AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
With my video cable upgrades to Wireworld silver video component and RGB V/H Sync cabling, and other system tweaks/improvements the past two years since I initially put the external Bybee F-connector filters on my DirecTV receiver (the Bybee filter simply attaches between the receiver

input and the Quad shielded RG6 cable which brings in the signal from the satellite dishes), I figured maybe the Bybee filter would no longer offer any picture improvement.


Also, I didn't keep a Bybee filter on the F-connector for the analog/digital OTA Antenna feed, because two years ago with my RCA DTC-100 I found that I'd lose lock too easy on one or two digital stations.


First, I tested the Toshiba DST-3000 receiver Sat In F-Connector with and without the Bybee filter. Yes, with the filter the picture has a bit better definition, overall brightness and clarify.


What was really nice was the unexpected. With my fantastic rotor powered OTA Antenna, I get fantastic OTA reception both analog and digital. And with the Bybee filter I still get that perfect reception, the filter isn't causing me any appreciable signal loss problems. And the video improvement on the OTA digital channels I looked at tonight was appreciable - even though I had a great picture before, the picture has clearly brightened up and looks better!!!!


When Jack Bybee closed his shop two years ago that was it for these filters. I've got four of them in my system and they ain't being sold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
Are you saying the digital OTA picture got brighter with the filter in place on the antenna input? You're pulling my leg, aren't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
If I were pulling your leg it would hurt, believe me!


If you want to read about Bybee devices, you can do a search at this forum and find information. And when I say the picture got brighter,

I am talking about a more natural brightness to the picture, like lifting a veil that you didn't know was there.


Note that this thread wasn't intended to argue objective science about these devices. Simply to mention that even after a few years, these devices continue to be of benefit for me in the digital satellite F-Cable

and OTA antenna signal path. (Before you get off on a tangent making more fun of me for "pulling your leg", I suggest you read the top thread at this forum re Rules put there by the Administrator David Bott. Thanks.)


Note I do not use one of the devices at the F-Connector for my JVC HR-S9600U S-VHS VCR (my reception is so clean, thanks to tweaks and OTA antenna with rotor, that local CBS, UPN and WB stations look and sound better using analog station with VCR than using their digital station with my Toshiba DST-3000 HD receiver). I have found that it does offer a similar picture improvement used with the VCR, but that there is too much apparent signal loss here resulting in some added picture noise on a few stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
Thanks for your reply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,735 Posts
Steve,

First, I am trying to be as respectful as possible with regard to the forum rules. I understand that your subjective viewing of the change can stand on its own merit, but could you clarify a few issues where it seems there is scant information available.


Were these F filters designed for digital signals or analog?


What noise is being reduced in the digital signal before it hits the MPEG decoder in the satellite receiver?


Hypothetically, If I were to come across a tweak that I did ABX or double blind testing would it be forbidden from being posted because of the forum rules?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Don, you are welcome to start a thread discussing DBX testing or whatever. I simply started this thread discussing subjective evaluation of the F-Connector filter and that is that. The filter simply attaches on the F-cable at the receiver end. In my system, with my Toshiba HD receiver, I only use that receiver for the digital channels, as I find that its better to use my JVC S-VHS VCR for when I watch analog OTA stations. The Bybee devices allegedly work at the quantum level, ordering electrons through in Cooper pairs, thus accounting for a cleaner, better looking signal. But I have no physics knowledge can can't attest to the veracity of this, only that I find the devices work for me subjectively in this manner.


Don, you can always start your own thread on a tweak and if you do any double blind testing of course you can discuss it. But this Tweaks forum, and others on the web, too, now have rules that double blind discussions are not to be newly injected into a subjective tweak threads, and as Moderator I'm simply following the rules. A thread initiator, if any sort of double blind testing is done, can certainly post on this being the case.

The forum simply doesn't want threads to stray off on those always arguing you didn't do a double blind test so it can 't be valid.


