A new reason to dislike OTA DTV
TJ
be worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more
pervasive, and harder to avoid.
This year the only election for the US House of Representatives, a
special election to replace McHugh, a (gasp) Republican tapped for a job
in the Obama Administration, is being held in the district next to the
one I live in. The Syracuse TV market covers a large part of that
district, so the ads are running almost constantly. To make it worse,
it's a three-way race, with no clear leader in the polls.
The candidates ads aren't so bad. It's the party ads that are the most
disgusting. They're the ones on the attack. The Republicans say the
Democrat will raise taxes - no surprise there. But the Democrats say the
Republican will raise taxes, too. And the Conservatives are saying BOTH
of the others are cut from the same cloth and will raise taxes.
And that's just one issue. It's enough to make you throw up. Or at least
long for access to a non-local source for TV. And next year, with ALL
House jobs up for grabs, it'll be even harder to escape.
TJ
--
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
J.R.R.Tolkien
Kimba W Lion
>Yep, I've found yet another reason to dislike OTA DTV, and it will only
>be worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more
>pervasive, and harder to avoid.
Explain to me how DTV makes campaign ads more pervasive and harder to avoid
than they were on analog.
--
Intelligent Life Is All Around Us
http://intelligentlife.info/
Patty Winter
In article <88abe559eiuvh4qfo...@4ax.com>,
Kimba W Lion <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
>TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>
>>Yep, I've found yet another reason to dislike OTA DTV, and it will only
>>be worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more
>>pervasive, and harder to avoid.
>
>Explain to me how DTV makes campaign ads more pervasive and harder to avoid
>than they were on analog.
I can believe the "clearer" part, but "more pervasive and harder
to avoid" (not sure how those two are different) sound like the
candidates are buying more spots because it's a hotly contested
race. That would have happened on analog TV stations, too.
Perhaps TJ is just being facetious, mocking the people here who
blame digital TV for everything from giving them acne to destroying
world peace.
Patty
cjdayton...@cox.net
Well it has destroyed world peace, at least the peace on this board! ;-)
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
robinlos
> In article <88abe559eiuvh4qfogk1428g7269bof...@4ax.com>,
I actually almost see a point in this. Political ads tend to be well
produced attention getters.....sometimes they are hard to ignore.,
but, like most commercials, they tend to get a lot of replay, and, my
mute button gets a lot of exercise. I'm not sure that a more
spontaneous, less slick looking presentation isn'r more effective.
One station I sometimes recieve has a bunch of local ads that seem to
have been done with industrial analog equipment, and I find myself
more interested in them, than the slicker ones.
TJ
Maybe a little, but not entirely. The ads are more pervasive this way...
It used to be that there were some stations that under some conditions
were just too annoying to watch under analog OTA, even though I liked
the program, what with the ghosts, the snow, and the unstable picture
when the wind blew. It was simpler just to turn the TV off. With digital
OTA, most TVs in my house work nicely on *all* channels almost all of
the time, so I can watch the programs I like, no matter what the weather
might be. More TV-watching means more exposure to the distasteful
political commercials.
They are harder to avoid because I no longer have the excuse of
unwatchable TV to just turn it off. *Now,* I must weigh my like of the
program against my dislike of the campaign ads. Fortunately, the
election is next week - or I'd get an ulcer.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:hc45d6$bgh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Yep, I've found yet another reason to dislike OTA DTV, and it will only be
> worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more pervasive,
> and harder to avoid.
>
The majority of ads on DTV are one dynamic range--LOUD--when compared to the
dialog passages or even the musical score of the show the ad has
interrupted.
Only now, unlike analog TV, they even have the additional subchannels to run
their ads (just like many informercials also do air on the subchannels).
They'll even have that extra wide 16:9 aspect ratio--compared to the legacy
4:3 aspect ratio--to maximize the usable height and width of their ads.
Don't rule out those decorative/animated side bars on 4:3 content either, in
time they too will likely become animated vertical web-style banner ads,
visually demanding the viewer's attention away from the show in the center
part of the screen.
