Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

If analog broadcast goes away and all we have is digital reception,
will our DVR's be able to still work OK? Right now I only have analog
reception and would rather have replaytv than digital reception or
HDTV when that catches on full force.

I would feel bad if I'm forced to stop using my DVR's because of new
digital broadcast or HDTV. I like my DVR's too much to have to give
them up.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <ev5bb1hfo74n79j43ecj22jcepijaml533@4ax.com>, eat@joes.com
wrote:

> If analog broadcast goes away and all we have is digital reception,
> will our DVR's be able to still work OK?

You'll have to feed the DVR an analog signal.

If all that's coming in is a digital signal, then you'll have to convert
the digital signal to an analog signal.

I'm betting that my cable company will continue to do that. If you
don't use cable, but receive only over-the-air signals, you'll have to
get a converter box.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:10:10 -0400, eat@joes.com wrote:

>If analog broadcast goes away and all we have is digital reception,
>will our DVR's be able to still work OK? Right now I only have analog
>reception and would rather have replaytv than digital reception or
>HDTV when that catches on full force.
>
>I would feel bad if I'm forced to stop using my DVR's because of new
>digital broadcast or HDTV. I like my DVR's too much to have to give
>them up.

Most digital receivers (at least those NOT integrated into a TV set)
can convert everything to NTSC, that could be fed to the Replay, but:

1. You would lose most of the quality advantage of digital and HD.

2. The Replay may not be able to control the device so it could
record selected channels.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <rsrbb152tkfcd2jio82nmg50pak9bap1vu@4ax.com>,
Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:

> >And for that matter, who cares about HD?
>
> The first time I saw it, the superiority was obvious.

Superiority of the signal.

It's still carrying TV programming, fer Chrissakes.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:12:05 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <rsrbb152tkfcd2jio82nmg50pak9bap1vu@4ax.com>,
> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>> >And for that matter, who cares about HD?
>>
>> The first time I saw it, the superiority was obvious.
>
>Superiority of the signal.
>
>It's still carrying TV programming, fer Chrissakes.

Of course, it's TV programming. Was that comment supposed to add
anything to the conversation?

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

First: I don't think Analog is going to go away any time soon

Second: If you put an external tuner/converter in front of it ANY
recorder, will gladly record the show. This includes my venerable
Panasonic VCR, My ATI-Vidoe card, the other Video card, the other
Panasionc VCR and the other replays... The only thing that WON't record
it is my Maganavox VCr, and that is because it's broke and won't record
anything.

Finally: As you may know REPLAY is being discontinued, or so they say

DNNA informs me they have a replacement device out, It is bigger and
"Better" in that it can do DIGITAL as well

Will it be backwards compatable with the Replay 5xxx units? Don't know
(yet) but I'm sure we will find out soon

eat@joes.com wrote:
> If analog broadcast goes away and all we have is digital reception,
> will our DVR's be able to still work OK? Right now I only have analog
> reception and would rather have replaytv than digital reception or
> HDTV when that catches on full force.
>
> I would feel bad if I'm forced to stop using my DVR's because of new
> digital broadcast or HDTV. I like my DVR's too much to have to give
> them up.

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:02:35 +0000, John in Detroit wrote:

> First: I don't think Analog is going to go away any time soon
>
> Second: If you put an external tuner/converter in front of it ANY
> recorder, will gladly record the show. This includes my venerable
> Panasonic VCR, My ATI-Vidoe card, the other Video card, the other
> Panasionc VCR and the other replays... The only thing that WON't record
> it is my Maganavox VCr, and that is because it's broke and won't record
> anything.
>
> Finally: As you may know REPLAY is being discontinued, or so they say
>
> DNNA informs me they have a replacement device out, It is bigger and
> "Better" in that it can do DIGITAL as well
>
> Will it be backwards compatable with the Replay 5xxx units? Don't know
> (yet) but I'm sure we will find out soon
>
> eat@joes.com wrote:
>> If analog broadcast goes away and all we have is digital reception,
>> will our DVR's be able to still work OK? Right now I only have analog
>> reception and would rather have replaytv than digital reception or
>> HDTV when that catches on full force.
>>
>> I would feel bad if I'm forced to stop using my DVR's because of new
>> digital broadcast or HDTV. I like my DVR's too much to have to give
>> them up.

Good luck with you VHS Tapes, in 5 years those things will be in the junk
pile with Beta, Reel-Reels, 8 Tracks an the rest of old technologies that
were once popular and simply faded away...