Please, back to the subject of the thread. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Tonight I watched a bit of The Tonight Show in HD on local NBC digital. I watch this show all the time and am intimately familiar with it. As I just put the Bybee filter onto the F-cable last weekend, this was my first chance to watch Jay Leno and gang since. The video improvement (over my prior totally outstanding picture) was immediately evident. A few examples - I can now see more clearly it seems the wood grain on Jay's desk (what have I been drinking tonight???). Those suited bodies just seem more clear than even before. And their faces - I felt like I could more tell that they have lights shining to light up the faces.


Now I have the F-connector filters, external model, and not many were made or sold before Jack Bybee closed his consumer business. But

you DIYers could take an internal Bybee device, retail $80, solder it into the end of quad shielded RG6 prior of course to the termination (this would take some ingenuity and craftsmanship), and you'd have a DIY tweak.


Anything that makes Jay Leno look better is worthwhile to me!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
While the physics are a little weird, I could believe the Bybee might help analog.


But digital HDTV? Do you understand simply how digital TV works? It is digital, millions of simple ones and zeros coming in very fast. There is no room for a bits is not bits argument, as jitter does not come into play. This is a compressed format that is totally NOT a video signal when it comes in. There is only one, exact way the digital data can come in. If this Bybee device were to change it, your receiver would no longer display it or display huge artifacts (blocks on the screen reflecting the fact it is missing some frames.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Cal, I understand and appreciate your concern. On the web, their have been some great objective discussions and arguments about digital audio or video being PERFECT and therefore noise just isn't there - and we've seen technical folks argue both sides. But it is clear for me in my subjective viewing and frankly, that's what counts for me. It works on the digital OTA channels - suggesting that objectively, there is noise broadcast with the digital bits which interferes with their accurate decoding.


Last night I watched "24" on Fox. Its not even 480p here in Phoenix, but 14:9 apparently upsampled 480p from 480i. Over the past few months I felt that my analog OTA Channel 10 of "24", using my JVC S-VHS VCR with my Dwin Transcanner 2 line tripling, was a better picture color and detail than this FOX digital station. But this time, I found that the FOX digital picture had improved some and was actually about the same detail and a bit better color. And I repeat my prior observations about Jay Leno.


I discussed this the other day with Jack Bybee. I asked about soldering in one of his internal devices into the F-cable line, instead of using the external F Bybee filter. Jack said that he made filters for the external F-cable which were true 75 ohm and somewhat different in design than the current for audio internal Bybee devices that he sells; that he isn't manufacturing the 75 ohm video filters anymore - so I will keep my external Bybee F-connector filters.


By the way, most folks respect Ed Meitner, designer of SACD for Sony, right? Ed has been a firm believer in cryogenics for both analog and digital audio for years. All I'm saying is that something is going on, the digital audio and video signals we receive are not perfect sound, no noise forever like many folks on the web think. Of course, this is simply my very basic limited technical understanding, as I've said, I rely upon my subjective

senses mostly.


Remember too that the external Bybee F-connector filters are not sold or manufactured anymore, and seldom if ever turn up used on Audiogon.

I just brought up this topic because in re-demoing them in my system,

they work for me!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
I addressed that point in my previous post.


When digital formats were first introduced, they were touted as being error free. They built in error checking in the stream and due to its nature, it could stand some stress (bad cables, etc) before any problems were introducted.


The problems existed in the timing of the signal. The signal needs to be sent in a specific time-frame and it was not happening. There was jitter, or a warping of the wave on the line. This makes the waves look a little tilted. DACs respond differently to this, mostly by introducing some noise into what you hear because they can not get the whole sound.


But there are ways to eliminate it. Many computers now read CDs over their IDE bus instead of the internal audio connector. This has no jitter because it is not a real-time read but rather buffered. Your drive can read ahead then order everything back. Old CD ripping programs would even tell you what sort of jitter was on the line (to three digits) and say how much they corrected for.


A compressed stream like MPEG2 for HDTV is similar. It is not "live" in the truest sense as it technically is only needed once every 60th of a second. It is in "chunks" much like the CD data read by a computer, because you need a whole block of data to get a block on the screen. Jitter on the line is irrelevant, since it does not need a clock.

