arcorp@utcsri.UUCP (Alias Research Corp.) (10/29/85)
My organisation was setting up its booth at an audio-visual trade show here in Toronto today. When we were done, I took a look around the exhibits and saw a few interesting things. The SONY booth had a host of 8mmVideo equipment as well as a new Laser Disc player with the name "Lasermax" on it. It looked like a sophisticated industrial player. This front-loading unit was entirely white, and it may have been built by pioneer. Anyone else know? It was interesting to note that whenever anyone at the show wanted to show the quality of their video displays, they would have a Laser player supplying the picture. There were at least a dozen players spread over five booths. Most of them were not plainly visible, since they were not the item being sold. Yamaha has announced their intention to build a LV player capable of decoding the "digital sound" laser discs. [Stereo Review, I think] Now all we need are a few more discs of that type. A friend of mine has told me that in Japan, the SLHF9000 SONY (similar to the North American SLHF900) allows superbetahifi recording in Beta 1. I assume that the 9000 would not work here since the Japanes use NTSC 4.43, and the tuners would be unable to find the sound. Beta 1 recording sounds like a good idea for programs that you intend to edit later on. A recent letter to the editor of one of the video magazines cites a poll that shows most people do not even watch the programs they record. The same poll showed that half of vcr owners used their machines for playback only. Is there something fundamentally wrong with vcrs in homes? Cheers then Stephen Trutiak
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (10/30/85)
Three factors limit the selection of Laser videodiscs with the extra digital soundtracks: 1. The digital process slightly reduces the playing time per disc. 2. Bloody little source material is available with the dynamic range that requires digitial audio tracks. The FM sound tracks with CX encoding are, on the whole, better than Beta or VHS HI-FI. 3. As of the last time I inquired, only the Pioneer Kofu plant had the necessary digital mastering equipment. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/31/85)
In article <1557@utcsri.UUCP> arcorp@utcsri.UUCP (Alias Research Corp.) writes: >Is there something fundamentally wrong with vcrs in homes? > Stephen Trutiak I would say yes. The signals they get to record. If you don't have cable, off-the-air signals are often too poor to be worth recording. That is why I have held out, though I am an electronic-gadget freak and have access to wholesale-priced goods in some lines, and still don't have a VCR in my home (though I have quite a few TVs). I live in St. Louis city, and get ghosts and color flicking in and out on just about all channels, using both an attic antenna, coax fed, and rabbit ears. As an audiophile, I have no interest in making recordings of poor-quality audio signals, so I have never felt that my input video signals were worthy of the investment in time and money to begin getting into recording them. I understand from people who have cable (not due in my area for some years yet) that it is no magic solution to these problems, either. Cable signals are often poor, also. Maybe the new generation of digital TV circuits will fix all these problems. After all, FM tuners have gotten pretty good at dealing with multipath and distortion, so its about time video can do the same. The other issue (for me at least) is time. I find I have little time left for reading now, when there are radio programs I want to hear each week (some of which I tape) and broadcast TV I wish to see. If I had a VCR, and rented movies or taped late-night stuff for timeshifting, I wouldn't have ANY time left! This sort of thing is fine for retired people who feel the hours dragging by slowly. Myself, I find that there is far too little time in a week as it is... Will
speaker@ttidcb.UUCP (Kenneth Speaker) (11/01/85)
In article <2659@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: >If you don't have >cable, off-the-air signals are often too poor to be worth recording. > >Will Cable signals also are often too poor to be worth recording. I have an A/B switch on all of my equipment because my antenna receives excellent signals, but the cable is true garbage. I am at the end of about 20 miles of coax with <deity> knows how many amplifiers and <another deity> knows how many taps, each introducing noise or echoes. Measuring the smear on the screen, it looks like everyone lives about 50-75 meters apart. That is why I had looked forward to DBS! Think of it; a quality signal beamed directly to your home, without the thousands of echoes of all of your friends. All of the legalities nice and defined. No one calling you pirate. The possibility of HDTV. Alas, it was/is not to be. --Kne
jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) (11/07/85)
