robmx
04-08-2004, 09:49 AM
Some unanswered post on AVSForum since the moderators will not let answers stand and deletes them.
peter0302 wrote...
"Casper should make short range / multipath issues all but disappear, which is supposed COFDM's strength. 8VSB's strength is longer range. So, Casper should basically give us the best of both worlds, which would probably not be possible with COFDM.
That does not mean I like 8VSB.
Tom, it's real, I saw it in action in Chicago. I don't understand why it's taking so freakin' long though. This stuff should have been sold to Thompson three years ago, we'd have receivers by now."
Ken H. wrote...
"In some respects, 'our system' is already better than COFDM."
Since Ken has reason to believe that no post will ask the question "in what specific way is 8-VSB better than COFDM?" he can make this silly statement on AVSForum. He doesn't have to back it up.
As far as Peter's statement that now 8-VSB is superior to COFDM both short range and long I disagree.
If and when a Linx based receiver is sold and it is all it is said to be then 8-VSB will have a better receiver than before when faced with static multipath period. That is fine but it does not solve the problem of dynamic multipath which is found all over the coverage area not just in city centers. It is dynamic multipath which precludes the use of indoor simple antennas or antennas that come inside the monitor. It precludes mobile and simple portable reception also.
When a Linx based receiver is available, no sooner than 9/2005, it will have been almost five years since the FCC re-affirmed 8-VSB after a fraudulent test of COFDM and 8-VSB in late 2000, after the argument that allowing COFDM would cause a "DELAY" in the digital OTA transition and after strong assurances that 8-VSB would be and could be "fixed" quickly.
Five years is a long time. It is 10% of the entire history of NTSC. Unfortunately it has been seven years since the start of 8-VSB and I don't think that the arrival of relatively expensive Linx receivers in, lets be real, early 2006 in some kind of quantity is going to change much.
In the mean time COFDM has not stood still. It is improving. More countries are rolling it out. France is considering doing Terrestrial HDTV. More receiver manufacturers are appearing. A diversity COFDM chip manufacturer just announced the doubling of receptivity in the face of Doppler and dynamic multipath. Italy is subsidizing COFDM receiver at $150 which soon will be more than the cost of many receivers in that country. Receivers in England have hit $60 and most TV sets there will now come with built in receivers at less than $35 additional cost.
This may not be all bad. 8-VSB becomes like a place holder for the US while modulations and compression algorithms improve and then at minimal expense we can switch to both a better modulation and compression codec. In the mean time we may be able to finesse all current broadcasters off OUR FREE spectrum since it must feel like a costly albatross to them by now. All cost and little benefit. I say give them must carry with no strings attached to spectrum and sell their spectrum to those who want to use it.
In the mean time you can dream of Linx and how it might be as good as or better than COFDM.
Ken thinks that 8-VSB is better than COFDM in "some" ways. Here is an analogy. Your car is faster than mine and takes less gas. (Ken might say that COFDM takes more power and has less coverage - I disagree but). My car however can go cross country, turns into a boat at water hazards and can leap over small mountains while your car is limited to expressways, has flat tires regularly without warning, is just a pain in the ass in general and doesn't even work for every fourth buyer.
So when Ken the car salesman tells you "this car takes less gas and is faster" what does that mean to you the buyer? Well most likely if you are not a masochist you buy the other car and if you can't you don't buy anything and stick with your old car or even buy another car like the old outmoded one you have.
Simply put if you have a car that is outright superior in every respect to another model but it fails in one key aspect what does anything else matter? Dynamic multipath is the achilles heel of 8-VSB. We now can be pretty sure that it will not be addressed though 2006. Why bother? Why keep waiting? Is it required that we suffer with an inferior modulation for any reason or for a time period like 50 years?
And what if in the spring of 2006 the Linx receivers are not all we hoped for? There is a history of BS miracle chips going back to 1999. You want to read the press releases from then again? They were not advertising hyperbole or fluff, those press releases were outright lies. The beginning of a string of lies about 8-VSB and COFDM, a fraudulent test and a stagnate digital OTA transition.
peter0302 wrote...
