Harsh, "aliased" sound with digital TV converter box.

On 2ÔÂ21ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç2ʱ17·Ö, Ron Capik wrote:
GregS wrote:
...snip...

I just love digital picture artifacts.

greg

Green Xenon (aka:Radium) is that you?

Later...

Ron Capik
--

http://www.885921.com/channel.php?cid=19

On Feb 20, 1:15*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.


I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I happened to be
in the store. By "under-specified" what are you referring to?

As far as features, the user interface seems pretty well thought out
and intuitive. I don't know what other features I'd expect it to have.
One of the very useful features is a beep tone for adjusting the
antenna so you can tell if the signal is getting stronger or weaker
without having to see the screen, though there is a "thermometer"
display as well.

The only problem I really have is the sound issue, which unfortunately
is a pretty major issue. I'll be taking it back if I don't divine
something that can be done about it.

"Doc" wrote in message

On Feb 20, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web
site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.


I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I
happened to be in the store. By "under-specified" what
are you referring to?

The only specs for it that I can find are like the dimensions of its case,
and other equally obvious stuff.

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.

I think I read the BB box is a renamed LG box.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Doc" wrote in message

On Feb 20, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB web
site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.

I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I
happened to be in the store. By "under-specified" what
are you referring to?

The only specs for it that I can find are like the dimensions of its case,
and other equally obvious stuff.

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.


Proof?

On Feb 20, 11:25 am, Doc wrote:
I just picked up an Insignia NS-DXA1 digital converter box at Best
Buy. The picture comes in clear but on some channels, I've noticed
what I'd call an aliasing artifact in the sound - overly shrill and
harsh on the highs. It seems to be more prevalent on certain
channels.

Is this an issue with this particular model/brand or a common problem?
Anything that can be done about it?

Thanks

I have similar problems with my new HDTV. One of my local channels
has that problem, but only for live broadcasts, mainly of news
programs. All other channels are fine. I have not yet pinged on the
station, but I am assuming that they are having some problems with
their audio setup. Their analog station is fine, it is only on their
digital channel that I notice this.

Also, I notice this on the national news broadcast on that channel.
So I assume the problem is at the transmitter, not at their local news
studio.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:57:15 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:
For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector for video is a
stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with S-video and component video
inputs, that would give a better picture.

I don't think boxes with component outputs are eligible for the voucher
program.

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:57:15 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector
for video is a stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with
S-video and component video inputs, that would give a
better picture.

I don't think boxes with component outputs are eligible
for the voucher program.

Ya can't buy my videophile card for $40, Mr. Big government. ;-)

"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s21
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Doc" wrote in message

On Feb 20, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I noticed some mixed reviews of the device at the BB
web site.

IMO, it is low-featured and under-specified.

I'll have to check out the BB site. I got it because I
happened to be in the store. By "under-specified" what
are you referring to?

The only specs for it that I can find are like the
dimensions of its case, and other equally obvious stuff.

For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector
for video is a stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with
S-video and component video inputs, that would give a
better picture.

Proof?

Are you saying that you can't tell the difference in picture quality betwen
a good TV running off of a plain old baseband coax output, and CV, where the
source material is first rate HDTV?

On Feb 21, 7:58*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
For me, the lack of anything but a simple coax connector
for video is a stopper. Lots of people have TV sets with
S-video and component video inputs, that would give a
better picture.
Proof?

Are you saying that you can't tell the difference in picture
quality betwen
a good TV running off of a plain old baseband coax output, and CV,
where the
source material is first rate HDTV?

Depending on the quality of the Y/C separator in the set, the
difference could be very subtle. As far as the source being HD, you're
converting it back to NTSC. If you had a really good feed before, how
could you tell a difference? The best source I ever saw on the old 35"
set was the 2003 Rose Parade on analog OTA KTLA down converted from
the HD feed.

GG