do realize the statistical problem here? Your sales show that 99.99% of people who choose to purchase a receiver keep them, but your sample is not random. Your sample is only made up of people who believe that the receiver is going to work - people who don't think it will don't buy one in the first place.

Most people who live in poor locations may choose not to purchase a receiver at all - and they wouldn't be included in your survey.

Originally posted by sregener
You do realize the statistical problem here?

I'm just skeptical that only one 1 person out of every 10,000 (99.99% approval) disapproved the product.

Originally posted by sregener
You do realize the statistical problem here? Your sales show that 99.99% of people who choose to purchase a receiver keep them, but your sample is not random. Your sample is only made up of people who believe that the receiver is going to work - people who don't think it will don't buy one in the first place.

Most people who live in poor locations may choose not to purchase a receiver at all - and they wouldn't be included in your survey.

Not true. Many of our customers upgraded to the LST-4200A because they tried other boxes without success. Many are 60+ miles away from the transmission tower. Many have had multi-path problems so they turned to LG's LST-4200A.

-Robert

Originally posted by vman41
I'm just skeptical that only one 1 person out of every 10,000 (99.99% approval) disapproved the product.

Sorry, I should have said 99.9% not 99.99%. Many of our 1000+ sales are to avs forum members. Would I post 99.9% of my customer who purchased the LST-4200A love the product on the same forum where I made the sales if it was not true?

Other than William's comments that have no bearing on its ability to pull in weak signals and Les who has a Dolby Digital sync problem when down-converting HD to SD and the Clear QAM after 8:00 PM anomaly in the San Francisco area no one has posted a negative experience. But we have read many independent users post excellent results.

I don't doubt that some of the many users either my company sold or other dealers sold are not satisfied with the LST-4200A and I am sure this post will encourage them to come forward, however, to knock this terrific product that is clearly superior to any other available puts a false feeling in the minds of many people that would enjoy very reliable HD reception and will not buy it. The people who are posting negatively have never even tried this product.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Ok so you don't want to know about any problems with the units.. we have installed over 800 of them at this time..

William, I referenced your comments on the unit and will list the details of your analysis of the 800 you have installed:

Quote:
_______________________________________________________
We have discovered these units have two problems...

1. The units forget to stay in constant audio mode after a power failure.
2. Units will lock up if they are on and the transport stream is interrupted repeatedly (like rain fade during a storm) even if they are plugged into a UPS.

We have taught the Media resources folks at schools how to reset the units..
_______________________________________________________
Before I starter ********************* 8 years ago I worked for 20+ years as a RF systems engineer for Ikegami, Nucomm and Hitach Denshi. I have a great deal of respect for you and all broadcast engineers. I know and agree with your anger over the FCC adopting 8-VSB modulation over CODFM. However, we have to live with 8-VSB modulation and the LG LST-4200A is the best ATSC tuner available. Maybe some day when the next generation ATSC tuner becomes available it will even improve on this excellent 4th generation set top decoder, but today it's your best choice.

Les, another distinguished broadcast engineer who experienced audio sync problems when down-converting HD to SD also said the LST-4200A is the best ATSC tuner available. Most consumers would not be down-converting HD to SD and those that do should not buy this box.

Finally, I must ask why would you and most other broadcasters buy this box in very high volume if it was not your best price/performance available product.

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

-Robert

Didn't LG say they were no longer going to make the LST-4200A?

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
Didn't LG say they were no longer going to make the LST-4200A?

IB

Yes, at the current rate of sale LG will phase the LST-4200A out by June '05.

No replacement has been announced. Very sorry to see this beauty go away.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Because it has the least number of issues at this moment but as you have said its being dropped so we are searching for a replacement unit.

Samsung had a great RF front end for the time in the T-160 and T-165 but they forgot closed captioning support on the NTSC out which rendered it useless as a ATSC to NTSC converter.