Except, it's not just OTA DTV that is going to have those ads, it's very
likely going to be *all* of DTV (OTA, digital cable, satellite, mobile) that
will have the extra loud/extra presence of ads.
TJ
> On 2009-10-26, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>> It used to be that there were some stations that under some conditions
>> were just too annoying to watch under analog OTA, even though I liked
>> the program, what with the ghosts, the snow, and the unstable picture
>> when the wind blew. It was simpler just to turn the TV off. With digital
>> OTA, most TVs in my house work nicely on *all* channels almost all of
>> the time, so I can watch the programs I like, no matter what the weather
>
Not strange at all. Most people who *don't* have problems don't bother
to speak up. Those who do have problems tend to yell loudly and often.
It presents a skewed picture of the true nature of things. I merely
provide a bit of balance.
But just to make you feel all smug and vindicated, all is not quite as
perfect here as it once was. I hear that one station, which happens to
be on the highest-numbered broadcast channel in the area and one of the
more difficult for me to receive, changed an important piece of
equipment over the weekend. Last night was the first time since that
change that I happened to want to watch that station. In this room, the
one I watch TV in the most, it now breaks up every single time a car
goes by. I tried moving the antenna a bit, to no avail.
But have no fear. I will keep trying until I find the solution, which
probably means nothing more than moving something somewhere. Maybe the
antenna, maybe something else. If I need a different antenna, I will get
one. If I need to mount an outdoor antenna, I can do that, too. But I
doubt it will come to that.
I love puzzles. This should be fun!
TJ
> "TJ" <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote in message
> news:hc45d6$bgh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Yep, I've found yet another reason to dislike OTA DTV, and it will
>> only be worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more
>> pervasive, and harder to avoid.
>>
>
> The majority of ads on DTV are one dynamic range--LOUD--when compared to
> the dialog passages or even the musical score of the show the ad has
> interrupted.
>
It was like that on analog, too. For years. The advertisers are trying
to break through your self-trained ability to ignore those commercials,
so they flirt with the limits. It's worse with stereo sound. Since I
only have one stereo set in the house, I just run the converter on mono
and feed the TV from the RF inputs rather than the composite RCA inputs.
The composite inputs are fed by the VCR, anyway. After a while, you just
don't notice the audio differences, just as you once trained yourself to
ignore the commercials. And once you've been without stereo sound for a
while you really don't miss it - except for musical performances. With
them, you simply have to weigh the annoyance of the commercial against
the disire for sound quality, and set your equipment accordingly.
> Only now, unlike analog TV, they even have the additional subchannels to
> run their ads (just like many informercials also do air on the
> subchannels).
>
I thought you didn't have anything on your available subchannels that
you wanted to watch. That would mean you wouldn't care *what* they did
with the audio on the subchannels. Or did I misinterpret your previous
statements?
> They'll even have that extra wide 16:9 aspect ratio--compared to the
> legacy 4:3 aspect ratio--to maximize the usable height and width of
> their ads.
>
Wide screen doesn't maximize the height. Quite the opposite on a
converted signal shown on an analog set. Thank goodness for the
"cropped" setting on the converter.
> Don't rule out those decorative/animated side bars on 4:3 content
> either, in time they too will likely become animated vertical web-style
> banner ads, visually demanding the viewer's attention away from the show
> in the center part of the screen.
>
Except on a 4:3 set with the converter set to "cropped." Even on a wide
screen set, you would in time train yourself to ignore them.
> Except, it's not just OTA DTV that is going to have those ads, it's very
> likely going to be *all* of DTV (OTA, digital cable, satellite, mobile)
> that will have the extra loud/extra presence of ads.
Yes, as businesses keep trying to survive by actually *selling* products.
The problem with the political ads is they aren't around long enough for
you to train yourself to ignore them. Just about the time you start to,
they hold the election and they're gone until the next year. But the
political strategists know that, and it's not likely to change, either.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "TJ" <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote in message
>> news:hc45d6$bgh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Yep, I've found yet another reason to dislike OTA DTV, and it will only
>>> be worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more
>>> pervasive, and harder to avoid.
