Bob Miller wrote:


Could you list a lie I have been caught at please? Simple assertions are
not very persuasive.



http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as _uauthors=robmx%40earthlink.net&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_q dr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=4&as_ maxm=2&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

"Bob Miller" wrote
Hey attack dog Mark, here is one. He claims Baltimore is great because he
get reception 50 miles away. The poor slobs who actually live in Baltimore
have a different reality. But tell Jeff all about how his sample of ONE is
just BS please.

Bob Miller

Out of 7,987 posts on the AVS forum, AFAICT virtually all of the
problems there with OTA reception are caused by either:
1. Low power transmitters
2. Mapping issues
3. $3.00 rabbit ears in the basement
4. Buildings with aluminum siding.

Next lie please.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net...

..Snip the rest of bob's rants..

Care tell us some more lies about how they're changing the 8VSB modulation
and no one should by a receiver?

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net...
Jeff Rife wrote:

Mark Crispin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:

In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of
*all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from *each*
of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the
installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy customers
than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer
feedback is biased.


In addition, different installers often end up with different results
based
on the skill of the installer. Here in the DC area, there are a few
"name"
installers of TV antennas, and one has gotten a horrible rep due to the
fact that their installs don't work well for digital TV, yet other
companies can come through afterward and fix things.

So, if one installer is having a lot of bad luck receiving digital TV on
their installs, that doesn't necessarily mean that digital TV is hard to
receive...it might just mean the installer doesn't know what he is doing.

In the UK the installer most often is the buyer. You pick up a COFDM
receiver at the local convenience store for $50 or so and you take it home
and plug it in, done. Then you like it so much you pick up a couple more
for other TVs around the house. 25% of sales are to homes that already
have one.

I know that is true in the US also but more likely the second purchase is
to find a receiver that works better than the first one. I never heard of
"open box" specials in the UK which seem so prevalent in the US. They do
not have the problems with reception in the UK even though their broadcast
power levels are on average about 1/1000 th of the power used by US
broadcasters.

That makes it so strange to hear people talk of the power advantage 8-VSB
supposedly has over COFDM. Truly weird.

Bob Miller

I'm sure that the idea of intelligent engineers discussing these issues is
confusing to you.

So read the following slowly and carefully.
================================================== ======================

From "broadcast engineering" a fairly impartial look at what it would mean
if COFDM *WERE*
in fact adopted as the standard:


http://www.broadcastengineering.com/...eyondHeadlines...


Some highlights:


Vendor
Geoff Mendenhall, Harris Broadcast


* Would there be an RF power penalty in switching from 8VSB to COFDM?
Yes. Assuming that it is important to replicate existing analog
coverage, there will be a significant power penalty.
COFDM has higher RF power peaks than 8VSB. Harris has confirmed that
even after the application of aggressive
crest factor reduction techniques, the peak-to-average power ratio is
at least 2dB greater for COFDM. This means
that a transmitter running at full power with 8VSB will deliver 2dB
less average power AFTER conversion to COFDM.


* Using the same antenna, how much more RF power would a COFDM
transmitter need to generate to
replicate the same coverage as an 8VSB transmitter?
Ignoring interference limitations, the transmitter size would have to
be increased by four times (or +6dB) to maintain
the same coverage in the fringe of the service area. The receiver
noise threshold is based on average power and
COFDM requires 4dB more average power near the receiver threshold
than 8VSB. Changing out only the 8VSB
exciter will result in 2dB less transmitter power output plus the 4dB
threshold penalty, for a total receiver threshold
loss of 6dB.


* What about interference protection ratios?
COFDM requires greater digital-to-digital and digital-to-analog
interference protection ratios than 8VSB. The
SET/ABERT field test data supports the Harris analysis that
co-channel COFDM-to-COFDM will require about
4.8dB more protection than 8VSB-to-8VSB. Co-channel COFDM into analog
interference will require about 1.0dB
more protection than 8VSB into analog. Considering the tighter
co-channel interference protection ratios required by
COFDM, if the transmitter power was increased to provide the same
coverage as 8VSB, the FCC table of channel
allotments would have to change to maintain the current protection
ratios. Even if the transmitter power was not
increased, acceptable protection ratios cannot be met with COFDM.
This will create large areas of interference
where the signal cannot be received and could significantly delay the
introduction of DTV within the U.S.


