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

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Since the s-video output and the composite output are
both NTSC,

Only if the source is NTSC. Today we have many common video sources that
exceed NTSC limits in many ways.

it is impossible for either the s-video output or the
composite output to have *more* output than the NTSC
output -- they *ARE* NTSC outputs.

This might be true in practice, but "it ain't
necessarily so".

How would they not be NTSC?

Only broadcast video *must* be NTSC, right?

Well, in terms of the fact that the FCC will only come after you if your
broadcast waveform doesn't match the NTSC specs, yes. But in fact, just
about everything in use today meets the NTSC specs, other than VHS machines
which need a time base corrector to meet timing specifications and which
are going away very fast.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

In the NTSC system, this difference shows up in the
bandwidth of the color signals. The researchers
determined that (for a 480-line, 30-frame system,
on a 21" screen, presumably) you could see full
red/green/blue-primaries color only up to 0.5MHz,

Unfortunately, by the end of the NTSC era, 32 and 36 inch sets
were mainstream, even average. 42 inch sets were common.
NTSC looked like $#@!! on large screens -- barely tolerable on 32"
sets.

I remember the early 25" Sony consoles. They had really weak color, though I
don't know why.

However, I own a 32" Toshiba IDTV and and Sony 36" IDTV. They display
spectacularly good NTSC images. Both digitally goose the luminance, and (as
far as I know) both have full-bandwidth chroma demodulation.

By the way, the original Advent projector had full-bandwidth color.


But this has _nothing whatever_ to do with what I'm
talking about.

Right, you're talking about perception.

No, I'm talking objective fact. Color-difference signals require less
bandwidth than color-primary signals.


Many objects, both artificial and natural, don't follow
the "same paint" rule.

But it's true for most objects, natural or artificial. If
you don't believe this, try to find any colored object --
natural or artificial -- that is _not_ "constant
saturation".

By this you mean constant saturation of a given color hue, no?

Yes. It would be meaningless to talk about different hues.


And certain trees and rocks. Water with certain lighting and/or degrees
of activity. Artificial objects with exposed frameworks. Artificial
objects
designed to be highly visible. Much text.

Text? Are you referring to illuminated manuscripts? grin


One point is that the DVD was one of the larger beginnings
of the end for NTSC TV.

I don't want to be too quick to defend NTSC, but it can be exceptionally
good. It's not that NTSC is of lower quality than DVD, but rather that DVD
is better.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote
in
message
Yes, it's brilliant. (It's one of the great 20th century
inventions.) But -- and I will keep repeating this ad
nauseum -- the reason color TV systems (of all sorts)
can "get away" with reduced chroma bandwidth
If we extrapolate this discussion to audio, then we have
Willaim Sommerwerck, MP3 advocate! ;-)

God, no. I hate compressed audio. (Dolby Digital, at
least.)

(1) Dolby Digital is really old-old tech, predating MP3 by lots.

What difference does it make when it was created?

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Since the s-video output and the composite output are both NTSC,
it is impossible for either the s-video output or the composite output
to have *more* output than the NTSC output -- they *ARE* NTSC
outputs.
This might be true in practice, but "it ain't necessarily so".

How would they not be NTSC?
--scott

A case for S-Video in preference to Composite:

Let's consider the case of cable delivery of a
480i broadcast.

The signal originates from the station as a
digital feed from the station to the cable
company. (In San Diego, Cox maintains fiber
feeds from each 'must carry' station.) At this
point, the signal it subject to the limitations
of the NTSC spec and Cox is receiving something
better than the OTA signal.

The cable company produces two distinct products:

1) A conventional NTSC analog signal that it
delivers to the customer (via format conversions
as it travels through the cable infrastructure).
This RF signal is delivered directly to the
customer's TV receiver or, is demodulated in the
STB and presented to the customer as either an
R.F. signal, in NTSC format on Channel 3/4; or,
a composite video signal -- essentially the
baseband version of the NTSC signal; or, an
S-Video output of luminance and color. All
three of these outputs are limited in quality by
the limitations inherent in NTSC.

2) A digital signal applied, along with one or
more other signals, to an RF channel compatible
with the STB. This signal will have been
sufficiently compressed to fit in the allocated
bandwidth.

This signal is detected and made available to
the customer by perhaps four outputs; RF (NTSC),
Composite (NTSC-baseband), Component and
S--Video. The RF and Composite outputs are
subject to the limitations inherent in the NTSC
spec. The S-Video and Component outputs may be
slightly superior since NTSC wasn't imposed
between the originating station and the
customer's STB.

I've also seen this work in reverse where the
cable company heavily compressed the digital
feeds for less popular media (to fit three or
four signals into a single RF slot). The analog
signals (raw NTSC-RF) were superior to the
output from the STB.
--
pj

"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s22
Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote
in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck"
wrote in
message

Yes, it's brilliant. (It's one of the great 20th
century inventions.) But -- and I will keep repeating
this ad nauseum -- the reason color TV systems (of
all sorts) can "get away" with reduced chroma
bandwidth
If we extrapolate this discussion to audio, then we
have Willaim Sommerwerck, MP3 advocate! ;-)

God, no. I hate compressed audio. (Dolby Digital, at
least.)

(1) Dolby Digital is really old-old tech, predating MP3
by lots.

What difference does it make when it was created?

Perceptual coding was and is a work in progress. Progress was pretty rapid
at the time that DD was introduced and the decade following it.

Dolby AC-3 AKA Dolby Digital was introduced in 1991. It is a proprietary
standard, and has not changed a lot over the years.