Will says: > > I would say yes. The signals they get to record. If you don't have > cable, off-the-air signals are often too poor to be worth recording. Not where I live. In eastside Portland, we are served by Rogers cablesystems (Basically a Canadian company with franchises around the U.S.). They use the Zenith Z-TAC converter box. The video is noisy and sometimes not watchable. I have an excellent picture off my outside antenna and prefer it to cable for watching the locals. And the cable company tells me that I have a good signal level. > I live in St. > Louis city, and get ghosts and color flicking in and out on just about > all channels, using both an attic antenna, coax fed, and rabbit ears. What is your antenna doing in the attic. I am not surprised that you have ghosts and problems. Put it outside above your roof where it belongs and you will probably see some improvement. Attics are for insulation, house wiring, pipes(exhaust vents), spiders, and other bugs. not antennas. Who knows what reflections and attenuations you are getting from your attic. > > > I understand from people who have cable (not due in my area for some > years yet) that it is no magic solution to these problems, either. > Cable signals are often poor, also. And then Ken says: >Cable signals also are often too poor to be worth recording. I have an >A/B switch on all of my equipment because my antenna receives excellent >signals, but the cable is true garbage. I am at the end of about 20 miles >of coax with <deity> knows how many amplifiers and <another deity> knows >how many taps, each introducing noise or echoes. See above. I understand the problem for me may be in the Zenith box. Everything is scrambled. When you select a channel, it determines if you have paid for it and then descrambles it and demodulates audio and video. then they remodulate it to CH3 or CH4. If they supplied you with audio and video out it would not look bad. However, The Zenith modulator seems to be a piece of cheap junk. Anybody else have this problem with Zenith Z-TAC??? Because our system is two way interactive, there are no repeaters or amps between the front end and myself - 15 miles by crow, who knows by cable??? Doesn't seem to matter as people within one mile of headend have same problem. > >That is why I had looked forward to DBS! Think of it; a quality signal >beamed directly to your home, without the thousands of echoes Ah yes, satellite TV. Actually the best quality signal you can get for broadcast. Nice until they are all scrambled. jim
terryl@tekcrl.UUCP (11/07/85)
> Not where I live. In eastside Portland, we are served by Rogers cablesystems > (Basically a Canadian company with franchises around the U.S.). They > use the Zenith Z-TAC converter box. The video is noisy and sometimes > not watchable. I have an excellent picture off my outside antenna and > prefer it to cable for watching the locals. And the cable company tells > me that I have a good signal level. I live west of Portland, served by Storer Cable, and it's not much better. They use the Zenith Z-TAC converter box, also. > > I understand from people who have cable (not due in my area for some > > years yet) that it is no magic solution to these problems, either. > > Cable signals are often poor, also. > > And then Ken says: > > >Cable signals also are often too poor to be worth recording. I have an > >A/B switch on all of my equipment because my antenna receives excellent > >signals, but the cable is true garbage. I am at the end of about 20 miles > >of coax with <deity> knows how many amplifiers and <another deity> knows > >how many taps, each introducing noise or echoes. > > See above. I understand the problem for me may be in the Zenith box. > Everything is scrambled. When you select a channel, it determines if > you have paid for it and then descrambles it and demodulates audio and > video. then they remodulate it to CH3 or CH4. If they supplied you with > audio and video out it would not look bad. However, The Zenith modulator > seems to be a piece of cheap junk. Anybody else have this problem with > Zenith Z-TAC??? Because our system is two way interactive, there are no > repeaters or amps between the front end and myself - 15 miles by crow, > who knows by cable??? Doesn't seem to matter as people within one mile > of headend have same problem. Well, my Zenith box has direct video/audio out (I need it for my 25" NEC monitor; thank God they have these outputs, or my monitor would be use- less!!!) Sometimes, when I'm watching a premium channel (usually HBO, which is scrambled, BTW), the picture will get real fuzzy with some snow (but not enough to make it unwatchable, just enough to make it annoying...) and stay like that for 5-10 minutes. Now I know Storer uses repeaters/amps `cause they just switched over to the Zenith boxes from a different box. I wasn't getting a good picture on some of the channels, and the person who came out to fix it said that when they did the conversion, they left some of the amps from the old system connected.