* Would changing to COFDM increase AC power costs?
Yes. The AC power costs for a 50kW 8VSB IOT transmitter operating
24hrs/day would typically be about $175K/yr.
To replicate coverage, a 200kW COFDM IOT transmitter would be needed,
with typical power costs of $586K/yr.
The European approach to broadcasting, which uses many low power
transmitters, is not impacted as much by the
higher peak-to-average ratio required by COFDM.
.........................



http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1EB2266A

David wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote

Hey attack dog Mark, here is one. He claims Baltimore is great because he
get reception 50 miles away. The poor slobs who actually live in Baltimore
have a different reality. But tell Jeff all about how his sample of ONE is
just BS please.

Bob Miller


Out of 7,987 posts on the AVS forum, AFAICT virtually all of the
problems there with OTA reception are caused by either:
1. Low power transmitters
2. Mapping issues
3. $3.00 rabbit ears in the basement
4. Buildings with aluminum siding.

Next lie please.


They don't seem to think so.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...th#post5120602

Search of multipath today on AVSForum third post down. How many do you
want? There were 397 hits for a search for"multipath" on AVSForum since
12/28/04. That is around 10 a day.

And that does not include all those who were intimidated into not even
bringing up the subject because it is politically incorrect. Nor does it
include those who tried and failed who don't post to AVSForum but
returned the receiver to the store where it became an "open box
special". A very common occurrence with 8-VSB in the US.

Or those who solved the problem by buying a big very directional antenna
with a rotor. Not my idea of a solution to what should be a "rabbit ears
in the basement" that actually should work with our MEGAWatt transmitters.

On AVSForum they go to ridiculous lengths to deny that any problem is
multipath. What is going to be very interesting is that once 5th
generation receivers finally arrive this will be turned on its head and
ALL problems will be seen as multipath related and AVSForum members who
have 5th gen receivers tell all about the wonders of decent reception.

David wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net...

..Snip the rest of bob's rants..


Care tell us some more lies about how they're changing the 8VSB modulation
and no one should by a receiver?


No one should buy an 8-VSB receiver until at least LG 5th gen or
equivalent are available IMO.

Is that all you could find? That old chestnut? I am sure that by now
that "engineer" is truly embarrassed by this interview at least with
other knowledgeable engineers.

The story behind this is that at the time Harris Broadcast, his employer
and one of the biggest transmitter manufacturers, was expecting a
windfall in mammoth orders for full power transmitters for 8-VSB from
broadcasters to meet the FCC deadlines and Sinclair's problems with
8-VSB was going to cause a MAJOR short term sales problem for them. Same
with the manufacturers of super profitable HDTV sets.

How ironic it is that after the fraudulent MSTV test, this article and
the FCC denial of COFDM that broadcasters then got approval from the FCC
to allow for LOW POWER broadcasting for the INDEFINITE future which
KILLED sales of big transmitters for Harris. They got ambushed big time
and they are still recovering.

If COFDM had been allowed Harris would have done much better since
broadcasters would have voluntarily gone full power much sooner and
probably would never even asked for a low power waiver.

This engineer knows better. Harris is a big player worldwide in COFDM.
We have bought equipment from them from their Itis division in France.
We have met with them and discussed this item. The problem at the time,
2000, was that Harris knew that not only would the discussion of COFDM
delay sales of high powered big transmitters but that if COFDM were then
allowed, big high powered transmitters were a thing of the past along
with their big profits. The US was the last best hope for a market for
dinosaur transmitters.

Ironic since the article talks about how COFDM will need bigger
transmitters with more power when in fact just the opposite was true and
they knew it. If you doubt it you only have to look at the size of
transmitters sold for COFDM and compare to 8-VSB transmitters.

The average power of a COFDM transmitter in the UK is ONE kW (1000 Watt)
or 1/1000 th that of a typical MEGAWatt (1,000,000 Watt) transmitter in
the US.

That interview below cost Harris million of dollars. I was then and is
now a joke. I have it filed as such.

Bob Miller

David wrote:

I'm sure that the idea of intelligent engineers discussing these
issues is
confusing to you.

So read the following slowly and carefully.
================================================== ======================

From "broadcast engineering" a fairly impartial look at what it would mean
if COFDM *WERE*
in fact adopted as the standard:


http://www.broadcastengineering.com/...eyondHeadlines...


