HDTV Audio and Anti-Glare
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:22:27 -0700, UCLAN wrote:

"LOL! Wrong about what? I have maintained all along that whole numbers
tuned by a TV like (49 and 50) *cannot* be QAM digital channels since
they are NTSC analog channels. As it turns out, I was right. Or do you
still maintain that his TV was tuning Clear QAM on channels 49 & 50?"

And I've already blown that out of the water. WTF is wrong with you. Do
you have sort of mental condition that won't let you face facts presented
to you?

And fwiw, the TV I'm watching
doesn't have a valid channel 49, but it does have a 41, and when I
enter 41, it actually tunes to real channel 35, and it's not NTSC. It's
ATSC 8VSB. So this must have been one of the thousands of different
TV's out there that you missed testing.:-)

No, it's just been set up to do so by you. Out of the box the above
didn't exist.

You never said anything about out of the box. You strictly stated it
can't happen. Many times. And you are just so wrong.


And please, no more yarns about how you have your OTA channels set up.
It's quite irrelevant.

And why is that? If my TV system will do it, so can any other one if
implimented. I've already explained how the TV scans the channels when
you set it up and stores virtual channel information from the scan in
translation tables. It appears to me that you don't have the first clue
how it works with new digital TV's. Tuning 49 on an old TV will get you
only NTSC channel 49. This is not the case with newer TV's with digital
channels. Converter boxes are one good example. Putting 49 into the
remote will go to virtual channel 49.1. And that broadcast can be on
ANY real channel number from 2 - 82.

OK. I'll try explaining the difference between OTA and cable to you.

In brief:

PSIP information is sent by each terrestrial broadcast as per the ATSC
specification. This channel information is NOT sent by cable channels
such as ESPN because a) their channel assignment varies from cable
system to cable system, and b) they are not sent to the cable system via
ATSC. Cable systems send channel numbering information to their STBs by
way of what's called FDC (forward data channel.) The frequency at which
it is sent varies from cable system to cable system, and therefore is
not received by standard TV sets. Additionally, it is QPSK.

So for receiving standard cable channels, whole number channels such as
49 and 50 are 6MHz wide NTSC channels with video and audio carriers.

Crap, I've never had cable and know better than that. And what do you
think QAM is? It's a part of ATSC. You've got everything screwed up
because you don't know wtf you're talking about. Suggest you read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc#Mo...d_transmission

And this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAM_tuner

As the QAM tuner in this case is an adaptation of existing ATSC-
compatible hardware, the television set's channel numbering will follow
ATSC-like conventions. If what appears as "channel 300" on the cable
company's package receivers is physically on frequencies corresponding to
an analog cable converter's "channel 77", an ATSC-compatible digital-
cable ready TV will most likely display this as "channel 77-300." Some
digital cable channels may also carry ATSC virtual channel number meta
data (using the Program and System Information Protocol or PSIP). For
Example, "channel 77-300" may actually be a channel which over the air
appears as "10-1". The identifying PSIP information "10-1" may be picked
up by the tv's QAM tuner, and the channel is moved "inline" to "channel
10-1" between channel 10 and channel 11. Some older TVs with QAM tuners
do not identify this PSIP meta data and will only display the channel as
"77-300". Sometimes, the numbering is completely random, such as 68-56,
with neither 68 nor 56 corresponding to any actual channel or like 134-1
and 135-1.

Now tuck your tail between your legs and go home.


--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

HDTV Audio and Anti-Glare
 

Wes Newell wrote:

"LOL! Wrong about what? I have maintained all along that whole numbers
tuned by a TV like (49 and 50) *cannot* be QAM digital channels since
they are NTSC analog channels. As it turns out, I was right. Or do you
still maintain that his TV was tuning Clear QAM on channels 49 & 50?"

And I've already blown that out of the water. WTF is wrong with you. Do
you have sort of mental condition that won't let you face facts presented
to you?

You've done nothing of the sort. Wishing doesn't make it so.

And fwiw, the TV I'm watching
doesn't have a valid channel 49, but it does have a 41, and when I
enter 41, it actually tunes to real channel 35, and it's not NTSC. It's
ATSC 8VSB. So this must have been one of the thousands of different
TV's out there that you missed testing.:-)

No, it's just been set up to do so by you. Out of the box the above
didn't exist.

You never said anything about out of the box. You strictly stated it
can't happen. Many times. And you are just so wrong.

And I've got a microwave oven that grows flowers. Of course, I had to make
a few modifications. Geez...I can make a TV tune AM radio. So what? You're
getting more and more desperate by the day.

And why is that? If my TV system will do it, so can any other one if
implimented. I've already explained how the TV scans the channels when
you set it up and stores virtual channel information from the scan in
translation tables. It appears to me that you don't have the first clue
how it works with new digital TV's. Tuning 49 on an old TV will get you
only NTSC channel 49. This is not the case with newer TV's with digital
channels. Converter boxes are one good example. Putting 49 into the
remote will go to virtual channel 49.1. And that broadcast can be on
ANY real channel number from 2 - 82.

OK. I'll try explaining the difference between OTA and cable to you.

In brief:

PSIP information is sent by each terrestrial broadcast as per the ATSC
specification. This channel information is NOT sent by cable channels
such as ESPN because a) their channel assignment varies from cable
system to cable system, and b) they are not sent to the cable system via
ATSC. Cable systems send channel numbering information to their STBs by
way of what's called FDC (forward data channel.) The frequency at which
it is sent varies from cable system to cable system, and therefore is
not received by standard TV sets. Additionally, it is QPSK.

So for receiving standard cable channels, whole number channels such as
49 and 50 are 6MHz wide NTSC channels with video and audio carriers.

