George M. Middius wrote:
Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

I'm overwhelmed... I don't know what to say.... two agreements in one
day...well almost.

ScottW

On 16 Jan 2006 12:52:08 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.

So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.

I get the same artifacts when going directly from the converter box to
the the TV (which isn't digital, BTW). I have two choices, COAX or
RCA, and I don't have the choice of component video.

With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
look any better to him.

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

Still, I'm saying that there are DEFINITE compression artifacts in
certain programming and not in others (or far less). This implies that
it's content driven, not delivery driven. Some of it COULD be hard
drive related though, since I don't seem to have ANY programming that
I could confuse with DVD.

And you said "cable guy". I'm talking about satellite service, NOT
cable. I can't do a direct comparison, but I don't remember such
artifacts when I had cable.

These
artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
Tonight Show, for example.

They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
you wouldn't have these problems.

Well, it doesn't. Either capability.

What kind of TV do you have?

A simple current Toshiba 32 incher.

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

Improvement is improvement no matter how you spin it.... this one is
a truly a no-brainer.

ScottW

Don Pearce said:

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

At last you understand. This level of service could be your video future
too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
house?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:18:01 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

At last you understand.

You think I didn't understand this before?

This level of service could be your video future
too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
house?


Almost - one annual fee covers as many as you want in one house. That
allows reception of the five analogue terrestrial channels - whether
on analogue, terrestrial or satellite digital plus a stack of BBC and
Independent digital channels. Other independent digital channels come
free, mostly shopping channels. There is also a terrestrial digital
pay service - no idea what is on that.

I don't particularly begrudge the money - among those five main
channels are easily the best programmes, and I really don't watch
anything else. That is one of the reasons why I resent the squeezing
of bandwidth because of the new added nonsense channels.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jan 2006 12:52:08 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 12:08:51 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Thats your setup Dave... not the networks or dishnet. Are you
running your input to the TV to the coax/antennae input? ( RF on
channel 2 or 3)

No, my "input" goes to the converter box, the output of which goes to
my DVD burner via COAX then out to the TV via a video RCA jack.

So your input to DVD burner is analogue RF channel 2 or 3. You
realize that is the lowest possible rez video? Then you send it out
via composite video which is the 2nd lowest rez possible. Then your
digitat TV tries to digitize and reconstruct from this crap.

I get the same artifacts when going directly from the converter box to
the the TV (which isn't digital, BTW). I have two choices, COAX or
RCA, and I don't have the choice of component video.

Then you need a need a new converter box. On dishnets web site only
the 111 doesn't have better video out than coax/composite.
That is bottom of the line.

Seriously... it's your receiver that sucks.


With a still picture... most pixels not changing... it does ok. With
sports the whole damn thing breaks down as the TV can't digitally
reconstruct fast enough when all the pixels change. My son-in-laws
plasma looks like hell on sports before he upgraded his cable box and
got one that supports component video. The cable guys says DVI didn't
look any better to him.

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box. My son-in-law
has a couple.. $15/month, record HD and ties into the programming guide.
TIVO just came out with and HD recorder.... I think they're toast.


Still, I'm saying that there are DEFINITE compression artifacts in
certain programming and not in others (or far less). This implies that
it's content driven, not delivery driven. Some of it COULD be hard
drive related though, since I don't seem to have ANY programming that
I could confuse with DVD.

And you said "cable guy". I'm talking about satellite service, NOT
cable. I can't do a direct comparison, but I don't remember such
artifacts when I had cable.

These
artifacts are DEFINITELY not cable or transmission dependent, but
content dependent, because, if they were, they'd be uniform regardless
of channel and they aren't. All I have to do is compare ESPN to The
Tonight Show, for example.

They are content dependent in the amount of picture area that changes
at once. Let me guess... basketball with half the screen being crowd
and tracking a length of the court pass goes all digital artifacty...
lots of little squares before the TV can smooth it all back
together..... if your "box" supported S-video or Component video out...
you wouldn't have these problems.

Well, it doesn't. Either capability.

What kind of TV do you have?

A simple current Toshiba 32 incher.

If it's current it should have at least S-video inputs and probably one
component.

ScottW

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.

Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
delivery system that I am.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:15:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Anyway... the problem is your setup... not the network. I can watch
all that stuff with none of the artifacts you see.

Do you have TIVO-esque capabilities?

No.. but if I did I'd go with one integrated in my cable box.

Since you're not on the network, how do you know about the network
that *I'm* on? You're apparently not even using the same sort of
delivery system that I am.

What was it you said Dave? Oh yes.. "I can certainly say that the
current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME."
which of course is utter hogwash and has nothing to do with your
experience. Another example of Weil talking out his ass.