"Casper should make short range / multipath issues all but disappear, which is supposed COFDM's strength. 8VSB's strength is longer range. So, Casper should basically give us the best of both worlds, which would probably not be possible with COFDM.
That does not mean I like 8VSB.
Tom, it's real, I saw it in action in Chicago. I don't understand why it's taking so freakin' long though. This stuff should have been sold to Thompson three years ago, we'd have receivers by now."
Ken H. wrote...
"In some respects, 'our system' is already better than COFDM."
Since Ken has reason to believe that no post will ask the question "in what specific way is 8-VSB better than COFDM?" he can make this silly statement on AVSForum. He doesn't have to back it up.
As far as Peter's statement that now 8-VSB is superior to COFDM both short range and long I disagree.
If and when a Linx based receiver is sold and it is all it is said to be then 8-VSB will have a better receiver than before when faced with static multipath period. That is fine but it does not solve the problem of dynamic multipath which is found all over the coverage area not just in city centers. It is dynamic multipath which precludes the use of indoor simple antennas or antennas that come inside the monitor. It precludes mobile and simple portable reception also.
When a Linx based receiver is available, no sooner than 9/2005, it will have been almost five years since the FCC re-affirmed 8-VSB after a fraudulent test of COFDM and 8-VSB in late 2000, after the argument that allowing COFDM would cause a "DELAY" in the digital OTA transition and after strong assurances that 8-VSB would be and could be "fixed" quickly.
Five years is a long time. It is 10% of the entire history of NTSC. Unfortunately it has been seven years since the start of 8-VSB and I don't think that the arrival of relatively expensive Linx receivers in, lets be real, early 2006 in some kind of quantity is going to change much.
In the mean time COFDM has not stood still. It is improving. More countries are rolling it out. France is considering doing Terrestrial HDTV. More receiver manufacturers are appearing. A diversity COFDM chip manufacturer just announced the doubling of receptivity in the face of Doppler and dynamic multipath. Italy is subsidizing COFDM receiver at $150 which soon will be more than the cost of many receivers in that country. Receivers in England have hit $60 and most TV sets there will now come with built in receivers at less than $35 additional cost.
This may not be all bad. 8-VSB becomes like a place holder for the US while modulations and compression algorithms improve and then at minimal expense we can switch to both a better modulation and compression codec. In the mean time we may be able to finesse all current broadcasters off OUR FREE spectrum since it must feel like a costly albatross to them by now. All cost and little benefit. I say give them must carry with no strings attached to spectrum and sell their spectrum to those who want to use it.
In the mean time you can dream of Linx and how it might be as good as or better than COFDM.
Ken thinks that 8-VSB is better than COFDM in "some" ways. Here is an analogy. Your car is faster than mine and takes less gas. (Ken might say that COFDM takes more power and has less coverage - I disagree but). My car however can go cross country, turns into a boat at water hazards and can leap over small mountains while your car is limited to expressways, has flat tires regularly without warning, is just a pain in the ass in general and doesn't even work for every fourth buyer.
So when Ken the car salesman tells you "this car takes less gas and is faster" what does that mean to you the buyer? Well most likely if you are not a masochist you buy the other car and if you can't you don't buy anything and stick with your old car or even buy another car like the old outmoded one you have.
Simply put if you have a car that is outright superior in every respect to another model but it fails in one key aspect what does anything else matter? Dynamic multipath is the achilles heel of 8-VSB. We now can be pretty sure that it will not be addressed though 2006. Why bother? Why keep waiting? Is it required that we suffer with an inferior modulation for any reason or for a time period like 50 years?
And what if in the spring of 2006 the Linx receivers are not all we hoped for? There is a history of BS miracle chips going back to 1999. You want to read the press releases from then again? They were not advertising hyperbole or fluff, those press releases were outright lies. The beginning of a string of lies about 8-VSB and COFDM, a fraudulent test and a stagnate digital OTA transition.