----

I do not see the relevance of SACD here, as it is never transmitted digitally in the home.


Basically, if you have a rudimentary understanding of how the transmission and decompression of a compressed video works, you would understand how this sounds like snake-oil. Every single person watching the Jay Leno show got the exact same signal, or they weren't watching it. It can be interpreted in only one, exact, format. What the box puts out is another story, but putting something (that isn't a computer with knowledge of the compression stream) before the box simply can not modify it or you wouldn't see Jay Leno anymore!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Namlemez
Basically, if you have a rudimentary understanding of how the transmission and decompression of a compressed video works, you would understand how this sounds like snake-oil. Every single person watching the Jay Leno show got the exact same signal, or they weren't watching it. It can be interpreted in only one, exact, format. What the box puts out is another story, but putting something (that isn't a computer with knowledge of the compression stream) before the box simply can not modify it or you wouldn't see Jay Leno anymore!
Cal, this is me as Moderator, not as a member. You have crossed the line here into abuse. Your above post makes me sound like I'm stupid - because I don't have a "rudimentary understanding" and because you say its "snake-oil, the latter a term which is outlawed by the forum rules - you should read the rules again. Please follow forum rules from now on and please reread your posts and think a little bit extra to avoid offending me or any other subjective tweaker. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
This post is also by me in my Moderator capacity:


Cal, I I have taken your demeaning and offensive paragraph and changed it just a tad and lo and behold - says the same darn thing without being offensive in the least bit and perfectly follows forum rules. I expect you in the future to demonstrate this same tact.


"Every single person watching the Jay Leno show got the exact same signal, or they weren't watching it. It can be interpreted in only one, exact, format. What the box puts out is another story, but putting something (that isn't a computer with knowledge of the compression stream) before the box simply can not modify it or you wouldn't see Jay Leno anymore!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Cal,using your technical argument, our HD receivers aren't necessarily what you would call high quality digital receivers for either audio or video.

Maybe a HD receiver with higher quality buffering would improve the video.


Anyway, Cal, you are free to argue and believe objectively whatever you want. My subjective observation disagrees with your objective theory.

And that's that.


Folks reading this can take my subjective observations and your objective beliefs for whatever two cents their worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
Steve,


Perhaps I should change my user title to master of getting you mad, as I seem to be doing that very well ;)


I did not say you were stupid and I apologize if I came off that way. I am fairly stupid in the ways of digital compression and what not but I believe I have an understanding of how it works and why the Bybee device could not do anything to it. You seem to not have much knowledge as far as MPEG compression goes, while I'm sure you know a lot more than me in most places. I am simply trying to have a discussion about someone who mgiht be noticing improvements but thinks they are coming from the wrong area. I feel personally that if you read what I say, you might understand why, given how this device works, improvements of this nature aren't really possible. I will attempt my hardest to stay away from perceived insults, as that is counter-productive and leads to arguing about the wrong thing (like I'm doing right now :) )


I am going to attempt to come at this from another angle.


Though I've never experienced one first-hand, lets assume the Bybee device is a miracle thing as many believe. It will clean up the noise-floor, etc. This will result in an amazing, easy to do improvement for your speakers, receiver etc.


But it can do nothing for digital. There isn't room for subjective improvement, and I will explain why. In the simplest terms, the HDTV signal you receive is not TV. It is not video. It is an abstract rendering of something. It is an exact code that, once run through a processor, results in what looks like a picture but is in fact a mathematical expression of a video. There is no room for quality in this picture. The decoder might have different options to change the _output_ quality, but the input has no room to vary. It is either standards compliant compressed video, or not. The code (MPEG compressed data) must remain in the exact form, or it will simply not decode properly. If the data is changed, you will no longer get any video out of your decoder.


