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

"trotsky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s22

You have no working definition of "sonically transparent".

The phrase "sonically transparent" shows up over 5,000 times if you search
google.

A person with normal intelligence should be able to figure out approximately
what "sonically transparent" means from the meaning of the words that make
it up.

Of course Greg, I have a working definition of "sonically transparent", but
obviously it is all greek to you.

Despite your grevious false accusations Greg, no doubt based in ignorance,
I'll take pity on you and explain
"sonically transparent".

An audio component is sonically transparent if it makes no audible changes
to the signal passing through it aside of course from its basic purpose,
such as amplification.

A CD player is sonically transparent if it plays CDs in such a way that the
signal that it produces is audibly indistinguishable from the signal that
was used to make the CD. This of course presumes that both signals are
time-synched and level-matched.

A power amplifier is sonically transparent if it delivers a signal to its
output terminals when connected to any reasonable speaker, that is audibly
indistinguishable from the signal applied to its input terminals.
Time-synching is automatic, but attention needs to be paid to level
matching.

Loudspeakers and analog recording and playback, have never ever been known
to be sonically transparent. CD players, power amplifiers, and preamplifiers
including RIAA preamps are often sonically transparent. Well-designed
cables are always sonically transparent.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message


I was trying to watch "Bone Detectives" on the Discovery
Channel on DishNetwork last night and the compression
was so high that it couldn't even keep up with the guy
walking across the sand. It was almost un-watchable on
my 13-inch video monitor. It would have looked like water-
damaged wallaper on a big screen TV.

For the decline of technical quality, along with the
decline of programming worth watching, I'm letting my
satellite subscription just expire.

The relevant word here might be "satellite". Apparently, there were too
many sports programs going on at the same time.

"Les Cargill" wrote in message


I finally broke down and saw a DLP movie - "There Will Be
Blood" - at a real theater. Not great. It wasn't blocky,
but the system did not maintain consistent exposure. I
suppose it could have been filmed that way, but something
told me it was the projector.

Could be, although the digital projectors I've seen were capable of
nice-looking stuff.

Arny Krueger wrote:


I finally broke down and saw a DLP movie - "There Will Be
Blood" - at a real theater. Not great. It wasn't blocky,
but the system did not maintain consistent exposure. I
suppose it could have been filmed that way, but something
told me it was the projector.

Could be, although the digital projectors I've seen were capable of
nice-looking stuff.

The resolution issues don't bother me so much as the grey scale issues.
None of the digital systems come even close to the tonal scale of a
decent color film print.

Now, it's true that B&W prints made on proper B&W print stock have even
wider tonal scale, if done well. On the other hand, it's also true that
most mass-produced prints that wind up at your local multiplex are pretty
crappy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


I finally broke down and saw a DLP movie - "There Will
Be Blood" - at a real theater. Not great. It wasn't
blocky, but the system did not maintain consistent
exposure. I suppose it could have been filmed that way,
but something told me it was the projector.

Could be, although the digital projectors I've seen were
capable of nice-looking stuff.

The resolution issues don't bother me so much as the grey
scale issues. None of the digital systems come even close
to the tonal scale of a decent color film print.

I presume that you are talking about the contrast problem. Most of the
digital projectors and displays in use are limited to contrast ratios on the
order of 1000:1 or so. 400:1 used to be pretty standard, but people are
beginning to address the issue. The problem is not so obvious if the room
is well-lit. Turn out the lights and the blackest black is rendered as a
muddy grey.

It is possible for a digital display or projector based on CRT technology to
do far better.

Some manufacturers are fudging the contrast problem by modulating the
intensity of the lighting used in LCD and DLP -based equipment. The
circumvention only works part of the time. :-(

Now, it's true that B&W prints made on proper B&W print
stock have even wider tonal scale, if done well. On the
other hand, it's also true that most mass-produced prints
that wind up at your local multiplex are pretty crappy.

Agreed. At one point in my life I spent a lot of time making B&W prints and
this point became very clear. By picking paper grade, exposure, and
development, a B&W negative can often be made to come alive.

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in
message
"Mark" wrote in message
news:8f727c8a-3ba4-4375-9b17-

snip

If the
system were designed from scratch without having to be
compatible wit B&W, it would probably have been done
differently.



Indeed! The first broadcast-ready color TV system was
totally different. It is often called the "Goldmark
system" after the chief developer at CBS Labs and was
incompatible with B&W receivers.

It produced beautiful color pictures (
http://novia.net/~ereitan/CBS_Chronology_rev_h_edit.htm )
using a field-sequential system. The three color
primaries were used sequentially to contribute their
respective colors to the whole picture.