I have worked with many engineers including people with the companies you mentioned. (Call Bob Johnston at Hitachi for my references)

Bob Johnston is a personal and professional friend of mine for 20 years. I worked with Bob for many years. I love Bob, he is one of the funnest and nicest people I know and a absolutely wild dresser.

I can still get LST-4200As until June '05.

-Robert

Originally posted by William Smith
Samsung had a great RF front end for the time in the T-160 and T-165

All the compnies are coming out with their own 5th chips that address multipath problems. Maybe Samsung's next offerings will up the ante just as LG drops out of the set top box market. My guess is LG will be back, certainly when the US cuts off analog transmissions.

IB

All the compnies are coming out with their own 5th chips that address multipath problems.

The problem is that, including that 8 year old notice from Zenith that I posted above, I don't think I have ever seen an 8vsb chip announcement from ANY company that did not say it addressed multipath. So I only now count boxes that are actually selling, where we can get some real reviews of them.

I have never been able to get very good reception from any press release. ;)

- Tom

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5486659#post5486659

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5537161#post5537161

LG is now shipping some TVs using the 5th gen chip. I know the 52SX4D 52" DLP and 30FZ4D 30" CRT utilize the LGDT3303 chip and have shipped.

Robert

So if anyone can get ahold of one of these 5th gen sets, please post reception results. Thanks.

Our shipment is scheduled to arrive Friday, April 29, 2005. I will have them on display by the weekend and will post the results of the OTA reception with a Silver Sensor indoor antenna.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Hi Robert
Is this the new 5 gen box to replace the LG 4200 or just a new shippment of LG 4200. What is the name of the new box? Thanks

Their is no replacement for the LST-4200A as of yet.

The new shipment of LG merchandise is all HDTV's and a new DVD up-converting players recorders and DVD/VCR combo recorders.

One item is a newly designed 50" plasma with a built -in HD DVR.

I am working ou getting the new models up on my site with links to LG's pdf data sheets. These items are so new LG has not yet updated their site and they are not in most stores yet.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technologies Dealer

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
Our shipment is scheduled to arrive Friday, April 29, 2005. I will have them on display by the weekend and will post the results of the OTA reception with a Silver Sensor indoor antenna.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Well I am seriously impressed with LG's 5th generation ATSC tuner. Today we put out two new LG HDTVs, Model #52SX4D 52" and Model DLP w/the HD3 DLP chip set and the 30FZ4 30" CRT Direct View, both have built-in 5th generation ATSC LG tuners.

I connected the indoor Silver Senor OTA antenna and scanned for local channels. It picked up 21 HD OTA channels, more than any other ATSC tuner. The picture is rock solid on all 21 channels. We are surrounded by 6 story apartment buildings in very direction, and our store is on the street level. No other ATSC tuner could even pick up one channel.

You can see these TVs at http://*********************/DLP,%20LCD%20and%20CRT%20Direct%20View%20HDTVs.htm

I am amazed and as impressed as I could ever imagine possible. This advanced technology ATSC tuner make ATSC work reliably.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Well I am seriously impressed with LG's 5th generation ATSC tuner. Today we put out two new LG HDTVs, Model #52SX4D 52" and Model DLP w/the HD3 DLP chip set and the 30FZ4 30" CRT Direct View, both have built-in 5th generation ATSC LG tuners.


Robert -

Are you saying then that the new TV's have noticeably better reception than the 4200A?

- Tom

Originally posted by trbarry
Robert -

Are you saying then that the new TV's have noticeably better reception than the 4200A?

- Tom

Yes.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology dealer

I want one in a OTA set top box now !!!! I need a realiable set top box for OTA . Are you listening LG give us a 5th gen set top box please?

Hey Robert, any word on whether the LG 30FZ4's slimmer brother, the LG 30FS1D Super-slim has the same tuner? That would be a nice set to pick up if it had the LGDT3303 like the 30FZ4.