MP3 has remained a work in progress since 1989. The rate at which MP3 coders
were improved slowed down quite a bit after ca. 1998, but improvement may
still be possible.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s22
Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote
in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck"
wrote in
message

Yes, it's brilliant. (It's one of the great 20th
century inventions.) But -- and I will keep repeating
this ad nauseum -- the reason color TV systems (of
all sorts) can "get away" with reduced chroma
bandwidth
If we extrapolate this discussion to audio, then we
have Willaim Sommerwerck, MP3 advocate! ;-)
God, no. I hate compressed audio. (Dolby Digital, at
least.)
(1) Dolby Digital is really old-old tech, predating MP3
by lots.

What difference does it make when it was created?

Perceptual coding was and is a work in progress. Progress was pretty rapid
at the time that DD was introduced and the decade following it.

Dolby AC-3 AKA Dolby Digital was introduced in 1991. It is a proprietary
standard, and has not changed a lot over the years.

MP3 has remained a work in progress since 1989. The rate at which MP3 coders
were improved slowed down quite a bit after ca. 1998, but improvement may
still be possible.


You're not making sense. Did Dolby do their homework and do sufficient
blind tests to "prove" that their codec was transparent to people?
Maybe you're a different Arny Krueger and have come to realize that
these blind tests are ineffective.

In article , pj wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Since the s-video output and the composite output are both NTSC,
it is impossible for either the s-video output or the composite output
to have *more* output than the NTSC output -- they *ARE* NTSC
outputs.
This might be true in practice, but "it ain't necessarily so".

How would they not be NTSC?

A case for S-Video in preference to Composite:

Oh, there are many strong cases for S-Video over composite. But both are
NTSC. The S-Video is also NTSC, it's just not RS-170.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s21...

You're not making sense. Did Dolby do their homework and do
sufficient blind tests to "prove" that their codec was transparent
to people? Maybe you're a different Arny Krueger and have come
to realize that these blind tests are ineffective.

It doesn't matter. Dolby Digital is so bad that you can hear its problems
without comparing it with anything else.

Before Arny objects... I was accustomed to listening to CD-format stereo
from my LaserDisks. I was continually surprised and pleased with the great
transparency, cleanliness, and "ease" of the sound.

The first time I decoded a Dolby Digital signal ("The Incredibles") I could
hear the difference -- flat, grainy, dry, blah sound.

The audibility of lossy codecs varies with the quality of the playback
system. Over my computer speakers (Monsoon planar magnetics), KUOW sounds
fine. Not only is it clean and transparent, but I've never heard anything
that I interpreted as an artifact. (This is the Microsoft codec.)

"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s21
Arny Krueger wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s22
Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck"
wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck"
wrote in
message

Yes, it's brilliant. (It's one of the great 20th
century inventions.) But -- and I will keep
repeating this ad nauseum -- the reason color TV
systems (of all sorts) can "get away" with reduced
chroma bandwidth
If we extrapolate this discussion to audio, then we
have Willaim Sommerwerck, MP3 advocate! ;-)
God, no. I hate compressed audio. (Dolby Digital, at
least.)
(1) Dolby Digital is really old-old tech, predating MP3
by lots.

What difference does it make when it was created?

Perceptual coding was and is a work in progress.
Progress was pretty rapid at the time that DD was
introduced and the decade following it. Dolby AC-3 AKA Dolby Digital was
introduced in 1991. It
is a proprietary standard, and has not changed a lot
over the years. MP3 has remained a work in progress since 1989. The rate
at which MP3 coders were improved slowed down quite a
bit after ca. 1998, but improvement may still be
possible.

You're not making sense.

Please clarify, because the questions that follow are not requests for
clarification.

Did Dolby do their homework and
do sufficient blind tests to "prove" that their codec was
transparent to people?

AFAIK, Dolby never claimed that DD was perfectly transparent. The MPEG group
coder tests in the late 1990s showed that Dolby Digital was not sonically
transparent and generally inferior to other, more modern codecs.

Maybe you're a different Arny Krueger

Nope. Just older and wiser. ;-)

and have come to realize that these blind tests are ineffective.

How so? The fact that AC-3 was a substandard codec based on the MPEG
Group's blind tests was pretty well publicized by the MPEG and the AES. This
was no doubt a bit of an embarrassment to Dolby. Dolby has been doing their
own blind tests for decades.

Dolby subsequently came out with a new multimodal system for coding and
decoding audio known as Dolby TrueHD. In some modes, TrueHD is definitely
sonically transparent.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s21...

You're not making sense. Did Dolby do their homework and do
sufficient blind tests to "prove" that their codec was transparent
to people? Maybe you're a different Arny Krueger and have come
to realize that these blind tests are ineffective.

It doesn't matter. Dolby Digital is so bad that you can hear its problems
without comparing it with anything else.

Before Arny objects... I was accustomed to listening to CD-format stereo
from my LaserDisks. I was continually surprised and pleased with the great
transparency, cleanliness, and "ease" of the sound.

The first time I decoded a Dolby Digital signal ("The Incredibles") I could
hear the difference -- flat, grainy, dry, blah sound.


Agreed on all counts.


The audibility of lossy codecs varies with the quality of the playback
system. Over my computer speakers (Monsoon planar magnetics), KUOW sounds
fine. Not only is it clean and transparent, but I've never heard anything
that I interpreted as an artifact. (This is the Microsoft codec.)


What are you trying to say? Are you saying the lossiness of DD would be
audible over your computer speakers or not?