On 11/13/06, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote: >> Well, then that's a completely different discussion, isn't >> it. We were talking about the technical aspects of A-VSB, >> not how some particular broadcasters might want to use it. > > No it's the same discussion Bert. It really does not matter > what kind of decoders are in the legacy receiver, if it > cannot understand the A-VSB bits. > > Any receiver designed to understand SRS and STS, can also > be designed to use new codecs. But there is NOTHING you can > do to take advantage of these new tools in legacy receivers. There is also NOTHING you can do for legacy DVB-T receivers to take advantage of DVB-H, or to take advantage of HDTV. And yet, no one would argue that DVB-H and HDTV are incompatible with DVB-T. They are, instead, compatible post-facto additions to the standard. Exactly as A-VSB is to ATSC.
Who cares what can or cannot be done with DVB-T receivers. We are talking about legacy 8-VSB receivers and whether it would be a good idea to consider changing the US modulation and codec. The one argument against doing so is the presence of legacy receivers. These legacy receivers must be protected against obsolescence at all cost was/is the mantra of 8-VSB supporters and even those who belatedly agreed that other modulations were better but that because of the LEGACY RECEIVER issue nothing could be done about it. We had to stay the course no matter what the cost in bandwidth or how many people would be disenfranchised from their OTA broadcast spectrum. So in that light if you change or add to 8-VSB in some way to make it better and that way also would seem to demand and allow for another codec which IF USED would have the affect of making all legacy receivers 909% obsolete then you open the issue of changing our modulation and codec back up. The question is then if legacy receivers will be made obsolete by the use of MPEG4 AVC and A-VSB then why not look at all modulations which would do the same thing. Maybe there is a better modulation. For example the VSB modulation that the Chinese will not use is only another step up the ladder from A-VSB. The difference is that with A-VSB we have the argument that it could be used in such away that all legacy receivers could theoretically receive all broadcast while we know that in reality it will be used in such a way as to make all legacy receivers obsolete. With the Chinese VSB we know that all legacy receivers would be made obsolete but that all new receivers would work much better both mobile and fixed. And of course if you consider the Chinese VSB solution you might as well consider their DVB-TH also. To go down the A-VSB road is not intellectually honest in my opinion. It may however be politically correct in that we know that the powers that be are too ignorant and to hear the truth to discombobulating. There is no argument in Europe over their modulation. Only discussion over how to get from SD to HD. The UK will upgrade from their 2K to 8K and most of their receivers are ready for that. Bob Miller
> From this perspective, those in Europe who want to invest > in an HD capable display will have the option of buying a > new STB that delivers multiple services. Or they can invest > in portable and handheld devices that take advantage of > other new services. > > Meanwhile here in the U.S., consumers will be able to invest > in new receivers that may actually improve reception of DTV, > including HDTV programming, however, this will come at a > cost in quality to the programming that is staved for > bandwidth like HDTV. Or they may be able to buy devices that > will receive A-VSB broadcasts, that do not need HDTV image > quality. In Europe, in order to maintain compatibility with SDTV sets and not reduce SD programming choices, HDTV is having to be transmitted on new dedicated frequencies. Which in practice means that HDTV choices will be more scarce. And in order to fit HDTV in the multiplexes, a reduction of robustness is going to be required, as the HDTV multiplexes go to 64-QAM vs the 16-QAM used for SD. Over here, the HDTV choices are already available, but the more robust options are not yet. So, opposite what Euro DTT is doing, the US model started with HDTV and then adds the robust modes, potentially usable for SD streams. >> I'm saying, that 1.5 Mb/s, using let's say A-VSB in 1/4 rate >> STS mode, does not in any way make the remaining 13 Mb/s less >> robust or incompatible with all existing receivers. And, of >> course, that is only the worst case example. > > No Bert, that's the BEST CASE example, or at least very close > to it. We may learn that we can reduce the SRS overhead > slightly, but it will clearly reduce the overall payload > significantly. STS 1/4 rate is "worst case" in the sense that it removes more legacy 8-VSB compatible bandwidth than any other A-VSB mode. SRS, instead, can be tuned to whatever level of robustness you want. Add one byte at a time of training sequence, if you want, until you achieve the required robustness. And the remining payload remains compatible with legacy receivers. It is intellectually dishonest, there is no other word for it, to pretend that A-VSB is incompatible with 8-VSB. Bert
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.