>>>
>>
>> The majority of ads on DTV are one dynamic range--LOUD--when compared to
>> the dialog passages or even the musical score of the show the ad has
>> interrupted.
>>
>
> It was like that on analog, too. For years. The advertisers are trying to
> break through your self-trained ability to ignore those commercials, so
> they flirt with the limits. It's worse with stereo sound. Since I only
> have one stereo set in the house, I just run the converter on mono and
> feed the TV from the RF inputs rather than the composite RCA inputs. The
> composite inputs are fed by the VCR, anyway. After a while, you just don't
> notice the audio differences, just as you once trained yourself to ignore
> the commercials. And once you've been without stereo sound for a while you
> really don't miss it - except for musical performances. With them, you
> simply have to weigh the annoyance of the commercial against the disire
> for sound quality, and set your equipment accordingly.
>
Dolby Digital as its audio codec (so at best, one could get matrix surround
sound using Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Pro Logic II, or one of the receiver's
custom surround modes).
Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud music/sound
effects. A show mostly based on dialog, for example, has to be turned up to
about -63 dB (out of a volume range from -94 to -8dB) just for good dialog
volume in even a quiet room. Then okay, the sound effects and music are that
much louder, that's already plenty loud. (A DVD is the same way, seeing how
it also uses MPEG2/Dolby Digital.) Then the ads arrive--they are even that
much louder than the show sound effects and music.
I'd rather they chose DTS--since I find there's a much better balance
between the dialog and the music/sound effects based on the DVD movies I
have containing DTS tracks--but they didn't. So because of that, the volume
level needs to be turned up that much more for dialog, which as explained
above, means that ads are that much louder.
>> Only now, unlike analog TV, they even have the additional subchannels to
>> run their ads (just like many informercials also do air on the
>> subchannels).
>>
>
> I thought you didn't have anything on your available subchannels that you
> wanted to watch. That would mean you wouldn't care *what* they did with
> the audio on the subchannels. Or did I misinterpret your previous
> statements?
>
You totally missed the point. Whether or not there is anything of interest
to me on subchannels available in my area is not relevant to show content.
Instead, the point is that now the subchannels will be available as
additional channels for advertising. So if I have a total of three
subchannels available to me, that's three additional channels for
advertising. If another viewer has a total of seven subchannels, that's
seven channels more for advertising.
>> They'll even have that extra wide 16:9 aspect ratio--compared to the
>> legacy 4:3 aspect ratio--to maximize the usable height and width of their
>> ads.
>>
> Wide screen doesn't maximize the height. Quite the opposite on a converted
> signal shown on an analog set. Thank goodness for the "cropped" setting on
> the converter.
>
>> Don't rule out those decorative/animated side bars on 4:3 content either,
>> in time they too will likely become animated vertical web-style banner
>> ads, visually demanding the viewer's attention away from the show in the
>> center part of the screen.
>>
> Except on a 4:3 set with the converter set to "cropped." Even on a wide
> screen set, you would in time train yourself to ignore them.
>
With a converter set to 4:3 and using Crop/Zoom, yes, those are gone. Many,
however, are going to be using 16:9 or even 16:10 widescreen TV's, so they
would be using something like a wide 16:9 or anamorphic setting for their
screen type. The purists who insist on nothing but the original aspect ratio
for all programming--never zoom, never stretch--they will always see the
side bars for any 4:3 programming that has those added. (Oh yeah, and don't
rule out filling in the top/bottom black bars with ad content on wider than
16:9 aspect ratio programming, such as a 2.35:1 aspect ratio movie shown on
TV in its original aspect ratio.)
>> Except, it's not just OTA DTV that is going to have those ads, it's very
>> likely going to be *all* of DTV (OTA, digital cable, satellite, mobile)
>> that will have the extra loud/extra presence of ads.
>
> Yes, as businesses keep trying to survive by actually *selling* products.
>
They can sell the product quietly, at the same relative level as the show
they have interrupted... well, at least as long as the show itself
(primarily morning and nightly news is all I really watch these days) isn't
dropping the audio, or showing various DTV video issues when the reception
starts to fail (as it most often does during the prime time hours). More to
the point, if I have to adjust the volume dial lower because of the ad, or I
end up changing the channel, I'm not buying their product, period.