--
Korbin Dallas
The name was changed to protect the guilty.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:01:22 GMT, Korbin Dallas
<korbindallas@dodgeit.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:02:35 +0000, John in Detroit wrote:
>
>> First: I don't think Analog is going to go away any time soon
>>
>> Second: If you put an external tuner/converter in front of it ANY
>> recorder, will gladly record the show. This includes my venerable
>> Panasonic VCR, My ATI-Vidoe card, the other Video card, the other
>> Panasionc VCR and the other replays... The only thing that WON't record
>> it is my Maganavox VCr, and that is because it's broke and won't record
>> anything.
>>
>> Finally: As you may know REPLAY is being discontinued, or so they say
>>
>> DNNA informs me they have a replacement device out, It is bigger and
>> "Better" in that it can do DIGITAL as well
>>
>> Will it be backwards compatable with the Replay 5xxx units? Don't know
>> (yet) but I'm sure we will find out soon
>>
>> eat@joes.com wrote:
>>> If analog broadcast goes away and all we have is digital reception,
>>> will our DVR's be able to still work OK? Right now I only have analog
>>> reception and would rather have replaytv than digital reception or
>>> HDTV when that catches on full force.
>>>
>>> I would feel bad if I'm forced to stop using my DVR's because of new
>>> digital broadcast or HDTV. I like my DVR's too much to have to give
>>> them up.
>
>Good luck with you VHS Tapes, in 5 years those things will be in the junk
>pile with Beta, Reel-Reels, 8 Tracks an the rest of old technologies that
>were once popular and simply faded away...

And a lot of people will still have them and use them regularly. 126
film cartridges too. My father never got rid of his 78 RPM records
(some from before 1910).

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Korbin Dallas wrote:

> Digital gives me a better picture and the audio is in a whole other class
> far beyond traditional TV Audio... HD raises the bar even further.
> Gone are are a whole host of analog gremlins, you may of liked watching a
> fuzzy noisy but you are a rare exception.

You are mistaken,,, Given an "A" type signal, what we in the radio trade
call "Full Quieting' then your statement is true, however if the signal
is anything less than perfect, then the picture is,,, well... NOT, it's
frozen, pixelated and/or not there with digital

With analog it is snowy, but still perfectly watchable

With digital it's not there, period

So, I'll take a bad picture over no picture at all any day

As I am about to prove, with a recording of a B- station (Note, A,B,C
here refers to reception bands, geography, the band nearest the staion,
where the signal is very good, is "A", rabbit ears work well, B takes a
better antenna but you can still get a good picture if you aim well,
(I'm really in B with this station but aimed a bit off center)

As the letters progress the signal gets weaker and weaker, so you need
more and more and higher and higher antennas and finally.. No signal
possible.

This happens much faster with digital

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> And a lot of people will still have them and use them regularly. 126
> film cartridges too. My father never got rid of his 78 RPM records
> (some from before 1910).

I still use film cameras, as well as digital, I still have vinyl
records, and CD's (and tape, both audio and video)

To be honest a good open reel recorder can be very impressive, and so
can its price tag :-)

As for 78s, Well... I think my dad tossed those.. Wish he had not, but
he did


--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

I still use my old fashion 4 wheel car, even though the segway has
been out for a few years now.

>
>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> And a lot of people will still have them and use them regularly. 126
>> film cartridges too. My father never got rid of his 78 RPM records
>> (some from before 1910).
>
>I still use film cameras, as well as digital, I still have vinyl
>records, and CD's (and tape, both audio and video)
>
>To be honest a good open reel recorder can be very impressive, and so
>can its price tag :-)
>
>As for 78s, Well... I think my dad tossed those.. Wish he had not, but
>he did

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

eat@joes.com wrote:
> I still use my old fashion 4 wheel car, even though the segway has
> been out for a few years now.

Gee, I'm driving a six wheeler this week (I should have my 4 wheeler
back later today)

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:21:24 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>
>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> And a lot of people will still have them and use them regularly. 126
>> film cartridges too. My father never got rid of his 78 RPM records
>> (some from before 1910).
>
>I still use film cameras, as well as digital, I still have vinyl
>records, and CD's (and tape, both audio and video)
>
>To be honest a good open reel recorder can be very impressive, and so
>can its price tag :-)
>
>As for 78s, Well... I think my dad tossed those.. Wish he had not, but
>he did

Sometimes I wish mine had. I might have liked OPERA if I hadn't been
required to listen to it 30 hours a day.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> There is always some loss when information is converted from one code
> to another. The loss can be minimal.