Can't wait for the FusionHDTV5 to arrive stateside as well. :)

Originally posted by Rack
Hey Robert, any word on whether the LG 30FZ4's slimmer brother, the LG 30FS1D Super-slim has the same tuner? That would be a nice set to pick up if it had the LGDT3303 like the 30FZ4.

Can't wait for the FusionHDTV5 to arrive stateside as well. :)

Yes it does. All new LG HDTVs have the 5th generation ATSC decoder built-in.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Robert-

Did the 5th generation tuner just address issues with Multipath? Or does it seem that it's also capable of picking of weaker signals as well?

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer


I connected the indoor Silver Senor OTA antenna and scanned for local channels. It picked up 21 HD OTA channels, more than any other ATSC tuner. The picture is rock solid on all 21 channels. We are surrounded by 6 story apartment buildings in very direction, and our store is on the street level. No other ATSC tuner could even pick up one channel.


-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Robert,

It seems that this 5th gen chip is helping solve mulitpath issues. Have you had the chance to schlep one of these new TV's home and check out it's sensitivity. Are you able to lock on with a weaker signal that the 4200?

Well, LG is supposedly planning on selling their 5th chip to dozens, or even hundreds, of companies. It is only a matter of time before one of them figures out how to use it properly and puts it in a set top box. I'll buy one when I can get one for $200. or less.

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
Well, LG is supposedly planning on selling their 5th chip to dozens, or even hundreds, of companies. It is only a matter of time before one of them figures out how to use it properly and puts it in a set top box. I'll buy one when I can get one for $200. or less.

IB
Exactly!

The two HDTV's I tested, listed above, exhibited better sensitivity and terrific and unbelievable multi-path rejection vs. any other ATSC tuner I have ever seen before.

However, in almost all applications the current LST-4200A will still deliver a excellent HD ATSC and or QAM HD signal to your HD ready TV.

In the RARE instance where you need better sensitivity and selectivity (multi-path rejection) hopefully you can raise your OTA antenna to the tallest peak of your roof and point it directly to your broadcast tower to achieve the same results.

In the mean time anyone looking for a new HDTV and who will be using cable and or OTA you should seriously consider one of these new advanced technology HDTVs.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
hopefully you can raise your OTA antenna to the tallest peak of your roof and point it directly to your broadcast tower to achieve the same results.

I am pretty sure I could get LOS of the transmitting antenna if I had a 500 foot mast.

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer

In the RARE instance where you need better sensitivity and selectivity (multi-path rejection) hopefully you can raise your OTA antenna to the tallest peak of your roof and point it directly to your broadcast tower to achieve the same results.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

The main interest in the 5th chip is from people who live in apartments and condominiums, where you do not own the "peak of your roof" and cannot even have an outdoor antenna. If I tried to put a antenna on the top of my four story apartment building, my landlord would first shoot me and then evict my corpse.

IB

Legally, you can put a TV antenna on your balcony or patio, as long as it's an area under your exclusive use or control (in other words, not an area that is normally accessible to other residents). This does not mean that the condo/homeowners' association or building management may not enter the area for the purpose of inspection and/or repair; it just means that it's an area you own or rent for your personal use. This right is granted under the "Restrictions on Over-the-Air Reception Devices" section of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended. The law preempts area zoning ordinances and rental or homeowner association covenants and restrictions on DBS dish, local broadcast TV, wireless cable and broadband access antennas. The FCC has mandated that no landlord, condo association or other organization, or any city or state can disallow anyone with deeded space or a private balcony or patio (in the case of an apartment) the right to put up a satellite dish or TV antenna under one meter in size (or any size in Alaska). Nor can they require a permit, advance notification, the payment of any fee or force the owner or tenant to move the dish or antenna if they don't like its appearance. Under some circumstances, the availability of a central or common antenna can be used by a community association or landlord to restrict the installation of your individual antenna, provided that the common dish or antenna provides access to your desired programming with a quality of reception at least equal to what you can get on your own. Also, it must not cost you any more than an individual antenna to install or operate. This law does not allow you to place a dish or antenna on common areas that are owned by a landlord or community association, or jointly owned by condominium or cooperative owners, such as the roof, hallways, walkways or exterior walls of a condo or apartment building. So you are absolutely right -- the peak of your roof is off limits! You can read about your rights here (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html).