Some highlights:


Vendor
Geoff Mendenhall, Harris Broadcast


* Would there be an RF power penalty in switching from 8VSB to COFDM?
Yes. Assuming that it is important to replicate existing analog coverage, there will be a significant power penalty.
COFDM has higher RF power peaks than 8VSB. Harris has confirmed that even after the application of aggressive
crest factor reduction techniques, the peak-to-average power ratio is at least 2dB greater for COFDM. This means
that a transmitter running at full power with 8VSB will deliver 2dB less average power AFTER conversion to COFDM.


* Using the same antenna, how much more RF power would a COFDM transmitter need to generate to replicate the same coverage as an 8VSB transmitter?
Ignoring interference limitations, the transmitter size would have to be increased by four times (or +6dB) to maintain the same coverage in the fringe of the service area. The receiver
noise threshold is based on average power and COFDM requires 4dB more average power near the receiver threshold than 8VSB. Changing out only the 8VSB
exciter will result in 2dB less transmitter power output plus the 4dB threshold penalty, for a total receiver threshold loss of 6dB.


* What about interference protection ratios?
COFDM requires greater digital-to-digital and digital-to-analog interference protection ratios than 8VSB. The SET/ABERT field test data supports the Harris analysis that
co-channel COFDM-to-COFDM will require about 4.8dB more protection than 8VSB-to-8VSB. Co-channel COFDM into analog
interference will require about 1.0dB more protection than 8VSB into analog. Considering the tighter
co-channel interference protection ratios required by COFDM, if the transmitter power was increased to provide the same
coverage as 8VSB, the FCC table of channel allotments would have to change to maintain the current protection
ratios. Even if the transmitter power was not increased, acceptable protection ratios cannot be met with COFDM.
This will create large areas of interference where the signal cannot be received and could significantly delay the
introduction of DTV within the U.S.


* Would changing to COFDM increase AC power costs?
Yes. The AC power costs for a 50kW 8VSB IOT transmitter operating 24hrs/day would typically be about $175K/yr.
To replicate coverage, a 200kW COFDM IOT transmitter would be needed, with typical power costs of $586K/yr.
The European approach to broadcasting, which uses many low power transmitters, is not impacted as much by the
higher peak-to-average ratio required by COFDM.
........................

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:13:09 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote:

Charles Tieman wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:18:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"

fog, with"terrain shielding and multipath", with "atmospheric
particulates". We are warned that frequent dropouts are to be
expected.

How good is your OTA on NTSC stations?


OTA analog is terrible, which is why 99% of the people living here
went to cable or satellite years ago. And why there would be a big big
market for OTA DTV if it was reliable.


For me, it works well most of the time, but I wouldn't want
to depend on it. I'm keeping my local station service on Directv.

So, for all of the "problems" you cite, you say that it works well most
of the time. The fellow you are defending says it never works, it is
fatally flawed and the modulation scheme is the reason that consumers
aren't buying HD.


Yes, it works well most of time. And it doesn't work at all some of
the time. Not good enough!!


You should note that he has been 100% wrong in his predictions. He also
argues frequenty that physics is wrong.


He says that does he? I have a PhD in Chemistry with a minor in
physics. I hadn't noticed that he has done that. I certainly haven't
heard much in the way of science from his detractors.

charlie

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
.net...
David wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net...

..Snip the rest of bob's rants..


Care tell us some more lies about how they're changing the 8VSB
modulation and no one should by a receiver?
No one should buy an 8-VSB receiver until at least LG 5th gen or
equivalent are available IMO.

No, this was one of your lies from about 3 years ago.

Bob Miller ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Hey attack dog Mark, here is one. He claims Baltimore is great because
he get reception 50 miles away. The poor slobs who actually live in
Baltimore have a different reality.

Yes, they do. They might have to use a rotator because the are much
closer to the towers. For me, the 3 tower groupings can be seen with an
antenna in one position. People much closer will have 3 distinct compass
headings for each group. This has a very large effect on reception with
any kind of directional antenna.

Once they point the antenna correctly, though, they have an even easier time
locking on to the signal.

--
Jeff Rife | "I once did a news report on the dangers of
| plastic surgery, and do you know what the
| statistics say?"
| "Yes...that 9 out of 10 men prefer women
| with big boobs."
| "And the 10th guy preferred the 9 other men."
| -- "Just Shoot Me"