> The problem with the political ads is they aren't around long enough for
> you to train yourself to ignore them. Just about the time you start to,
> they hold the election and they're gone until the next year. But the
> political strategists know that, and it's not likely to change, either.
>
They are mostly voice ads, however, so even with the mean-spirited attack
and such, I would expect that they won't be as loud as something else like a
car dealership commercial.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
> Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2009-10-26, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>> It used to be that there were some stations that under some conditions
>>> were just too annoying to watch under analog OTA, even though I liked
>>> the program, what with the ghosts, the snow, and the unstable picture
>>> when the wind blew. It was simpler just to turn the TV off. With digital
>>> OTA, most TVs in my house work nicely on *all* channels almost all of
>>> the time, so I can watch the programs I like, no matter what the weather
>>
>> Strange how so many of us have had exactly the opposite experience.
>
> Not strange at all. Most people who *don't* have problems don't bother to
> speak up. Those who do have problems tend to yell loudly and often. It
> presents a skewed picture of the true nature of things. I merely provide a
> bit of balance.
>
picture of things. They presented an accurate represenation of the very real
problems of DTV vs. early adopters who insisted it was the greatest thing
ever despite audio dropouts and very obvious unwatchable video issues when
reception was beyond the cliff effect.
DTV didn't need to succeed that badly. Big government definitely didn't need
to meddle in the free market and force its use when DTV still has several
high visibility/high severity problems with respect to propagation/reception
in a significant number of areas. Note that these issues are very slow to be
fixed, if any effort is being made at all to fix them. (Left for the free
market to decide, ATSC DTV would have likely failed, as it should have
failed, but thanks in part to big government, it didn't fail and even those
who didn't want it are force to use it or migrate to subscription services.)
> But just to make you feel all smug and vindicated, all is not quite as
> perfect here as it once was. I hear that one station, which happens to be
> on the highest-numbered broadcast channel in the area and one of the more
> difficult for me to receive, changed an important piece of equipment over
> the weekend. Last night was the first time since that change that I
> happened to want to watch that station. In this room, the one I watch TV
> in the most, it now breaks up every single time a car goes by. I tried
> moving the antenna a bit, to no avail.
>
So now you too have to deal with the deficiencies of DTV reception. Good,
you now see for yourself what others mentioned, it isn't an exaggeration to
any extent! Now, then, wouldn't you rather have had snow and ghosts, at
least being able to see a constant picture through the noise and still hear
constant audio, than deal with the usability defects inherent to ATSC that
makes your reception problems result in unwatchable TV whenever they occur?
> But have no fear. I will keep trying until I find the solution, which
> probably means nothing more than moving something somewhere. Maybe the
> antenna, maybe something else. If I need a different antenna, I will get
> one. If I need to mount an outdoor antenna, I can do that, too. But I
> doubt it will come to that.
>
> I love puzzles. This should be fun!
>
If you enjoy that, then best of luck to you in solving the problem. DTV
should never have been the rocket-science type puzzle it has become in many
areas, trying to find the most stable antenna position just to start
watching a program and then trying to find the next optimal position when
the reception starts to change and fail.
Kimba W Lion
>Left for the free
>market to decide, ATSC DTV would have likely failed, as it should have
>failed, but thanks in part to big government, it didn't fail and even those
>who didn't want it are force to use it or migrate to subscription services.
One of the functions that properly belongs to a national government is the
setting of technical standards for such things as broadcasting. I won't deny
that government has a long history of making bad choices, but letting the
market decide only ensures that nothing will get done and new technology will
die before it gets a chance (see AM Stereo).
Currently, letting the market decide about HDRadio has pretty much sealed the
doom of that system, even while it is making a mess of the existing analog
system.
You must also remember that the purpose of the DTV system is not to provide us
worthless viewers with better pictures. The purpose is to provide broadcasters
with 3 to 5 channels where they previously had one (more revenue streams), and
to provide content producers with greater control over the copying of their
product (see Broadcast Flag).
