Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote: On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However, it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P, 1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal is decompressed. I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital. Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago. I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs come with built-in 'Freeview'. I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible because of the higher power chipset. The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold, presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway. My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display it before it has to start on the next frame. Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all. Standing ready to be corrected. Andy Andy, I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for years (here come the trolls). 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? 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 -- Rick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote: On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However, it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P, 1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal is decompressed. I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital. Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago. I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs come with built-in 'Freeview'. I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible because of the higher power chipset. The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold, presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway. My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display it before it has to start on the next frame. Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all. Standing ready to be corrected. Andy Andy, I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for years (here come the trolls). 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. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote: On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However, it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P, 1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal is decompressed. I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital. Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago. I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs come with built-in 'Freeview'. I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible because of the higher power chipset. The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold, presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway. My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display it before it has to start on the next frame. Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all. Standing ready to be corrected. Andy Andy, I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for years (here come the trolls). 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC begin quote A hardware H.264 encoder can be an ASIC or an FPGA. ASIC encoders with H.264 encoder functionality are available from many different semiconductor companies, but the core design used in the ASIC is typically licensed from one of a few companies such as Chips&Media, Allegro DVT, On2 (formerly Hantro, acquired by Google), Imagination Technologies, NGCodec. Some companies have both FPGA and ASIC product offerings.[56] Texas Instruments manufactures a line of ARM + DSP cores that perform DSP H.264 BP encoding 1080p at 30fps.[57] This permits flexibility with respect to codecs (which are implemented as highly optimized DSP code) while being more efficient than software on a generic CPU. end quote See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...mplementations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA -- Jim Pennino |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
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. -- Rick |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
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. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
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. -- Rick |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
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. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of digital voice?
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. -- Rick |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|