Robert,

Do you know if there will be a newer version of the LG3410 DVR with this 5th gen chip? Thanks.

John

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
Their is no replacement for the LST-4200A as of yet.

The new shipment of LG merchandise is all HDTV's and a new DVD up-converting players recorders and DVD/VCR combo recorders.

One item is a newly designed 50" plasma with a built -in HD DVR.

I am working ou getting the new models up on my site with links to LG's pdf data sheets. These items are so new LG has not yet updated their site and they are not in most stores yet.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technologies Dealer

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
It picked up 21 HD OTA channels, more than any other ATSC tuner.
Robert, was this 21 RF channels, or 21 channels total (including sub-channels)? If it was 21 RF channels, what other city were you receiving??

21 channels including sub-channels.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

I'd like to correct a common misperception shown in one of the
above posts in this thread ... it is the phrase "your broadcast tower".
As if all stations are in the same direction.

Where I live, the stations are, or will be when they come on:

PBS: 23 miles w
ABC: 33 miles wsw
WB: 34 miles wsw
NBC: 69 miles wsw
FOX: 68 miles wsw
FOX: 45 miles nw
FOX: 23 miles ne (and behind a hill)
NBC: 15 miles e
PBS: 45 miles s

It is impossible to reliably get all networks with one
commercial antenna pointed one direction. It would be
if you could get an omnidirectional UHF antenna with
say 6 or so bays. But you can't.

Doug McDonald
NBC:

This is a question for Bob,
Do you happen to know if the new LG LCDs, for example the 26lx1d, have the 5th gen chip in it?

More recent 5th-gen receiver, not set/receiver, news:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/opendtv/05-2005/msg00058.html
and
http://www.freelists.org/archives/opendtv/05-2005/msg00079.html
--John

Originally posted by ccjgil
This is a question for Bob,
Do you happen to know if the new LG LCDs, for example the 26lx1d, have the 5th gen chip in it?

Yes it does have the 5th generation ATSC tuner built-in. It also has a NTSC and clear QAM tuner.

You can download the pdf here http://www.*********************/images/pdf/h_26lx2d.pdf
It loads slow, so be patient.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
Well I am seriously impressed with LG's 5th generation ATSC tuner. Today we put out two new LG HDTVs, Model #52SX4D 52" and Model DLP w/the HD3 DLP chip set and the 30FZ4 30" CRT Direct View, both have built-in 5th generation ATSC LG tuners.

I connected the indoor Silver Senor OTA antenna and scanned for local channels. It picked up 21 HD OTA channels, more than any other ATSC tuner. The picture is rock solid on all 21 channels. We are surrounded by 6 story apartment buildings in very direction, and our store is on the street level. No other ATSC tuner could even pick up one channel.

You can see these TVs at http://*********************/DLP,%20LCD%20and%20CRT%20Direct%20View%20HDTVs.htm

I am amazed and as impressed as I could ever imagine possible. This advanced technology ATSC tuner make ATSC work reliably.

-Robert


VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer


Robert, do they make a 34 inch model?

Originally posted by TimGoodwin
Robert, do they make a 34 inch model?

LG has a 32" and a 37", no 34" LCD for this year. LG started shipping this week many new HDTV's with integrated 5th generation ATSC tuners. They also have built-in NTSC and QAM tuners. Some are also CableCard ready.

Here's the pdf data sheet on the new 37". http://*********************/images/pdf/LG%2037lP1D.pdf . I do not have the 32" data sheet available yet. Most of these new products are not yet on LG's site. I was able to get most of the pdf data sheets in advance from the LG dealer site.