Crap, I've never had cable and know better than that. And what do you
think QAM is? It's a part of ATSC.

Ah, no. It isn't. It is expected to be added to the ATSC specification,
but has not yet been included. Gee, even the URL you blindly pointed me
to says so:

"256 QAM is a cable standard, not an ATSC standard; however, over time it
is expected to be included in the ATSC standard."

You've got everything screwed up

Looks like *you're* the one that has things wrong.

because you don't know wtf you're talking about. Suggest you read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc#Mo...d_transmission

And this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAM_tuner

Yeah. And what do those URLs have to do with the fact that:

* cable channels such as ESPN are not sent to cable companies in ATSC
(they're mostly in DVB) and don't include channel information (which
is a good thing since such channels have varying channel assignments
on cable systems.

* Cable systems send channel assignment information to their STBs via
FDC packets, the transmission frequency of which varies among cable
systems. TVs do not receive these packets due to this variance of
frequency and because they are sent QPSK.

Blindly referencing a URL that doesn't even address an issue is an old,
worn trick. Nice try.

As the QAM tuner in this case is an adaptation of existing ATSC-
compatible hardware, the television set's channel numbering will follow
ATSC-like conventions.

Huh? In regards to what? If you're still arguing that whole number channels
on a standard cable ready TV can tune ASTC channels, you just shot yourself
in the foot, as ATSC dictates that channels be identified by the "x.1", "x.2",
etc., nomenclature. Can you name an ATSC channel that is a whole number (on
a standard ATSC tuner) ??

If what appears as "channel 300" on the cable
company's package receivers is physically on frequencies corresponding to
an analog cable converter's "channel 77", an ATSC-compatible digital-
cable ready TV will most likely display this as "channel 77-300."

So it will tune it as 77.300 (or 77-300.) So what? That has nothing to do
with my contention that any channel a TV tunes on WHOLE channels (like plain
ol' 77 for example) will be a standard NTSC channel.

Some
digital cable channels may also carry ATSC virtual channel number meta
data (using the Program and System Information Protocol or PSIP). For
Example, "channel 77-300" may actually be a channel which over the air
appears as "10-1".

No. If an OTA channel had a virtual channel number of 77-300, it would be
the 300th sub-channel of a station transmitting on UHF channel 77. We both
know that this is not possible since UHF channel 77 in no longer in
television's domain, among other things. The cable system merely passes
along the station's transmitted PSIP, which would identify it as 10-1.
In addition, why the shift back to discussing OTA? The point of contention
is how whole number channels like 49 and 50 get tuned by cable ready TVs.

And, if TVs receive cable's FDC information (which they don't), how come
they must scan for analog and digital channels? Cable's STBs don't. They
simply read the FDC packet and map the channels accordingly. TVs can't
do that, can they?

Now tuck your tail between your legs and go home.

Gee, I was set to suggest the same to you.

HDTV Audio and Anti-Glare
 

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:33:17 -0700, UCLAN wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

As the QAM tuner in this case is an adaptation of existing ATSC-
compatible hardware, the television set's channel numbering will follow
ATSC-like conventions.

Huh? In regards to what? If you're still arguing that whole number
channels on a standard cable ready TV can tune ASTC channels, you just
shot yourself in the foot, as ATSC dictates that channels be identified
by the "x.1", "x.2", etc., nomenclature. Can you name an ATSC channel
that is a whole number (on a standard ATSC tuner) ??

If what appears as "channel 300" on the cable company's package
receivers is physically on frequencies corresponding to an analog cable
converter's "channel 77", an ATSC-compatible digital- cable ready TV
will most likely display this as "channel 77-300."

So it will tune it as 77.300 (or 77-300.) So what? That has nothing to
do with my contention that any channel a TV tunes on WHOLE channels
(like plain ol' 77 for example) will be a standard NTSC channel.

Some
digital cable channels may also carry ATSC virtual channel number meta
data (using the Program and System Information Protocol or PSIP). For
Example, "channel 77-300" may actually be a channel which over the air
appears as "10-1".

No. If an OTA channel had a virtual channel number of 77-300, it would
be the 300th sub-channel of a station transmitting on UHF channel 77. We
both know that this is not possible since UHF channel 77 in no longer in
television's domain, among other things. The cable system merely passes
along the station's transmitted PSIP, which would identify it as 10-1.
In addition, why the shift back to discussing OTA? The point of
contention is how whole number channels like 49 and 50 get tuned by
cable ready TVs.

And, if TVs receive cable's FDC information (which they don't), how come
they must scan for analog and digital channels? Cable's STBs don't. They
simply read the FDC packet and map the channels accordingly. TVs can't
do that, can they?

Now tuck your tail between your legs and go home.

Gee, I was set to suggest the same to you.

You freaking moron. These were all quotes from the wiki, not me. So now
go argue with them. It's obvious you have a problem, and I'm done with it.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

HDTV Audio and Anti-Glare
 

Wes Newell wrote:

You freaking moron. These were all quotes from the wiki, not me. So now
go argue with them. It's obvious you have a problem, and I'm done with it.

Wiki stated that QAM is part of ATSC? No, *you* did. I even quoted the exact
text from the Wiki URLs you provided where it stated:

"256 QAM is a cable standard, not an ATSC standard; however, over time it
is expected to be included in the ATSC standard."

Wiki made NONE of the erroneous statements you continue to make. Saying it
was Wiki, not you, is a cheap cop-out...and an incorrect statement as well.
But we're getting used to that by now.

Here is a list of what you quoted from Wiki:

START OF LIST

END OF LIST

Bye!