[opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:14:25 -0700

The U.S. didn't adopt PAL either, and for the same reasons: it came later,
and the U.S. had already adopted a contrary (and lesser) technology.  Being
first tends to do that.

Also, as any idiot save you realizes, the MODEL that DVB uses (originating
station -- in the U.S. context, a network) and transmitting station (in U.S.
terms, a mere translator or booster) is quite appropriate for the UK,
French, German (mostly), Korean, Taiwanese, Spanish, Italian and other
off-shore systems.)  Localism in those markets is 5 minutes of regional news
(would the U.S. equivalent be "California news"?) aired once a day at the
end of a national news broadcast.

Given that, U.S. consumers would search out and destroy you and Craig B.,
the major proponents of the "Eurofication" of U.S. TV hereabouts.

There are three TV stations in all of Korea.  There are five TV stations in
all of Great Britain.  There are six TV stations in all of France.  From my
modest digs in Tijuana, BC I can watch more unduplicated analog TV channels
(San Diego, Los Angeles, Tijuana, Tecate) over the air than are available
terrestrially in all those countries COMBINED.

Europe and most of the world is a "Third world country" when it comes to
electronic media choices.

Unlike the situation in most ATSC countries.

John "let me know how many 30 minute program viewings you and yours sell for
$50" Willkie

-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bob Miller
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:58 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400


Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

>Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>
>>If Germany and the UK chose a lower data rate for
>>a more robust reception fine. They can with COFDM.
>>But they could have chosen a higher data rate with
>>COFDM than the 19.34 Mbps of 8-VSB and still be more
>>robust than 8-VSB as was demonstrated in Congress in
>>2000
>>
>>
>
>I see I didn't address this particular comment directly
>as it deserves to be (or maybe not).
>
>At the ~19 Mb/s level, in 6 MHz, and with the severe
>Brazil E profile, the new 8-VSB receivers were capable
>of solid reception with 25 dB of C/N (actually 24.8 dB
>for the Linx receiver, and I didn't see anything as
>precisely stated for the LG). To respond to Mark
>Aitken's concern, yes, this includes symbol sync. Not
>just tracking a signal, but reaquiring.
>
>According to ETSI EN 300 744, the Rayleigh fading
>performance of COFDM at this bit rate is 21.7 dB of
>C/N. But the Rayleigh profile in that document isn't
>Brazil E. The CRC testing reported in 2003 claimed
>that at the time of the test, the COFDM receiver
>managed to receive two 0 dB signals (one 0 dB echo)
>with 31 dB of C/N. And this is not Brazil E either.
>I would expect that COFDM receiver to be of 2002
>vintage.
>
>Going just on this information alone, therefore,
>one has to conclude that what you saw in 2000 is
>irrelevant to this discussion. But more to the
>point, it leaves open the question of how these
>systems compare today. It's entirely possible,
>even likely, that today 8-VSB beats COFDM in certain
>indoor scenarios, and doubtless vice versa, at the
>~19 Mb/s level in 6 MHz (3.3 b/s/Hz).
>
>I'd guess that COFDMS will beat any of these new
>ATSC receivers with dynamic echo, e.g. people
>walking around smartly especially in the signal path,
>but it's very possible that 8-VSB beats COFDM where
>the signal is weak and dynamic echo not too severe.
>It's an intriguing question which you dismiss in
>a most unconvincing manner.
>
>So yes, you can tune COFDM for even higher spectral
>efficiency, but you'll make it more vulnerable than
>8-VSB if you do this. I don't see where E8-VSB
>would allow for more spectral efficiency, because
>it looks like the 2/3 trellis is the weakest one
>permitted. You'd have to either go to 16-VSB and
>fuss with adding trellis coding, or you'd have to
>allow for something like 3/4 or 5/6 rate trellis,
>to get anything better than 19.39 Mb/s for a
>terrestrial n-VSB system. Where we are today,
>that would make no sense at all.
>
>Bert
>
>
 From what I have seen of 8-VSB and COFDM lately (5th gen)  it would
make very good sense to switch to COFDM ASAP. There is simply NO comparison.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2004