[opendtv] Re: News: DTV Boxes Could Cost $1 Billion
- From: "Dale Kelly" <res0xtey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:58:38 -0700
Tom Barry wrote:
> I don't want to be too much of a party pooper but we should remember
> that many of us on this list were very elated a year or so ago because
> of the Lynx results. And yet, for some reason, they are not yet on the
> market
Did the purchase of Lynx by an EURO based company possibly change their
direction and possibly even eliminate them as a player in the ATSC market?
They seem to have become silent on this issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:10 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: DTV Boxes Could Cost $1 Billion
> I don't want to be too much of a party pooper but we should remember
> that many of us on this list were very elated a year or so ago because
> of the Linx results. And yet, for some reason, they are not yet on the
> market.
>
> I tend this time to believe the 5'th gen Zenith chip results because of
> the credibility of the various folks involved in reporting it.
>
> But I will be very disappointed if there is a long and unexplained delay
> to market and we are instead asked to wait for a 6th generation of
> anything. I think this will be ATSC's last chance at credibility.
>
> But hopefully this time will be enough, and proven soon with 5'th gen
> cheap USDTV receivers in my local Walmart.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
> > John Shutt wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I am still in violent disagreement with you here, Bert. The digital
> >>transition would have been much better off if the Sinclair
> >>petition were accepted in 2000.
> >
> >
> > I will actually *agree* with you there. The optimism we have
> > seen this past week would have been there years ago.
> >
> > But, as I offered plenty of times, we can either whine or
> > make the best of this. There are advantages to single carrier
> > schemes, for this sort of application, that we can in the long
> > run benefit from.
> >
> > Think of this as a hybrid between what a satellite broadcast
> > system would choose as modulation scheme vs what a Wi-Fi or
> > cellular telephone system would choose. DTT needs long range
> > and high spectral efficiency as well as good multipath
> > and mobile performance. You can argue from either side. It's
> > not all bad, either way.
> >
> >
> >>8-VSB, perhaps just the current ATSC implementation of it,
> >>still produces a net negative atmospheric pressure.
> >
> >
> > Oh, so *that's* why my ears keep popping.
> >
> >
> >>They do not reproduce 2004 COFDM performance,=20
> >>and by the time
> >>they can (if ever), Moore's law predicts that COFDM would=20
> >>have moved the
> >>goalposts back even farther.
> >
> >
> > John, on this we will continue to disagree.
> >
> > In the ultimate, 8-VSB will come out ahead. Why? Simple.
> > COFDM has some 6700 carriers, several hundred of which
> > are *not* suppressed. (I'm too lazy to check, but it's
> > a sizable number of unsuppressed carriers.) They are
> > used as pilots. In addition to this, COFDM has at least
> > a 1/32 guard interval. So this combination results in
> > extra demands for power and a little less spectral
> > efficiency.
> >
> > The end result is that as equalizers tend to more
> > perfection, and they inevitably will, with COFDM you will
> > still be transmitting those pilots and taking up precious
> > time with guard intervals that will not strictly be
> > required anymore.
> >
> > I showed you the CRC tests done in 2002, and reported in
> > 2003. At that time, at the ~20 Mb/s bit rate, it was
> > virtual parity. You can keep asking yourself which system
> > would be best at any given bit rate, but I'm positive that
> > in the back of your mind somewhere, something is saying
> > that the answer will flip over 180 degrees sooner rather
> > than later.
> >
> > The software glitches you're finding are certainly not a
> > function of modulation scheme, although they are a function
> > of clearly written standards. I will grant you that. If you
> > haven't done your trial by fire with DVB-T, I'm not sure
> > what can be concluded. Perhaps DVB-T is more bulletproof in
> > that regard, I just don't know. You don't hear horror
> > stories on DVB-T until way after the fact.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
