[opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:49:34 -0700
You've have the timing wrong, John. The fact is that strong objections
were raised before the NAB/MSTV test report was accepted. Also, the
results of the subsequent highly succesful COFDM receiver demonstration,
using a band pass filter, was also available before the final report's
adoption
( I did actually attend those meetings, unlike most others on this list).
To my knowledge, Sinclair had no prior knowledge of the detailed
COFDM receiver's design until the preliminary test report was made
available. I also first became aware of the selectivity deficiency upon
reading that report. During the subsequent test review meeting we both
made strong objections.
You are correct that the receiver was offered by it's manufacturer but
any objective reasonably competent test engineer would have know that
outboard filtering was required*. I don't know how many on this list are
aware of the fact that Zenith was fully involved in planning the technical
aspects of these test (another fact) and clearly knew the short comings
of the competing receiver. The objectivity of this process was tainted
from it's inception. Before testing, the COFDM receiver's performance
was checked and certified by the CRC, a highly regarded Canadian laboratory.
However, a selectivity test was not specified and therefore was not
included.
One can nit pick the time line and criticize the fact that these tests
didn't
include distant measurements but I don't believe that the fact that this
testing was faulty, can be factually refuted.
*Note:
For many years analog TV station field measurements were often made
using a similar monitor/receiver made by Tektronix. It was often used for
both transmitter and field measurements and therefore had no internal
filters.
Selectivity was always added outboard when used to make field
measurements in congested RF areas.
This issue is fundamental and is very well understood by those who make
such measurements, clearly including those from MSTV and Zenith.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Golitsis" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
> And just so the full story is re-told, that "receiver" was offered by the
> manufacturer as one that would fit the needs of the testing. We all read
> the official request, and the official reply, and the manufacturer failed
> to
> make any mention at all of it's need for front end filtering. Nor did
> Sinclair who was in possession of the receiver before it was passed on to
> the NAB.
>
> Of course, AFTER the testing was completed is when this all came up. How
> bloody convenient.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:37 PM
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
>
>
>> Bob wrote:
>>>The very bad numbers for 8-VSB did arrive. But COFDM
>>>had been sabotaged
>>
>>>That is what happened.
>>
>> And that's the truth....I was there and observed and objected, as did
>> others, but to no avail. Those who were not involved can certainly
>> express opinions but that's what they remain; unsubstantiated opinions
>> based upon a clearly faulty document - politically influenced technical
>> gerrymandering at it's worst. The attitude was, "we've reached our
>> desired conclusion, don't confuse it with fact"!
>>
>> Note:
>> For those who were not involved in the previous testing discussions on
>> this list; the problem with the selected COFDM receiver was that it's RF
>> system was completely devoid of the very eremitical Selectivity feature
>> and
>> this oversight doomed it to failure. This COFDM device was actually a
>> test
>> receiver/monitor that required external filtering to provide required
>> selectivity when used in non controlled RF environments.
>> In fact, that same model receiver was tested by a third party, soon
>> after original testing and at the same locations as the original tests.
>> Simply adding a relatively wide bandpass filter to the RF input caused
>> it to perform as expected, beating the 8VSB receiver's performance
>> hands down.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:29 PM
>> Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
>>
>>
>>> What happened was that after the hearing in the summer of 2000 where
>>> Congress was considering changes to the DTV transition in a biannual
>>> review they entertained the notion that we could allow COFDM or switch
>>> to COFDM. It was left open with the prospect of a test of the two
>>> modulations which would help Congress and the FCC to make up their
>>> minds.
>>>
>>> That test was fraudulent.
>>>
>>> That test was used to kill any hope for COFDM. While we waited for test
>>> results we had every reason to believe that COFDM would be allowed based
>>> on what we knew would be very good numbers for COFDM and very bad
>>> numbers of 8-VSB. The very bad numbers for 8-VSB did arrive. But COFDM
>>> had been sabotaged.
>>>
>>> That is what happened.
>>>
>>> Bob Miller
>>>
>>> John Willkie wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, what happened? Oh, others weren't able to get Congress and the FCC
>>>>to
>>>>change laws and the rules? That was in 1999. Or, are you alluding to
>>>>9/11?
>>>>
>>>>John Willkie
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:30 PM
>>>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think the difference in cost for using the Equator chip at the time
>>>>>would have been no more than $50 which would have been a very good deal
>>>>>looking back. We fully expected to be ordering such receivers by early
>>>>>spring of 2001 but of course you know what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>John Shutt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, a closed universe subscription service where you fund the STBs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>And
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>you had a near future codec in the pipeline. I am not familiar with
>>>>>>Equator, but could their 2000 chipset support today's H.264?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John.
>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>To
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The 1999 Nokia receiver was 8K. And we were only looking to use the
>>>>>>>ON2
>>>>>>>Codec at the time. We were also talking to Equator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bob Miller
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