Compare this stream to a video you might have on your computer hard drive. Transmitting it over a modem or a high-speed network is of little importance to how the video is after you watch. Both must do the transmission error-free, or you simply will have nothing but a useless collection of data on your hard drive. The addition of the Bybee device might be compared to a modem vs network, as I said before. The transmission is of no importance, as long as it happens. It either can, or does not.


At most, if your signal was very weak to the point that you are getting drop outs, this might help stabilize the reception. Statements such as "the picture has clearly brightened up " are thoroughly analog improvements.


As far as our HDTV receivers not working right, I do not think the area of improvement needs to be there. They need to work on being able to pickup a weaker signal. Buffering more would help, but then your TV would have to start time-delaying. Programs like Realplayer use this time-delay trick, as do your CD players with shock protection. The problem is, the amount of memory required to buffer HDTV would be cost-prohibitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
True, I did over simplify things. The MPEG code comes in blocks,nto whole picture, but they are usually rather large and noticeable. To be fair though, the amount the signal quality can vary with digital is much lower than the amount analog can.


As I read this, Steve is placing the Bybee device before his digital receiver, on the feed from his antenna. Here is the website for the technical explanation for the Bybee product.

http://www.bybeetech.com/



My graphs are being mangled! Let me attempt to fix it...ignore the periods please :)


Analog is something like:

\\

.\\

..\\

...\\ (gradual decline)

....\\

.....\\


Digital being:

-------\\

..........|

..........|

..........| (Rapid falloff)

..........|

..........|
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Cal, thank you for your last post. As moderator and as a member I never have a problem with someone disagreeing with me, so long as I perceive they are sticking to substance and not belittling or abusing me or other subjective tweakers. And your last post is clearly all substantive and polite and its much appreciated. By the way, you weren't violating the specific rules posted at the top thread to this forum - in my moderator discretion, your few "extra" comments were to me personally abusive and offensive, sort of like in a boxing match a jab you know where below the belt. If we all work to get our jabs in more politely and above the belt, we communicate and get along much better and don't offend. Again, thank you.


I appreciate the substance of what you are saying. And if I hadn't subjectively experimented and well know what my picture looks like, I might agree with you substantively, and I might think someone claiming to see something like this had a few to many - but I know my system and picture, at least so far as I am concerned.


The old tweaker's retort is of course that how many times throughout history has man, by experimentation including subjective experiments, determined that what he thought objectively just wasn't flat out true

and later on objective theory resulting from subjective experimentation comes about?


Frankly, I have done a number of things in my system which improved upon that original digital OTA or DirecTV picture, including but not limited to

a Symposium platform and couplers under the DirecTV HD receiver,

powering by a PS Audio Power Plant, using a Granite Audio power cord with toroids each end for high frequency noise filtering, and the external Bybee F-connector filters for both the DirecTV F cable and now the OTA F cable. And in the past year I've tried taking out each item finding picture degradation.


Its one thing to have an opinion and belief based on what logically makes subjective sense to one based on one's objective knowledge. Its another thing to have perfect one hundred percent confidence that one's objective belief is absolutely perfect and may not eventually objectively, even if not now, turn out to be incorrect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
I modified my rather long reply to remove parts I thought were unimportant. Sorry if I pulled the rug out from under you, as part of your reply now (12:58) might not be in response to anythign that exists anymore!

Quote:
a Symposium platform and couplers under the DirecTV HD receiver,

powering by a PS Audio Power Plant, using a Granite Audio power cord with toroids each end for high frequency noise filtering,
Those are perfectly reasonable tweaks as they would yield an improvement direct to the analog output stage. What I am trying to figure out is a modification to the digital input in the form of the bybee filter there...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,719 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Cal, isn't it funny that even among us tweakers, we can vehemently disagree on some stuff. HAAAAAA! And I wish you could figure this out - I don't pretend to understand it, but I have clearly subjectively observed it.

I admit I'm not much with any objective technical expertise, but I can only theorize that there's additional quantum and/or other noise riding with the digital video signal on the F-cable that the external Bybee device is reducing, which results in more accurate digital to analog conversion within the HD receiver.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top