Like I said Dave... enjoy your ****ty TV picture... you deserve it.
But if you want to fix it rather than just cry and make up ignorant reasons
for your it... start with a new Sat receiver.

ScottW

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up. It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers. Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much. Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!
To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel

** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:
Too easy. Been there, done that:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



Fine as an experiment

Dismissed! Ne-ext!


- but nothing whatever to do with the situation
I have sought to address,

What is the situation you are seeking to adress? An audiophool is
claiming to hear this or that sound from a cable.. - "it" is deluded -
the proof of which is this test .. ??

Visual sense and knowledge aid us in putting together sound information.
In fact, all of our senses help each other out in all forms of
combinations, schemes imaginable.

No they don't. Visual senses help us in assessing an overall
situation, but don't be fooled into thinking they aid in putting
together sound information. Visual/optical illusions are very common.

There is a dilemma here, a puzzle. And the answer does not lie with the
DBT/ABX ritual.

which has nothing whatever to do with groups
of people and their possible perceptions.

If 850 people out of 1000 all agree that a given amplifier has very
powerful bass, stronger as compared to this other one.. Would that not
tell you anything?

If you took 1000 random people, you would probably find perhaps ten of
them who claimed to hear a difference between cables. *THEY* are the
ones who are of interest - I couldn't care less about the other 990.
It would be a waste of time testing them.

More of interest are those who come on groups like this and make
unsolicited claims of night and day differences between these items,
because they simply should not be there. That is why they are the ones
who should be tested. It is simply interesting.

Note that in an ABX the both amps would sound EXACTLY the same to all
subjects tested. Would that *still* not tell you anything?


And of course my scheme has no hint of coercion about it.

You ARE converting and act of pleasure seeking and relaxation, ie,
LISTENING TO MUSIC, into a stressfull act of problem/puzzle solving,
where one's own sense of being and consciousness is under question : are
you sure you hear what (you think) you hear? And at the end the
consequences could be that one is virtually mutilated and ridiculed by
some over-arrogant, over-egoed, audi-audi-uber-alles kind of an
ill-willed, foul-mouthed, bad breath creature such as you know who. And
you still see "no hint of coercion" in all this?


Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart.

As for the stress, all I'm asking people to do is listen to music,
then say whether they think it sounds nice or not. If they care to let
it stress them, that is of course their choice. Would you find such a
thing stressful?


I have gone
out of my way to make it as comfortable and familiar as possible for
the subject, and (with Stewart's permission) a thousand pound prize at
the end of it.

Yes, sure, I am still game, in any event. Send a mail to
for the practical arrangements. Note that the
stew of warts creature took an objection to arranging the "practical
arrangements" privately via email the last time around...


Please moderate the language, I don't care to talk in such terms.

As for the practical arrangements, I know you want to remain
anonymous, and I have no objection, but as far as is possible, all the
arrangements for this should be kept public. The whole thing started
in public forum, and I think it should be completed there.

I have no trips planned for the near future, but I will let you know
when I have.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Pearce says to Forwarder:

"Actually, the foulest of language (and I nearly killfiled you for it)
has come from you, directed at Stewart"

I understand that Pinkerton called Forwarder a "dickhead" before he got
a response in kind. This is par for the course for this self-announced
scion of Scottish aristocracy who used to sign himself Lord Pinkerton
of something or other..
An example of Pinkerton's debating style:
Sept1 2005 "Stereophile and cable theory"
I said:
"No, he simply *did not do it* when comparing level-matched or similar
gauge, especially with your preferred music signal.
Pinkerton:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."
2) I continued: " All the panelists did well comparing
uneven diameter cables when pink noise was played to them. The scores
were much worse when music was used as a signal and became awful when
similar diameters were used. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
noise.
Pinkerton answers:
"Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****. "
3) " I understand that 16 Gauge vs. 24
gauge over 50" means 1,70db volume difference. Six out of eleven
panelists failed to hear this difference in 5 (out of fifteen) tries
or more. I have, with my elderly ears, no difficulty hearing 1db volume
difference between the two speakers when my stepped volume control is
moved without my knowledge- but of course I'm not ABXing".
Ludovic Mirabel
Pinkerton answers:
Thank you for confirming that you are a lying sack of ****."

I did not respond. I didn't know how.
I think Forwarder should be congratulated for answering in kind and in
spades. It worked . Pinkerton shut up and the RAO air cleared just a
little bit.
Moderate IQ level and aggressive sociopathic behaviour are not mutually
exclusive. Plenty of examples in recent history.
Ludovic Mirabel

..