AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   HDTV Technical (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/)
-   -   Any recent 5th generation receiver chip news? (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/519678-any-recent-5th-generation-receiver-chip-news.html)

inky blacks 03-13-2005 12:00 PM

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

surf_fun85 03-13-2005 02:55 PM

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

John Mason 03-14-2005 06:15 AM

Thought I saw a post by Bob Miller at OpenDTV mentioning he was getting one. -- John

inky blacks 03-14-2005 12:31 PM

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

John Mason 03-14-2005 04:24 PM

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

trbarry 03-14-2005 06:01 PM

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

inky blacks 03-14-2005 06:16 PM

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

IB

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-14-2005 06:27 PM

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

-Robert

inky blacks 03-14-2005 10:36 PM

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

trbarry 03-15-2005 03:55 AM

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Solfan 03-15-2005 04:19 AM

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.

Schlotkins 03-15-2005 07:26 AM

One word: Ugh.

inky blacks 03-15-2005 11:38 AM

Quote:


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

William Smith 03-15-2005 01:04 PM

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.

trbarry 03-15-2005 02:01 PM

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

Rich Peterson 03-15-2005 02:24 PM

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:
Quote:


- 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.

trbarry 03-15-2005 03:08 PM

Quote:


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

William Smith 03-15-2005 03:39 PM

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.

Solfan 03-15-2005 03:46 PM

Quote:


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..??

William Smith 03-15-2005 06:20 PM

Quote:


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..

Rich Peterson 03-15-2005 06:34 PM

Quote:


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

trbarry 03-15-2005 06:41 PM

Quote:


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

William Smith 03-15-2005 06:58 PM

Quote:


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..

William Smith 03-15-2005 07:03 PM

Quote:


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.

inky blacks 03-15-2005 07:52 PM

Quote:


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

trbarry 03-15-2005 08:56 PM

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

trbarry 03-15-2005 09:00 PM

Quote:


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

William Smith 03-16-2005 05:50 AM

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..

trbarry 03-16-2005 06:20 AM

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

William Smith 03-16-2005 12:42 PM

trbarry,
you have a PM

inky blacks 03-16-2005 03:32 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.

Rich Peterson 03-16-2005 04:12 PM

Quote:


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?

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-16-2005 10:16 PM

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

William Smith 03-17-2005 07:28 PM

"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)

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-17-2005 08:33 PM

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.

William Smith 03-17-2005 09:53 PM

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...

Tony Nx 03-17-2005 09:54 PM

<<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.

Tony Nx 03-17-2005 10:29 PM

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.

Tony Nx 03-17-2005 10:55 PM

<<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?

Tony Nx 03-17-2005 11:18 PM

<<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!)

sregener 03-18-2005 06:41 AM

Quote:


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!

ranger999 03-18-2005 08:05 AM

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.

Rich Peterson 03-18-2005 10:18 AM

Quote:


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.

William Smith 03-18-2005 02:14 PM

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...

Tony Nx 03-18-2005 04:12 PM

[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.

Tony Nx 03-18-2005 04:20 PM

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!

trbarry 03-18-2005 04:55 PM

Quote:


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

inky blacks 03-18-2005 05:20 PM

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

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-18-2005 05:56 PM

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

William Smith 03-18-2005 05:59 PM

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..

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-18-2005 07:37 PM

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

-Robert

inky blacks 03-18-2005 08:42 PM

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

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-18-2005 08:47 PM

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

William Smith 03-18-2005 09:02 PM

Answer:

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

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-18-2005 09:10 PM

Quote:


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

HDTVChallenged 03-18-2005 10:26 PM

Quote:


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.

trbarry 03-19-2005 04:27 AM

Quote:


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

Solfan 03-19-2005 04:40 AM

Quote:


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.


trbarry 03-19-2005 07:05 AM

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

panictivo 03-19-2005 10:52 AM

Quote:


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

inky blacks 03-19-2005 11:24 AM

"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

Nitewatchman 03-19-2005 11:31 AM

Quote:


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...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/pro....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...gital_tv.shtml

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...rference.shtml

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...01.19.05.shtml

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...Behavior.shtml

William Smith 03-19-2005 11:39 AM

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...

inky blacks 03-19-2005 12:49 PM

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

HDTVChallenged 03-19-2005 01:16 PM

Quote:


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.

trbarry 03-19-2005 01:50 PM

Quote:


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

inky blacks 03-19-2005 03:37 PM

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

trbarry 03-19-2005 05:04 PM

Quote:


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

inky blacks 03-19-2005 06:23 PM

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

William Smith 03-19-2005 06:25 PM

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..

inky blacks 03-19-2005 07:34 PM

Quote:


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

trbarry 03-19-2005 07:43 PM

Quote:


... 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

inky blacks 03-20-2005 12:30 AM

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

William Smith 03-20-2005 01:19 PM

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.

Ken H 03-20-2005 01:33 PM

Quote:


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.

panictivo 03-20-2005 02:04 PM

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]

William Smith 03-20-2005 05:04 PM

Wait a couple of weeks...

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-20-2005 05:33 PM

Quote:


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

Wait for what?

-Robert

wildwillie6 03-21-2005 05:08 AM

"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?

Rich Peterson 03-21-2005 05:36 AM

Quote:


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.

William Smith 03-21-2005 07:27 AM

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..

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-21-2005 09:27 AM

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

robert123 03-21-2005 09:43 AM

Quote:


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

sregener 03-21-2005 12:34 PM

Quote:


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.

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-21-2005 12:51 PM

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

William Smith 03-21-2005 12:53 PM

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...

elicross 03-21-2005 12:55 PM

Quote:


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.

sregener 03-21-2005 01:08 PM

Quote:


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.

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-21-2005 01:08 PM

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

DTV TiVo Dealer 03-21-2005 01:14 PM

Quote:


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

sregener 03-21-2005 01:24 PM

Quote:


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.

sregener 03-21-2005 01:33 PM

Quote:


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.

inky blacks 03-21-2005 02:17 PM

"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

sregener 03-21-2005 02:47 PM

Quote:


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.)

ChrisW6ATV 03-21-2005 03:43 PM

Quote:


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...

William Smith 03-21-2005 04:29 PM

Quote:


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"...



Quote:


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.

inky blacks 03-21-2005 05:21 PM

"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

sregener 03-22-2005 06:32 AM

Quote:
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.

David McRoy 03-22-2005 06:36 AM

Quote:
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?

sregener 03-22-2005 06:42 AM

Quote:
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."


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.