Text 32282, 96 rader
Skriven 2009-05-09 13:22:37 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 32267 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: TV Systems
==================
09 May 09 08:43, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>>>> In Germany, perhaps In the US, what I receive over the air is
 RW>>>> HDTV, with no HDMI input required.

 RB>>> Doubtless - but I was talking about your TV input signal, not about
 RB>>> what is broadcast.

 RW>> To clarify it for you then, my TV receives a digital HD signal,
 RW>> which is received on a bow-tie antenna and fed via coax to my TV's
 RW>> 'antenna' connection via an RCA RF connector.

 RW>> It will also receive, until June 12, an analog TV signal via the
 RW>> same process, this signal and only this signal is an NTSC signal.

 RB> Somehow we're getting tied up here. The difficulty seems to be that
 RB> I'm assuming an analog TV (NTSC or PAL, no HDMI input), and you're
 RB> assuming what you've apparently got: a digital TV with direct digital
 RB> input.

Apparently so. You've got an analog TV and a digital to analog converter
feeding it. Like I said, I have that same setup on the spare bedroom TV,
which we inherited, which even has the UHF and VHF tuners seperate. The DA
converter outputs to analog channel 3 or 4, which that TV has a problem
with, since you can see the signal on ch 2, 3 & 4...

 RW>>>> In 36 days, there won't be anything transmitted in the TV bands
 RW>>>> but digital TV.

 RB>>> Again, you're confusing the transmitted signal with the one sent to
 RB>>> the TV.

 RW>> I can't be, they're one and the same.

 RB> Only if you have a TV that uses a direct digital input.

Which is what I have.

 RB> I wasn't assuming that. The above sentence applies to analog TVs
 RB> receiving an analog signal from a DVB-T or DVB-S receiver, not to TVs
 RB> that work directly with a digital signal. Obviously there's no
 RB> quality loss from the transmitted signal to that sent to the TV in
 RB> that case.

Like I said, the DA converter puts out an enhanced analog signal, which
makes the video seem sharper than what you would see from a sat or cable
receiver.

 RB>>> If the TV doesn't have a digital input, it is incapable of
 RB>>> displaying a digital signal

 RW>> Correct. But those are TVs that are so old, they'll be obsolete on
 RW>> June 12th...in order to use them, you will need an DA converter to
 RW>> watch TV.

 RB> Old? Probably millions of them still in use. And the receiver (what
 RB> you call the "DA converter") is standard equipment here.

I think we're more affluent, since a lot of those converters still sit on
the shelf, while digital TVs are selling pretty good. If I thought more
about our guests, I'd put a digital TV in that room too. A 30" digital is
going for around $500 now.

 RB> You can buy digital TVs here, but the prices are still sky-high (EUR
 RB> 1000 and more), and most people don't like TV so much they're willing
 RB> to pay so much for the privilege. Naturally that will change, but not
 RB> from today to tomorrow.

Meanwhile, in America, people are obsessed with 'home theaters' with giant
screen TVs and Dolby digital audio systems that make it feel like you
really are in a theater.

 RB>>> and must be supplied (by the receiver) with the analog (NTSC)
 RB>>> signal it can use.

 RW>> That's what I've been trying to tell you...digital TVs no longer
 RW>> process video via NTSC. The transmitted signal is digital and that's
 RW>> what the TV receives and processes.

 RB> In your case, of course. But we've been talking to cross purposes,
 RB> since I have been assuming an analog TV and you a digitel TV. I've
 RB> been talking about the established basis of analog TVs, and you about
 RB> current digital TVs.

Plus the fact that analog transmitters in the US will be going off the air
next month. If you don't have a digital TV, DA converter, cable box,
DVD/VCR player or satellite system, you won't be watching much TV after
June 12.

                R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)