[opendtv] More 1999 stuff
- From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:21:02 -0500
Here is another cached Google article by Dale Cripps. It is facinating to
me how far we have come in 6 years. (NOT!)
John Shutt
**********************
I wrote the following to Mike. He was kind enough to answer below and let us
use his response for a discussions point. It is an important response to
keep in mind as we move further down what could be a disruptive course of
altering the standard at the FCC.
Dear Mike,
Can you throw any light on this modulation story? Are we just in too early
an iteration to draw a sound conclusion, or is there some fundamental reason
why this will never get "that much" better...better, yes, but "that" much
better to satisfy the market deeply? Any light you can shed (off or on the
record) is very welcome.
Dale Cripps
Dale,
During the time that many research groups(including my own at Philips Labs)
were competing outside, and then inside of Grand Alliance, to develop the
best system - 8-VSB and COFDM were compared on a few occasions.
As I was told by the experts at that time, there fundamentally is no
theoretical limit on performance of 8-VSB and it could be identical to
COFDM.
Initial complexity is the issue. (The) 8-VSB allows simpler and less
expensive implementation for reasonably good outdoor channels or CATV.
Remember, more then 60% of Americans watch CATV these days and only 25% are
using reception from the air. A really small minority of these 25% use
indoor reception. Rest are probably using DBS--that is QPSK in any case.
COFDM could not be scaled for simpler implementation. It is a complex
demodulator from start. My understanding, again from the words of some
experts, that if you increase complexity of 8-VSB demodulator to be equal of
the complexity of COFDM demodulator, their performance will be equal as
well. Of course I, and probably nobody else yet, have seen that implemented
for obvious reasons: FCC and broadcasters always specified outdoor reception
as necessary criteria for DTV. And 8-VSB in its simpler implementation
always beat COFDM tests in these channels.
CE industry was always aware of possible use of DTV on CATV and 8-VSB in its
simpler implementation works fine in these channels as well. There were no
indication then, and I do think even now, that robust indoor reception is a
needed requirement. I think 8-VSB is a flexible enough system that if DTV
business will demand indoor reception, more complex 8-VSB demodulators will
be available on the market. Do broadcasters and FCC need a proof of this
now? If they are - we (industry wide) have experienced engineers and
laboratories who may be able to construct this kind of prototype.
In my mind the real question is how many Americans are watching TV on indoor
antenna today and how many will continue to do so after they purchase $3000
worth of DTV receivers and HDTV monitors tomorrow?
I hope this helps,
Mikhail Tsinberg
Senior Manager
Toshiba America Consumer Products
82 Totowa Road
Wayne, NJ, 07470
E-mail: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