These new LCD HDTV's are have new chassis and are very well designed. The new 50" and 60" HD DVR plasma look stunning. The black framed plasma display is mounted on a black plate. The plasma display is offset on the back plate and appears to be "floating". It's a very clean architecturally designed flat panel HDTV-HDVR. Here's a link from the dealer site. http://us.lge.com/PlasmaDVR/home.html

Many are in stock now and lots more are in-transit to us now.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Originally posted by inky blacks
Well, LG is supposedly planning on selling their 5th chip to dozens, or even hundreds, of companies. It is only a matter of time before one of them figures out how to use it properly and puts it in a set top box. I'll buy one when I can get one for $200. or less.

Today Mark Schubin and Bob Miller tested a prototype STB by an unnamed vendor in Mark's apartment known as a difficult multipath environment. This receiver was not made by LG, but supposedly uses their 5th gen chip. Here is Mark's report:

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


Bob Miller brought over the latest version (I'm not permitted to say whose). It was much better than last time (comparable to a good 4th-generation rather than not as good as a second generation, as the last one was) but still nothing like the 5th-generation LG.

With a loop antenna, it seemed to be sensitive to us moving around the room. With a Silver Sensor, it didn't seem to be, but different antenna orientations brought in different stations.

In all of the tests, we could get WNBC-DT, WWOR-DT, and WFUT-DT solidly. Depending on antenna and orientation, we could also get WCBS-DT, WABC-DT, WNYW-DT, WPIX-DT, WXTV-DT, and WNJN-DT solidly. In one antenna position and orientation, the receiver sniffed WFME-DT, but it did not appear to decode anything. I'm not certain that was a DTT problem. The receiver crashed once, and once wouldn't decode WABC-DT audio until the channel was changed and changed back. It's also possible the station wasn't transmitting any pictures.

Regarding numbers of channels, WNBC-DT, WNYW-DT, WABC-DT, WWOR-DT, and WPIX-DT were all multicasting two programs. WNJN-DT was multicasting six channels. WFME-DT appears to have been multicasting ten channels (it was the last time we received it, too). So, counting minor channels, the receiver sniffed out at least 29 "channels."

Performance degraded the farther the antenna was from the window.

There did not appear to be much of a correlation between the "signal strength" reading and reliability (except that when we got a signal strength of zero we got nothing).

TTFN,
Mark

Originally posted by DTV TiVo Dealer
LG has a 32" and a 37", no 34" LCD for this year. LG started shipping this week many new HDTV's with integrated 5th generation ATSC tuners. They also have built-in NTSC and QAM tuners. Some are also CableCard ready.

Here's the pdf data sheet on the new 37". http://*********************/images/pdf/LG%2037lP1D.pdf . I do not have the 32" data sheet available yet. Most of these new products are not yet on LG's site. I was able to get most of the pdf data sheets in advance from the LG dealer site.

These new LCD HDTV's are have new chassis and are very well designed. The new 50" and 60" HD DVR plasma look stunning. The black framed plasma display is mounted on a black plate. The plasma display is offset on the back plate and appears to be "floating". It's a very clean architecturally designed flat panel HDTV-HDVR. Here's a link from the dealer site. http://us.lge.com/PlasmaDVR/home.html

Many are in stock now and lots more are in-transit to us now.



















-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer


I'm sorry Robert I meant in the CRT model. I see the 30 inch was wondering if it came in a 34 inch?

My wife just got a LG cellphone from her company. I mentioned that LG had just come out with a line of HDTVs that eliminate breakups. My wife, who normally reacts to my HDTV information with a yawn, was immediately interested.

Robert, Do any of the LG 5th generation chipset TVs have firewire for connection to DVHS? If they do I might get one for my bedroom.

Edit: Checked the link privided and they do have firewire with DTV Link and a DVR. Sounds exciting.

Rick R

Originally posted by TimGoodwin
I'm sorry Robert I meant in the CRT model. I see the 30 inch was wondering if it came in a 34 inch?