Kimba W Lion
>Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud music/sound
>effects.
Sounds like you have your center channel speaker set too low (or perhaps you
don't have a center channel speaker). Having some sort of "3D" sound
processing turned on will also cause this effect.
Steve Fenwick
Kimba W Lion <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
> >Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud music/sound
> >effects.
>
> Sounds like you have your center channel speaker set too low (or perhaps you
> don't have a center channel speaker). Having some sort of "3D" sound
> processing turned on will also cause this effect.
My center channel is set 3dB louder (per SPL meter) than my left and
right, due to this effect.
One thing I noticed is that some advertisers are now sending the same
audio (essentially a mono feed) to all five channels at very high
volume. Very annoying to be blasted from all directions.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
UCLAN
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>> "TJ" <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote in message
>> news:hc45d6$bgh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Yep, I've found yet another reason to dislike OTA DTV, and it will
>>> only be worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more
>>> pervasive, and harder to avoid.
>>>
>>
>> The majority of ads on DTV are one dynamic range--LOUD--when compared
>> to the dialog passages or even the musical score of the show the ad
>> has interrupted.
>>
>
> It was like that on analog, too. For years. The advertisers are trying
> to break through your self-trained ability to ignore those commercials,
> so they flirt with the limits. It's worse with stereo sound.
Problem is worse with digital signals because the audio is usually Dolby
Digital 5-Channel, with the dialog in the center channel. Different TVs
convert this to two-channel stereo differently. The user adjusts his audio
level for correct program dialog levels. The advertisement audio is usually
analog two-channel, at best. When it plays on a TV that was adjusted for
the Dolby Digital mix, it sounds louder. It varies from TV model to TV model.
That's what the "MUTE" button is for! ;)
cjdayton...@cox.net
> In article <tljee55puud8mt2m3...@4ax.com>,
> Kimba W Lion <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> > >Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud
> > >music/sound effects.
> >
> > Sounds like you have your center channel speaker set too low (or
> > perhaps you don't have a center channel speaker). Having some sort of
> > "3D" sound processing turned on will also cause this effect.
>
> My center channel is set 3dB louder (per SPL meter) than my left and
> right, due to this effect.
>
> One thing I noticed is that some advertisers are now sending the same
> audio (essentially a mono feed) to all five channels at very high
> volume. Very annoying to be blasted from all directions.
>
> Steve
I doubt the advertisers are sending the signals intentionally as you
describe. Most likely, the ad is in mono and therefore sent to each speaker
equally.
Steve Fenwick
cjdayton...@cox.net wrote:
> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <tljee55puud8mt2m3...@4ax.com>,
> > Kimba W Lion <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud
> > > >music/sound effects.
> > >
> > > Sounds like you have your center channel speaker set too low (or
> > > perhaps you don't have a center channel speaker). Having some sort of
> > > "3D" sound processing turned on will also cause this effect.
> >
> > My center channel is set 3dB louder (per SPL meter) than my left and
> > right, due to this effect.
> >
> > One thing I noticed is that some advertisers are now sending the same
> > audio (essentially a mono feed) to all five channels at very high
> > volume. Very annoying to be blasted from all directions.
> >
> > Steve
>
> I doubt the advertisers are sending the signals intentionally as you
> describe. Most likely, the ad is in mono and therefore sent to each speaker
> equally.
>
> Chip
Nope. It's a DD5.1 signal; mono encoded for DD5.1 should be sent only to
the center channel. Stereo should go to the fronts only.
TJ
> Good, you now see for yourself what others mentioned, it isn't an
> exaggeration to any extent! Now, then, wouldn't you rather have had snow
> and ghosts, at least being able to see a constant picture through the
> noise and still hear constant audio, than deal with the usability
> defects inherent to ATSC that makes your reception problems result in
> unwatchable TV whenever they occur?
>
NO.
OM
>> The majority of ads on DTV are one dynamic range--LOUD--when compared to
>> the dialog passages or even the musical score of the show the ad has
>> interrupted.
>>
>
>It was like that on analog, too. For years. The advertisers are trying
>to break through your self-trained ability to ignore those commercials,
>so they flirt with the limits.
...Kids, as someone who worked for years in Analog TV, I can tell you
that it's the same tricks being used in the Digital TV world. Simply
put, where normal programming sound encompasses the whole aural
spectrum. both audible and inaudible, commercials are tweaked so that
the only audio signal that comes across is in the audible range. It's
a form of compression that "concentrates" all of the information in
the audio track so that it all lies within the normal range of human
hearing. Even though the VU meter says it's not any louder, it *seems*
that way because you're getting more data that your hearing can
process.
And the sad thing about it? So long as they're not doing anything
subliminally, there ain't a damn thing the FCC can do about it...
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:j3jee5p9fae47av60...@4ax.com...
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Left for the free
>>market to decide, ATSC DTV would have likely failed, as it should have
>>failed, but thanks in part to big government, it didn't fail and even
>>those
>>who didn't want it are force to use it or migrate to subscription
>>services.
>
> One of the functions that properly belongs to a national government is the
> setting of technical standards for such things as broadcasting. I won't
> deny
> that government has a long history of making bad choices, but letting the
> market decide only ensures that nothing will get done and new technology
> will
> die before it gets a chance (see AM Stereo).
>
present a genuine compelling reason to adopt the technology over the current
status-quo technology, then if the free market decides it fails, then it
should fail.
> Currently, letting the market decide about HDRadio has pretty much sealed
> the
> doom of that system, even while it is making a mess of the existing analog
> system.
>
HD Radio still does not deserve to have government adopt it as the new
standard of broadcast radio and subsequently shut off all analog radio
broadcast. So if HD Radio fails because the market decides AM/FM analog
radio plus subscription satellite radio is more than good enough for today's
radio, then HD Radio goes away or stays a small niche market product until
such time as someone else comes up with something better that is compelling
enough for mainstream use.
As another example, HD-DVD is done and over with, except for the smaller
niche that bought the discs and players, and the mainstream still has DVD
and Blu-ray. What if big government got involved and made it mandatory that
HD-DVD was supported, that DVD had to go away and the market had to only
choose between HD-DVD and Blu-ray. (That is very close to what occurred with
DTV, choose OTA DTV, or choose subscription services, because analog is
being shut off.)
Compact Discs are another easy example of the market choosing a digital
optical disc with high fidelity music and lacking the hiss characteristic of
analog tape, over an analog casette tape. CD's are not perfect since they
are easily scratched, then they can skip, but even with those issues the
market still chose the CD over the analog cassette that would degrade each
time it was played. Now, the market is choosing digital downloaded music,
and yet CD's are still widely available in stores, as well as for purchase
online.
Still another example: VHS is done and over with--for pre-recorded tapes.
But VHS tapes can still be purchased for home recording use. VHS
players/recorders can still be purchased as part of VHS/DVD combo units. But
it was the market, not the government, that showed such a low demand for
pre-recorded VHS tapes such that DVD became the new popular media. DVD is
now up against Blu-ray, but again, the market, not the government, will
decide which one ultimately succeeds or maybe both will still co-exist.
Yet another example: cellphones. There is a huge mainstream use of
cellphones and yet standard analog phone land lines are still available. Big
government didn't shut down the telephone system to force only cellphone
usage. Analog cellphone service did get shut off, but also consider that
digital cellphone service had been available for several years and used by
the mainstream long before the analog cellphone service was finally shut
off.
In nearly every aspect of consumer electronics, products are released and
the market chooses. DTV is one of the few exceptions I can think of where
the government forced its nationwide adoption and use.
> You must also remember that the purpose of the DTV system is not to
> provide us
> worthless viewers with better pictures. The purpose is to provide
> broadcasters
> with 3 to 5 channels where they previously had one (more revenue streams),
> and
> to provide content producers with greater control over the copying of
> their
> product (see Broadcast Flag).
>
Except that the NAB public service announcements kept repeating over and
over again: better picture, better sound, more channels (later ones even
added in the best in HD), so that is the expectation, even if extra revenue
streams was the primary goal.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:20091027153730.683$I...@newsreader.com...
> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <tljee55puud8mt2m3...@4ax.com>,
>> Kimba W Lion <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud
>> > >music/sound effects.
>> >
>> > Sounds like you have your center channel speaker set too low (or
>> > perhaps you don't have a center channel speaker). Having some sort of
>> > "3D" sound processing turned on will also cause this effect.
>>
>> My center channel is set 3dB louder (per SPL meter) than my left and
>> right, due to this effect.
>>
>> One thing I noticed is that some advertisers are now sending the same
>> audio (essentially a mono feed) to all five channels at very high
>> volume. Very annoying to be blasted from all directions.
>>
>> Steve
>
> I doubt the advertisers are sending the signals intentionally as you
> describe. Most likely, the ad is in mono and therefore sent to each
> speaker
> equally.
>
* If using only the front speakers (no center channel, no surround
speakers), the mono output should be heard through the front L/R speakers;
however,
* If using a surround sound setup (3 or more speakers, including front,
center, surround) and using a Dolby supported decoder such as Pro Logic, Pro
Logic II, etc. as opposed to a receiver specific surround mode, then the
mono output should resolve to center channel output only. Surround effects
may be heard from intentionally encoded sounds or out-of-phase sounds that
get matrixed as surround sounds, but those sounds would not be expected to
occur continuously for the entire ad.
So that means that if the sound is heard at near equal volumes through all
speakers, it suggests that they intentionally mixed it so it would discrete
decode or matrix decode into all channels at nearly the exact same volume
level.
Kimba W Lion
>Then that's the fault of those who develop the technology. If they cannot
>present a genuine compelling reason to adopt the technology over the current
>status-quo technology, then if the free market decides it fails, then it
>should fail.
Why should a broadcaster invest in new technology if no one has a radio to
receive it? Why should anyone buy a new radio if no broadcaster is using the
new technology? When the marketplace is allowed to determine the fate of
something like broadcast technology, due to lack of government standards the
new technology must be compatible with the old technology, and there is no
impetus to change.
>HD Radio still does not deserve to have government adopt it as the new
>standard of broadcast radio
I agree that HD Radio is a mess and needs to go away. But it exists because it
allows the old technology to continue (albeit in compromised form) because the
government has not set standards for a new digital radio service. Like DTV,
the push for digital radio is increased number of revenue streams per station
and the possibility of digital control over reception. But the whole thing is
a stagnant failure because there is no national standard.
>As another example, HD-DVD is done and over with, except for the smaller
>niche that bought the discs and players, and the mainstream still has DVD
>and Blu-ray. What if big government got involved and made it mandatory that
>HD-DVD was supported, that DVD had to go away and the market had to only
>choose between HD-DVD and Blu-ray.
First of all, things like DVD do not and should not fall under government
standards control. Also, the marketplace did not decide between HD-DVD and
Blu-Ray; Sony bought the exclusive support of most major movie studios. The
HD-DVD/Blu-Ray marketplace had been languishing because of the absence of a
single standard.
>In nearly every aspect of consumer electronics, products are released and
>the market chooses. DTV is one of the few exceptions I can think of where
>the government forced its nationwide adoption and use.
Again, the airwaves are a limited resource and so must be subject to
government standards. CDs, cassettes, VHS, whatever can be manufactured at
will and so can be allowed to be subject to market pressures.
I'm not saying DTV is perfect. It was chosen to favor the broadcasters, and we
are facing repercussions that were not forseen, such as the failure of DTV to
work efficiently in the VHF spectrum. But (for example) neither was our FM
stereo system a good choice from the point of view of the consumer--it was
chosen because it allowed for SCA revenue streams. But with one standard we
can move forward, know what we have to deal with, and make the best of it.
>Except that the NAB public service announcements kept repeating over and
>over again: better picture, better sound, more channels (later ones even
>added in the best in HD), so that is the expectation, even if extra revenue
>streams was the primary goal.
You must learn not to trust such things. :) It was the National Association of
BROADCASTERS, not home viewers. Lied to by a corporate self-promotion group?
Astounding!