tomb@tekecs.UUCP (Tom Beach) (11/07/85)
> > Not where I live. In eastside Portland, we are served by Rogers cablesystems > > (Basically a Canadian company with franchises around the U.S.). They > > use the Zenith Z-TAC converter box. The video is noisy and sometimes > > not watchable. I have an excellent picture off my outside antenna and > > prefer it to cable for watching the locals. And the cable company tells > > me that I have a good signal level. > > I live west of Portland, served by Storer Cable, and it's not much > better. They use the Zenith Z-TAC converter box, also. ... > Well, my Zenith box has direct video/audio out (I need it for my 25" > NEC monitor; thank God they have these outputs, or my monitor would be use- > less!!!) Sometimes, when I'm watching a premium channel (usually HBO, which > is scrambled, BTW), the picture will get real fuzzy with some snow (but not > enough to make it unwatchable, just enough to make it annoying...) and stay > like that for 5-10 minutes. Now I know Storer uses repeaters/amps `cause they > just switched over to the Zenith boxes from a different box. I wasn't getting > a good picture on some of the channels, and the person who came out to fix > it said that when they did the conversion, they left some of the amps from > the old system connected. I suspect the person who was "fixing" it was either blowing smoke or didn't understand the situation. I'm served by Storer also, and they've also "upgraded" out service from the old 36 channel system to their 58 channel Z-Tac. I have a cable ready TV which receives all of the unscrambled stuff just fine. I have it hooked up as follows: -------------------------- / \ --------- ---------- --------| Split | | Switch |---------- Cable --------- ---------- To TV \ ------- ------- / ---|Z Tac|-----| VCR |-- ------- ------- This allows me to watch 1 channel while recording another as long as the channel I'm watching is unscrambled. This also allows me to do A-B comparisons of my TV's picture directly from the cable with the picture remodulated by the Z-Tac. Except for some degradation of the VIR coding, I don't find enough difference to worry about. Now the quality of the signal on the cable is something else again. It's getting better, but I still have days when the picture from my rabbit ears outclass the signal from the cable. BTW this is a recent phenomena. With the old system, cable, amps, et al the picture was first rate. Therefore I find it hard to fault those amplifiers. Signal quality here is highly variable. Some days EXCELLENT, some days UNACCEPTABLE, often so-so. Several times when I've complained, they've allowed a reduction of our bill for the BAD days. But that's a hassle. (Musnt make it easy, or everyone would be doing it.). Anyway, I have little or no criticism of the Z-Tac box as mine puts out a picture as good as what's on the cable. I live within easy walking distance of Storer's antenna farm and broadcast facility. Lord only knows how far that is by cable though. -- Tom Beach email: ..tektronix!tekecs!tomb "The past is another country; they do things differently there."
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/08/85)
In article <391@tekcbi.UUCP> jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) writes: [From my original response -- Will Martin]: >>I live in St. Louis city, and get ghosts and color flicking in and out on just >>about all channels, using both an attic antenna, coax fed, and rabbit ears. > [Boland answers:] >What is your antenna doing in the attic. I am not surprised that you have >ghosts and problems. Put it outside above your roof where it belongs >and you will probably see some improvement. The point is that I live *in* the city, in what should be the maximum-signal-contour area, and yet I still have bad reception. I shouldn't need an outside antenna. I shouldn't need an attic antenna, even! I should get a perfect picture with back-of-set rabbit ears and UHF loop antennae, without going to any trouble at all. Yet I don't and I don't know anyone who does! I think there are some basic failures on the part of the TV industry to produce this situation, either in the choice of technical standards that were made historically (NTSC instead of something else when going to color), or in the design and construction of transmitters and antennae, or in the choice of frequencies allocated for this service, or in the design and construction of home TV receivers. Will
jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) (11/12/85)