Sorry, 30" 16:9 direct view HD CRT is the only size available.

-Robert

VE Advanced Digital Technology Dealer

Will the court ruling today, throwing out broadcast flags, speed up or slow down OTA HDTV receiver development?

IB

Originally posted by inky blacks
Will the court ruling today, throwing out broadcast flags, speed up or slow down OTA HDTV receiver development?

IB
inky blacks, let me give you my speculation that is based on an assumption.
This would be my speculation after the Supreme Court refuses an appeal on the recent ruling (if there is an appeal).
My assumption: Right now the LST4200a will not be sold after July. My assumption was that this is because of the broadcast flag requirement.
My speculation: The LST4200a will live on after July if/when the BF issue is completely dead. My hopeful speculation would be for the king of tuners, the LST4200a to then be upgraded with the fifth generation demodulator. This would make the king of receivers even better. Us early adoptors would then make this receiver the defacto standard. Where do people who are new to DTV/HDTV get the best information about DTV/HDTV? From their early adoptor friends who have the most experience. Others who are more unfortunate are being taught from the Big Box stores that an HDTV antenna is required to get HDTV.
A multipath killer receiver would also put LG in a great position for the analog cut-off. The cut-off will create a surge in STB demand.
I may be way off on this, but here's to hoping!

I hope you are right.

IB

Will the court ruling today, throwing out broadcast flags, speed up or slow down OTA HDTV receiver development?

My own opinion is the broadcast flag would have greatly increased the cost of STB's while actually lowering their value to the consumer. That is not a prescription for enticing new manufacturers into the market.

If the BF is now dead then more CE manufacturers should be interested in exploring boxes with the LG 5'th gen chip if it is made available on good terms.

- Tom

Originally posted by GSfromCT
My assumption: Right now the LST4200a will not be sold after July. My assumption was that this is because of the broadcast flag requirement.
My speculation: The LST4200a will live on after July if/when the BF issue is completely dead.

Actually, LG has already changed their mind. They at present plan to continue selling the LST-4200A through the end of the year.

Robert

Originally posted by robert123
Actually, LG has already changed their mind. They at present plan to continue selling the LST-4200A through the end of the year.

Robert

Robert, that is great to hear.
Wouldn't it be the greatest surprise if the 4200a started shipping with the 5th gen demod?
I always thought part of the reason why the 4200a didn't sell even better than it is selling, was because the news about the 5th gen demod came out just before the 4200a hit the market.

Your are correct. I have not purchased the Lst-4200A because of the 5th gen news, including other manufactures. I was even thinking of a refurbished 4200A unit on Ebay, but decided waiting for upcoming new units would be a better choice (given the many press stories on advancements).

LG just extending the 4200a production probably will not increase sales without the anticipated 5th gen improvement. Old tech does not sell.

I doubt they are "extending production, just trying to sell off the stock they already have in hand.

IB

Hi folks

I just found the following at digital-connection the New Fusion 5 features LG's 5th Gen Tuner PC card . This baby is set to ship ETA 5-23-2005. I hope the new set top boxes with the 5th gen chip are coming next. Anyway I hope that maybe someone could give us more reviews of this chipset. I know it probably needs to be in the HTPC area. But I thought folks here might be interested in the news.

Has anyone read anything about how the LGDT3303 performs its magic?
I know the Linx Casper chip was using some DSP magic (I think it was some on-the-fly auto-correlation and digital filtering/signal shifting to make the pilot and the echo waves interfere constructively) to get their "5th generation" results, but I haven't read anything about how LG is going about the process. It'd be interesting to know if there's more than one way to skin the multipath cat. :)

Originally posted by jdallaire
Hi folks

I just found the following at digital-connection the New Fusion 5 features LG's 5th Gen Tuner PC card . This baby is set to ship ETA 5-23-2005. I hope the new set top boxes with the 5th gen chip are coming next. Anyway I hope that maybe someone could give us more reviews of this chipset. I know it probably needs to be in the HTPC area. But I thought folks here might be interested in the news.