Sal M. Onella
California has been blessedly free of campaign ads this year, as the
only races we have to decide are a couple of recalls.
At the risk of stating the obvious, I will point out that all
politicians are utterly without value to you. They have one goal and
one only: winning the next election. [insert sound of the Hallelujah
Chorus being sung for an election win]
Each election victory is like finding of the Holy Grail. Nothing else
matters. Victory is everything. On election day, you can be run over
by a bus or thrown off a cliff. No problem. Their only concern is
whether you cast your ballot first -- with their name marked, of
course.
So, do we have it down? Politicians are scum. There is no argument.
Sal
====================================================
The government didn't make our health care system. Why do they think
they have the right to trash it?
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:nospam-138BB7....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <tljee55puud8mt2m3...@4ax.com>,
> Kimba W Lion <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>> >Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud
>> >music/sound
>> >effects.
>>
>> Sounds like you have your center channel speaker set too low (or perhaps
>> you
>> don't have a center channel speaker). Having some sort of "3D" sound
>> processing turned on will also cause this effect.
>
> My center channel is set 3dB louder (per SPL meter) than my left and
> right, due to this effect.
>
Digital movies and TV programs with soft dialog passages; however, it will
have an effect on other modes that can also use the center channel such as
Dolby Pro Logic II Music mode.
Adjusting the Dolby Pro Logic II Music mode Center Width parameter from the
receiver default of 5 to a setting of 6 helped balance out the increased
center channel presence in music with vocals, obviously caused by the +3 dB
increase adjustment for the movies and TV.
Steve Fenwick
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Steve Fenwick" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nospam-138BB7....@news.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <tljee55puud8mt2m3...@4ax.com>,
> > Kimba W Lion <noreplie...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dolby Digital has very soft dialog passages and relatively loud
> >> >music/sound
> >> >effects.
> >>
> >> Sounds like you have your center channel speaker set too low (or perhaps
> >> you
> >> don't have a center channel speaker). Having some sort of "3D" sound
> >> processing turned on will also cause this effect.
> >
> > My center channel is set 3dB louder (per SPL meter) than my left and
> > right, due to this effect.
> >
> I agree, the 3 dB louder setting is a good way of working around Dolby
> Digital movies and TV programs with soft dialog passages; however, it will
> have an effect on other modes that can also use the center channel such as
> Dolby Pro Logic II Music mode.
>
> Adjusting the Dolby Pro Logic II Music mode Center Width parameter from the
> receiver default of 5 to a setting of 6 helped balance out the increased
> center channel presence in music with vocals, obviously caused by the +3 dB
> increase adjustment for the movies and TV.
True, although I generally avoid modes other than DD, Plain Old Stereo,
and DTS. But I will keep this in mind the next time I am futzing with
the settings.
MACK DADDY
> In article <88abe559eiuvh4qfogk1428g7269bof...@4ax.com>,
> Kimba W Lion <norepliesbyem...@norepliesbyemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>Yep, I've found yet another reason to dislike OTA DTV, and it will only
> >>be worse next year. Election campaign ads are much clearer, more
> >>pervasive, and harder to avoid.
>
> >than they were on analog.
>
> I can believe the "clearer" part, but "more pervasive and harder
> to avoid" (not sure how those two are different) sound like the
> candidates are buying more spots because it's a hotly contested
> race. That would have happened on analog TV stations, too.
>
> Perhaps TJ is just being facetious, mocking the people here who
> blame digital TV for everything from giving them acne to destroying
> world peace.
>
DTV is responsible for my acid reflux.
MACK DADDY
> Patty Winter wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I watch less tv now, because the stations I used to get a slightly
snowy, but still watcheable signal now have no picture or sound even.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd just like to add that antenna makers are getting rich off of this
whole DTV scam. Many people have had to get outdoor antennas that
never had one before, and people that already had outdoor antennas are
being forced to buy taller masts for them. Then factor in the
misleading advertising, especially with the rabbit ear antennas where
they label them as digital compatible, or just flat out "digital
antenna". I think the best advice is to look for a UHF antenna,
because thats where almost all the channels are now.