Agreed. At the time a huge color fliter wheel was placed in front of the
CRT. These days, the color filters are made into a belt.

You can scroll down from the picture at the link for an
interesting chronology of the CBS effort.


Perhaps ironically, modern DLP projectors are basically field-sequential.

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

You have no working definition of "sonically transparent".

The phrase "sonically transparent" shows up over 5,000 times if you search
google.

A person with normal intelligence should be able to figure out approximately
what "sonically transparent" means from the meaning of the words that make
it up.


You either have a working scientific defintion or you don't.


Of course Greg, I have a working definition of "sonically transparent", but
obviously it is all greek to you.


Rushing right to the personal attacks as usual. You're not man enough
to discuss the topic intelligently--you should break open your piggy
bank and get your penis reattached.


Despite your grevious false accusations Greg, no doubt based in ignorance,
I'll take pity on you and explain
"sonically transparent".


Praise God.


An audio component is sonically transparent if it makes no audible changes
to the signal passing through it aside of course from its basic purpose,
such as amplification.


"No audible changes" according to whom? Any listener? I swear to
Christ, Arny, your understanding of the English language is too weak for
you to even be in this discussion.


A CD player is sonically transparent if it plays CDs in such a way that the
signal that it produces is audibly indistinguishable from the signal that
was used to make the CD. This of course presumes that both signals are
time-synched and level-matched.


And this is when 100% of the "trained listeners" identify it as so?
90%? 87.5%? You have no idea what is being discussed.


A power amplifier is sonically transparent if it delivers a signal to its
output terminals when connected to any reasonable speaker, that is audibly
indistinguishable from the signal applied to its input terminals.
Time-synching is automatic, but attention needs to be paid to level
matching.

Loudspeakers and analog recording and playback, have never ever been known
to be sonically transparent. CD players, power amplifiers, and preamplifiers
including RIAA preamps are often sonically transparent. Well-designed
cables are always sonically transparent.


You are a stupid *******. Next!

Arny Krueger wrote:
I presume that you are talking about the contrast problem. Most of the
digital projectors and displays in use are limited to contrast ratios on the
order of 1000:1 or so. 400:1 used to be pretty standard, but people are
beginning to address the issue. The problem is not so obvious if the room
is well-lit. Turn out the lights and the blackest black is rendered as a
muddy grey.

It's more than just contrast, it's also tonal linearity as well. But the]
contrast is part of that big issue.

1000:1 is only 10 stops between white and black. That's not so good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mar 10, 7:12*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"Alan" wrote
in ...

In article *"William Sommerwerck" writes:
And as I've repeatedly pointed out, the color signals could have
been primaries, rather than color-difference signals, and still fit
within the required bandwidth.
And how were you going to get 12.5 MHz of bandwidth in 4.2 MHz of

spectrum?

What kind of a stupid question is that? Shall I ask how you'd get the 12.5
MHz luminance signal derived from 12.5 MHz color primaries in 4.2 MHz of
sepctrum?

What is it you don't get? Had the color been provided as primaries
directly, RGB sent over RF, which is certainly possible to do, the
result would have been (a) non-compatibility with black and white
sets, and (b) the signal would not have fit in the allotted 4.2 MHz of
spectrum. I suppose you could degrade the image quality much below
that of black and white, maybe, to make it fit, but it still would not
be compatible with black and white sets.

Possibly, two of the primaries could have been sent in quadrature, so
the total bandwidth could have been only 8.2 MHz for the RGB video,
but that's still doesn't fit in 6 MHz total per channel, nor is it
compatible with black and white.

I think what you are trying to say is that one could transmit
luminance, and in addition to luminance, the three separate primaries.
So now the luminance information is being repeated in the three
separate primaries. Of course, you can always do things in a wasteful
way. That too would not have fit in 6 MHz, and would be equivalent in
stereo audio to transmitting the two separate L and R channels and the
L+R channel. How does that make any sense?

Bert

On Mar 10, 3:12*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"Alan" wrote
in ...

In article *"William Sommerwerck" writes:
And as I've repeatedly pointed out, the color signals could have
been primaries, rather than color-difference signals, and still fit
within the required bandwidth.
And how were you going to get 12.5 MHz of bandwidth in 4.2 MHz of

spectrum?

What kind of a stupid question is that? Shall I ask how you'd get the 12.5
MHz luminance signal derived from 12.5 MHz color primaries in 4.2 MHz of
sepctrum?

We're talking about analog NTSC/PAL, okay?

Yeah, 4 MHz for each of the primaries. How do YOU stuff all 3 of them
into a 4 MHz channel ? It wasn't a stupid question, just a logical
follow up to your assertions.

GG