On 2/27/2015 3:35 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/27/2015 8:26 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal.
But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this
company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.
I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm
with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.
http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560
http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html
Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?
If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).
And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.
The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There
is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder
alone...
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf
Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.
"The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB
receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI
receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a
high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing,
digital
processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC
functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor,
and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television
control
functions."
I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But
I do
know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the
method
used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to
decode the
signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar
decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the
industry
would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole
manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV.
BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant.
They are both used for digital TV.
No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have
proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the
ground.
You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe
eventually you can figure out what those things are.
This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your
professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good
nature. Thanks for helping me learn. 
No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your
claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this
thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong.
Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm
not wasting more of my time on you.
And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by
agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern
the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file
or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the
contents.
I never said MP3 is not lossy. I can't be wrong about something I
didn't say.
Actually, pi is the word for a number which has unique properties which
define its value. You only need to convey the concept using a finite
amount of data and it can produce an infinite string of digits (or bits)
that have no repeating pattern and have the properties of randomness. So
sure, "pi" is not compression, but the algorithm for producing the
digits is.
One sure sign that you are having trouble with these concepts is the way
you attack me on a personal level. You can say my ideas are wrong, or
even silly, but you insist in being rude. I would be only too happy if
you didn't respond to any of my posts... but you do.
I'm just correcting you where you're wrong. It's not for your benefit -
it's so the rest of the people in the newsgroup don't get the wrong
ideas. Whether YOU accept them or not is of no matter to me.
But I have to once again correct you on what you said.
Me:
Some compression algorithms (i.e. mp3) remove what they consider is
"unimportant". However, the result after decompressing is a poor
recreation of the original signal.
You:
That is a value judgement which most would disagree with not to
mention that your example is not valid. MP3 does not *remove*
anything from the signal. It is a form of compression that simply
can't reproduce the signal exactly. The use of the term "poor" is
your value judgement. Most people would say an MP3 audio sounds very
much like the original.
The compression removes data from the signal during the compression.
That is why the signal cannot be recreated exactly. And the term "poor"
is used by all experts in the field. Did you even bother to read the
reference where no less than Neil Young and (the late) Steve Jobs talked
about how bad it is?
But no - you won't admit you're wrong here, either.
I'm not having any problems with any of the concepts. But you sure do.
And you refuse to admit you're wrong.
As for the "personal attacks" - just calling a spade a spade. Nothing
more, nothing less. And I really don't care if the truth hurts you or not.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
==================