At this point I think most of us (I know I am at least) are wanting to know if LG's 5th actually performs as well as the prototype LG tuner that was tested in a NYC apartment almost two years ago. This thread has received positive word that the 5th gen demod is working well integrated in LGs TVs.
There was another test in NYC recently with a STB not made by LG but uses the 5th gen demod and the results were not as good as LGs prototype STB. I personally do not care whether this demod is in a TV, STB or PCI card. I am very interested to see if this demod is truly the answer to multipath problems. If it is, then I would be very interested in getting an LG 5th generation STB. I would prefer it be made by LG but that may never happen.
The digital-connection ETA of 5-23-05 is sort of a downer to me as the ETA last week was set for 5-16-05.

Hi GSfromCT
We need more reviews of the 5th gen performance so I hope members here help us with more reviews. If the 5th gen set box were available today I would be the guinea pig for testing. I hope we see some boxes early this summer. OTA air reception maybe the only way some folks will be able to get true full bandwidth HDTV. Sat. has HD lite. My local cable wants to use its bandwidth for its movie on demand systems and all ready don't broadcast the the WB and UPN because of bandwidth issue's.

Well, I think the whole 5th gen chipset issue is way overblown. The current generation of receivers works very very well for the vast majority of viewers.

I wonder if it would make sense to switch to a less directional antenna and let the 5th gen chip electronically handle the multi-path or continue using my current antenna that physically reduces multi-path? Is it possible that each path could be combined electronically to produce a better signal than trying zero in on just one of the paths?

Hi Rich Peterson

I think I need to clear something up. The problem I am see is for indoor reception. Apartment Urban condo developments. I have better luck with simple rabbit ears with analog UHF reception then digital receptions. Indoor Digital reception is allot harder then analog. I am being unrealistic in expecting all my local station within an eight mile distance to come in? I have a small hill between me and the tower field the hill is in the 100' foot range. By the way I also had issue's pick up 3 local station with an outdoor antenna using a Motorola's box. Are my expectations just to high?
Tuner today are just not for prime time for indoor reception nowhere near plug and play.

I too am waiting for the 5th generation sets. It seems kind of silly that people 60 miles away from the towers have no problem with reception but if you live within 15 miles of the transmitters multipath makes HDTV reception totally unwatchable. I don't think the issue if 5th gen tuners is overblown.

Originally posted by Rich Peterson
Well, I think the whole 5th gen chipset issue is way overblown. The current generation of receivers works very very well for the vast majority of viewers.

Hardly overblown!


Those of us living in large metropolitan areas, and there are a lot us; and we spend a lot of money for digital television. We desperately need better technology to allow us to properly receive over-the-air signals.

Between where I live in Manhattan and the transmitting antennas atop the Empire State Building, there are numerous buildings taller than Minneapolis' tallest - 225 South Six.

I only wish I and others had your reception problems!

So before we are castigated, please try to be understanding and compassionate.

Gary Press

Well, I think the whole 5th gen chipset issue is way overblown. The current generation of receivers works very very well for the vast majority of viewers.

I can't agree. The lack of adequate indoor or multi-direction reception will probably be used in Congress to stall the analog turn-off. It has to be dealt with. I just do not believe the transition can complete using only cheap early generation tuners with inadequate front end circuits.

- Tom

Originally posted by trbarry
I can't agree. The lack of adequate indoor or multi-direction reception will probably be used in Congress to stall the analog turn-off. It has to be dealt with. I just do not believe the transition can complete using only cheap early generation tuners with inadequate front end circuits.

- Tom

Be careful Tom. You are starting to recite Sinclair verbiage! ;)

Be careful Tom. You are starting to recite Sinclair verbiage!

Hi Foxeng.

Does that mean you disagree with what I said or just a joke about how it is sometimes not very popular here to say anything questioning some of the ATSC transition decisions. ;)

- Tom