Absolutely. The big "Advantages" (note the quotes) of digital over
analog are this

1: Consistency... Back in days of old, if you were to watch and record a
move, using analog, here in Michigan, Then go to say, Texas or Florida
and watch and record the exact same movie (or if it is a network
broadcast have a friend record it in one of those two states) and then
play the two recordings on calibrated gear (Calibrated in this case
means they are set to show the exact same thing given the exact same
input) you might be surprised to find that usually everybody had a much
nicer tan in the "Southern" films

This is because the engineers in the broadcast studio messed up the
signal at one or the other (or more likely both) transmitting stations

With digital they are not supposed to be doing this

Also, with analog every repeater in the link introduces distortion and
loss So if a network broadcast is sent from New York to Say, Nebraska,
via land line, it will go through many repeaters and the signal that
arrives in Nebraska is not, exactly, what left NY. (though it's likely
very close)

With digital what arrives at the transmitting station, heck, what
arrives at your house, is EXACTLY what left the originating studio

That said I've seen evidence (pixelation) that suggests that even the
analog broadcasts my TVs pick up were transmitted digitally from the
"Network" to the broadcast site now days on some stations

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:11:29 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> There is always some loss when information is converted from one code
>> to another. The loss can be minimal.
>
>Absolutely. The big "Advantages" (note the quotes) of digital over
>analog are this
>
>1: Consistency... Back in days of old, if you were to watch and record a
>move, using analog, here in Michigan, Then go to say, Texas or Florida
>and watch and record the exact same movie (or if it is a network
>broadcast have a friend record it in one of those two states) and then
>play the two recordings on calibrated gear (Calibrated in this case
>means they are set to show the exact same thing given the exact same
>input) you might be surprised to find that usually everybody had a much
>nicer tan in the "Southern" films
>
>This is because the engineers in the broadcast studio messed up the
>signal at one or the other (or more likely both) transmitting stations
>
>With digital they are not supposed to be doing this
>

True. The digital systems have standards for things such as color.
Analog (NTSC) lacks such a standard, leading to numerous color
inconsistancies.

>Also, with analog every repeater in the link introduces distortion and
>loss So if a network broadcast is sent from New York to Say, Nebraska,
>via land line, it will go through many repeaters and the signal that
>arrives in Nebraska is not, exactly, what left NY. (though it's likely
>very close)
>
>With digital what arrives at the transmitting station, heck, what
>arrives at your house, is EXACTLY what left the originating studio
>

What's actually received will have the same losses an with an analog
signal. However, the use of descrete levels (that's what digital is)
allows the equiptment at the receiving location to re-create the
original signal.

As I've siad before, this is very similar to the superiority of FM
over AM. Both add noise to the signal, but an FM receiver can clean it
up.

>That said I've seen evidence (pixelation) that suggests that even the
>analog broadcasts my TVs pick up were transmitted digitally from the
>"Network" to the broadcast site now days on some stations

Yes, and all TV signals will be in analog form at some point.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> True. The digital systems have standards for things such as color.
> Analog (NTSC) lacks such a standard, leading to numerous color
> inconsistancies.

I would have said that leads to NTSC (National Television Standards
Committie) Being called "Never Twice [the] Same Color"

>
> Yes, and all TV signals will be in analog form at some point.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, I think they do all start
out analog at the camera, but most are transmitted via digital sattelite
instead of analog copper wire these days. So, it would be legit to say
that "Most network broadcasts are both analog at some points and digital
at other points in the transmission" thus leading to another fun item

Conversion loss... Which I won't go into

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:33:18 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>
>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> True. The digital systems have standards for things such as color.
>> Analog (NTSC) lacks such a standard, leading to numerous color
>> inconsistancies.
>
>I would have said that leads to NTSC (National Television Standards
>Committie) Being called "Never Twice [the] Same Color"
>

And what it;s "supposed" to mean is "North american Television
Standards Committee".

>>
>> Yes, and all TV signals will be in analog form at some point.
>
>I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, I think they do all start
>out analog at the camera, but most are transmitted via digital sattelite
>instead of analog copper wire these days.

And don't forget that the LIGHT coming from the TV is analog.

> So, it would be legit to say
>that "Most network broadcasts are both analog at some points and digital
>at other points in the transmission" thus leading to another fun item

>Conversion loss... Which I won't go into

That applies to purely digital parts of the system too. It happens
when one resolution is converted to another. It happens when the
signal has passed through multiple instances of lossy compression (as
it often has).

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."