> > [I originally said:] > >What is your antenna doing in the attic. I am not surprised that you have > >ghosts and problems. Put it outside above your roof where it belongs > >and you will probably see some improvement. > > > [Will responds] > The point is that I live *in* the city, in what should be the > maximum-signal-contour area, and yet I still have bad reception. I > shouldn't need an outside antenna. I shouldn't need an attic antenna, > even! I should get a perfect picture with back-of-set rabbit ears and > UHF loop antennae, without going to any trouble at all. Yet I don't > and I don't know anyone who does! Once again I stand by my original statement. Rabbit ears aren't good for anything (usually). They may work sometimes, but that is only to get a picture. Your TV receives the radiated energy which is "moving" through air. In order to receive the signal correctly, you need an "interceptor" (spelled - "antenna") which is tuned and polarized (length and direction) to the signal frequency you intend to receive. This requires a good antenna, particularly in the city with all the metal framed buildings and other structures (obstacles) all over everywhere. These can cause reflections, cancellations, and even additions (depending on frequency) at your receiving site. A good directional antenna with many elements (the different elements are of different lengths and are thus tuned for specific channels) so as to give the best response over the entire band (upper and lower VHF) will give you the best chance of getting a good signal. (short of buying separate antennas for each channel). Even in the city. Sure, you could probably take an open coathanger and put it on the antenna terminal of your TV and get a signal. But what happens when you walk in front of it? Well, enough of this. I still maintain that if you put a good antenna on the roof where it belongs, you stand a good chance for some improvement. I have yet to see where it doesn't (over the alternatives).
jayj@hpisla.UUCP (Jay Johannes) (11/16/85)
Its fine to just say "Put the antenna on the roof and anyone who doesn't is a bozo", but when you do it is obvious that you don't live in a subdivision with covenants. Quite possibly he CAN'T put an antenna on his roof.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/26/85)
Thanks for coming to my defense. However, I have no legal restrictions preventing me from roof-mounting an antenna. I made the decision not to based on several factors: a) First off, I discarded the idea of a chimney mount because of several reasons: I have one chimney, with two flues, for the furnace and fireplace. I use my fireplace. Thus, any antenna there (and its leadin) would be subjected all winter to hot noxious gasses, which would cause rapid deterioration. I have no interest in high-maintenance installations, so the need to replace weathered and worn parts and wiring would be too frequent to be tolerable. Also, I don't like adding wind load on chimneys, which are tuckpointing maintenance hogs anyway. (I did have some small outside antennae on my previous house, where I had capped-off stub chimneys to use as mounting points, and easy roof access.) b) Straight peak-of-roof mounts, with or without guywires, with through-roof bolting or screwing, scare me. I don't value an antenna as much as I do the structural integrity of my roof, such as it is. Also, there is no easy roof access for installation and maintenance (steeply- slanted roof fairly high up). c) Eave mounts would damage my recently-added metal cladding/siding on the soffits and eaves, and also I don't like putting the wind load of an antenna on those parts, which often have hidden defects, especially in a house 50+ years old, as mine is. d) This leaves side-of-house towers, with perhaps a stabilizing bracket atttached to the house wall and tower. This isn't a bad idea. However, I have not done this for another group of reasons: 1 -- I live in the city, where no one, except a few hams, has a tower. If I lived in a rural area, where *everybody* has a tower for their TV antennae, there would be lots of expert tower-installers to choose from to get the work done. In the city, the TV repair people probably have never touched a tower, and I don't want them learning at my expense and on my property. I know nothing about this stuff myself and have little enough interest in it to learn to do it well enough to suit me. 2 -- The configuration of my property would make the best place for a tower too close to my Western neighbors' house. All I need is a tower falling on somebody else's roof to make my day... (either during construction or in a windstorm). 3 -- Cost. Not only is the tower and installation expensive in itself, but, if I DID go to that length, I'd feel compelled to mount enough antennae on it to get into serious FM & TV DXing (7-foot UHF dish, various Yagis, rotor, etc.) and probably buy more inside electronics to go along with them. Also, in this location, this would be the sort of thing that decreases the value of your property, instead of being an enhancement. With this mindset, I figured I would put in an attic antenna and stick with it. I do have a binder full of tower catalogs and another of TV antenna manufacturers' stuff, though, in case I overcome my common sense and go hog-wild... :-) Regards, Will Martin UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA