Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD player
we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up together, with
an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the highest possible
video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also carries audio signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a "Monster"
cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of resemble the flat
ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no idea SONY
had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier who has
the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two 50-cent ends on
it.


Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer. By the
way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer them a little
slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD player
we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up together, with
an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the highest possible
video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also carries audio signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a "Monster"
cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of resemble the flat
ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no idea
SONY had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier who
has the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two 50-cent
ends on it.


Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer. By
the way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer them a
little slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....


S-Video is the way to go when connecting the DVD to the TV.

BTW: Monster cables are overrated and overpriced.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
JimH wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD
player we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up
together, with an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the
highest possible video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also
carries audio signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a
"Monster" cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of
resemble the flat ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no
idea SONY had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier
who has the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two
50-cent ends on it.

Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer.
By the way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer
them a little slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....


S-Video is the way to go when connecting the DVD to the TV.

BTW: Monster cables are overrated and overpriced.



I shouldn't bother, but SONY and other top drawer manufacturers disagree
with your opinion that "S-Video" is the way to go. My SONY manuals say
"component" video inputs offer the best video quality for DVD and
digital setop box connections. That's what I am using now, and it is
noticeably better than "S-Video," which is what I used first because the
cable came with the DVD. But the manuals also state the "best" input
interface for an HD TV is HDMI. Several other manufacturers of decent
TVs and DVD players state the exact same thing. Oh, and so does
Crutchfield, from whom I obtained a piece of gear. The exact quote:
"using component video input will result in a better image quality than
S Video."

Frankly, I don't know what your area of expertise is, but it doesn't
seem to be computers or consumer electronics.

'Component' connections have been considered a step above S-Video for at
least the last five years.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



--
************************************************** ************************
If you would like to make rec.boats an enjoyable place to discuss
boating, please do not respond to the political and inflammatory
off- topic posts and flames.
************************************************** **************************


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD
player we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up
together, with an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the
highest possible video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also
carries audio signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a "Monster"
cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of resemble the
flat ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no idea
SONY had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier who
has the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two 50-cent
ends on it.

Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer. By
the way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer them a
little slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....


S-Video is the way to go when connecting the DVD to the TV.

BTW: Monster cables are overrated and overpriced.


I shouldn't bother, but SONY and other top drawer manufacturers disagree
with your opinion that "S-Video" is the way to go. My SONY manuals say
"component" video inputs offer the best video quality for DVD and digital
setop box connections. That's what I am using now, and it is noticeably
better than "S-Video," which is what I used first because the cable came
with the DVD. But the manuals also state the "best" input interface for an
HD TV is HDMI. Several other manufacturers of decent TVs and DVD players
state the exact same thing. Oh, and so does Crutchfield, from whom I
obtained a piece of gear. The exact quote: "using component video input
will result in a better image quality than S Video."

Frankly, I don't know what your area of expertise is, but it doesn't seem
to be computers or consumer electronics.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Reggie Smithers wrote:
I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



here's what Consumer Reports says...

"Component-video inputs split the video signal into three parts: two for
color and one for luminance. This provides slightly better quality than
S-video, most evident in color fidelity. They're often used with DVD
players, high-definition satellite receivers, and cable boxes. What it
looks like: red, green, and blue RCA jacks."

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

What was that saying attributed to PT Barnum? ;-)


"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



--
************************************************** ************************
If you would like to make rec.boats an enjoyable place to discuss
boating, please do not respond to the political and inflammatory
off- topic posts and flames.
************************************************** **************************


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD
player we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up
together, with an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the
highest possible video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also
carries audio signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a "Monster"
cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of resemble the
flat ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no idea
SONY had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier who
has the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two 50-cent
ends on it.

Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer.
By the way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer them
a little slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....


S-Video is the way to go when connecting the DVD to the TV.

BTW: Monster cables are overrated and overpriced.


I shouldn't bother, but SONY and other top drawer manufacturers disagree
with your opinion that "S-Video" is the way to go. My SONY manuals say
"component" video inputs offer the best video quality for DVD and digital
setop box connections. That's what I am using now, and it is noticeably
better than "S-Video," which is what I used first because the cable came
with the DVD. But the manuals also state the "best" input interface for
an HD TV is HDMI. Several other manufacturers of decent TVs and DVD
players state the exact same thing. Oh, and so does Crutchfield, from
whom I obtained a piece of gear. The exact quote: "using component video
input will result in a better image quality than S Video."

Frankly, I don't know what your area of expertise is, but it doesn't seem
to be computers or consumer electronics.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



No they are not. Well, yes the plugs are RCA, but the whole transmission
system is different. A basic primer:

Yellow "video" (composite) plug with RCA jacks are nothing more than audio
type wires and connectors. These are the ones that are packaged with every
audio/video device and are of the poorest quality in terms of transmission
of a video signal.

Higher quality video coaxial cable - RCA plugs again, but the wire is of
better quality, the dielectrics used are better, the shielding is better and
the resultant reactive impedance is more consistent. Much better than the
cheap "yellow" audio wires for video.

S-Video - DIN type connector - twisted pair of shielded wires for video
signal transmission - usually differentially inputted - better quality
transmission for video than both above.

Component cables. High quality RCA plugs - usually gold plated, but the
main difference is the video transmission scheme. Simply put, component
cables transmit the Blue, Green and Red components of the video signal
individually and are then recombined in the proper sync and levels at the
TV, monitor or whatever the video display is. By separating each drive
color, losses in the cables are compensated for. Best way to transmit
video.

HDMI - high quality lines for both video and digital audio. Basically, mini
coax versions of the component cables that allow for high bandwidth signals
with low loss or distortion.

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



No they are not. Well, yes the plugs are RCA, but the whole transmission
system is different. A basic primer:

Yellow "video" (composite) plug with RCA jacks are nothing more than audio
type wires and connectors. These are the ones that are packaged with
every audio/video device and are of the poorest quality in terms of
transmission of a video signal.

Higher quality video coaxial cable - RCA plugs again, but the wire is of
better quality, the dielectrics used are better, the shielding is better
and the resultant reactive impedance is more consistent. Much better than
the cheap "yellow" audio wires for video.

S-Video - DIN type connector - twisted pair of shielded wires for video
signal transmission - usually differentially inputted - better quality
transmission for video than both above.

Component cables. High quality RCA plugs - usually gold plated, but the
main difference is the video transmission scheme. Simply put, component
cables transmit the Blue, Green and Red components of the video signal
individually and are then recombined in the proper sync and levels at the
TV, monitor or whatever the video display is. By separating each drive
color, losses in the cables are compensated for. Best way to transmit
video.

HDMI - high quality lines for both video and digital audio. Basically,
mini coax versions of the component cables that allow for high bandwidth
signals with low loss or distortion.

Eisboch


You are a good man if you can tell the difference in picture quality when
using component cables vs. S-video.

Add a bad signal from the cable company or sat. TV provider and poof.......

It is all hype........and all touted by the manufacturers and retailers.

And looking at the differences in prices...........I can understand why.

Hurry folks.............lookie see.......Jenuwine gold plating and assembled
only in kosher kitchens during a full moon. Git em while yew can.. ;-)

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
...



You are a good man if you can tell the difference in picture quality when
using component cables vs. S-video.

Add a bad signal from the cable company or sat. TV provider and
poof.......

It is all hype........and all touted by the manufacturers and retailers.


Heh ... maybe you need better glasses .... naw....

It's just like an audio system - it's only as good as the weakest link. If
you have a super source, component cables and a crappy monitor - it's only
going to look as good as the crappy monitor. If all the gear is capable of
high bandwidth, low distortion, low loss signals but you're watching a
colorized copy of a 1942 John Wayne movie, then, well you get the point.

Technically, component cable transmission of video signals is superior to
S-video. Your actual mileage may vary ....

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
...



You are a good man if you can tell the difference in picture quality when
using component cables vs. S-video.

Add a bad signal from the cable company or sat. TV provider and
poof.......

It is all hype........and all touted by the manufacturers and retailers.


Heh ... maybe you need better glasses .... naw....

It's just like an audio system - it's only as good as the weakest link.
If you have a super source, component cables and a crappy monitor - it's
only going to look as good as the crappy monitor. If all the gear is
capable of high bandwidth, low distortion, low loss signals but you're
watching a colorized copy of a 1942 John Wayne movie, then, well you get
the point.


Yep..........and it looks like we agree. ;-)

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



here's what Consumer Reports says...

"Component-video inputs split the video signal into three parts: two for
color and one for luminance. This provides slightly better quality than
S-video, most evident in color fidelity. They're often used with DVD
players, high-definition satellite receivers, and cable boxes. What it
looks like: red, green, and blue RCA jacks."


They're also used to connect CD players, tuners, and suchlike to amps and
receivers. I run a pair of these jacks directly from my DVD player into my
NAD amplifier, and bypass the TV set's audio circuits. I also run a pair
of jacks out of my TV set to the amp, so that when the broadcast program
has some good sound to offer, I can control it.

Same connectors, different signals.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD
player we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up
together, with an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the
highest possible video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also
carries audio signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a "Monster"
cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of resemble the
flat ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no idea
SONY had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier who
has the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two 50-cent
ends on it.

Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer. By
the way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer them a
little slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....


S-Video is the way to go when connecting the DVD to the TV.

BTW: Monster cables are overrated and overpriced.


I shouldn't bother, but SONY and other top drawer manufacturers disagree
with your opinion that "S-Video" is the way to go. My SONY manuals say
"component" video inputs offer the best video quality for DVD and digital
setop box connections. That's what I am using now, and it is noticeably
better than "S-Video," which is what I used first because the cable came
with the DVD. But the manuals also state the "best" input interface for an
HD TV is HDMI. Several other manufacturers of decent TVs and DVD players
state the exact same thing. Oh, and so does Crutchfield, from whom I
obtained a piece of gear. The exact quote: "using component video input
will result in a better image quality than S Video."

Frankly, I don't know what your area of expertise is, but it doesn't seem
to be computers or consumer electronics.

Harry, be nice...the guy was right in his time, he's just been outdated.
Until component inputs were available S-VHS was the best connector. He
probably doesn't have a HD TV with component cables so for him S-VHS IS the
best connector.

Then came DVI then HDMI. And HDMI is not always the best connector for your
TV, usually is though. Depends on which device has the best video
converter. On the higher end HD SONY TV's they have very good video
processing so I'd suspect that in your case HDMI is the best interface.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



No they are not. Well, yes the plugs are RCA, but the whole transmission
system is different. A basic primer:

Yellow "video" (composite) plug with RCA jacks are nothing more than
audio type wires and connectors. These are the ones that are packaged
with every audio/video device and are of the poorest quality in terms of
transmission of a video signal.

Higher quality video coaxial cable - RCA plugs again, but the wire is of
better quality, the dielectrics used are better, the shielding is better
and the resultant reactive impedance is more consistent. Much better
than the cheap "yellow" audio wires for video.

S-Video - DIN type connector - twisted pair of shielded wires for video
signal transmission - usually differentially inputted - better quality
transmission for video than both above.

Component cables. High quality RCA plugs - usually gold plated, but the
main difference is the video transmission scheme. Simply put, component
cables transmit the Blue, Green and Red components of the video signal
individually and are then recombined in the proper sync and levels at the
TV, monitor or whatever the video display is. By separating each drive
color, losses in the cables are compensated for. Best way to transmit
video.

HDMI - high quality lines for both video and digital audio. Basically,
mini coax versions of the component cables that allow for high bandwidth
signals with low loss or distortion.

Eisboch


You are a good man if you can tell the difference in picture quality when
using component cables vs. S-video.

Add a bad signal from the cable company or sat. TV provider and
poof.......

It is all hype........and all touted by the manufacturers and retailers.

And looking at the differences in prices...........I can understand why.

Hurry folks.............lookie see.......Jenuwine gold plating and
assembled only in kosher kitchens during a full moon. Git em while yew
can.. ;-)

I can see major difference when using component inputs, there is NO video
ringing and color saturation is better. Of course the better the TV the
more YOU can see the difference. With a non-HD or cheap HD TV it's hard to
see the difference.

I have seen NO difference between component cables (cheap to expensive)
doesn't mean their isn't, just I can't see the difference. Between
component to HDMI, a slight difference but that is always the difference in
the video converter (digital to analog). By the way a HDMI or DVI cable
carries the digital signal a component cable carries analog.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Ok, enough is enough.

A few weeks before Christmas all of this talk about Digital SLR cost me
over $500.

Now all this talk about Plasma Flat Screens, S-Video and Component Cables
made me realize my stereo is over 5 yrs old. my DVD is 3 yrs old, my Flat
CRT TV is 4 yrs. old, and I am not using S-Video or Component Cables.

I think this thread just cost me over $7000.
--
************************************************** ************************
If you would like to make rec.boats an enjoyable place to discuss
boating, please do not respond to the political and inflammatory
off- topic posts and flames.
************************************************** **************************

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
Ok, enough is enough.

A few weeks before Christmas all of this talk about Digital SLR cost me
over $500.

Now all this talk about Plasma Flat Screens, S-Video and Component Cables
made me realize my stereo is over 5 yrs old. my DVD is 3 yrs old, my Flat
CRT TV is 4 yrs. old, and I am not using S-Video or Component Cables.

I think this thread just cost me over $7000.
--
************************************************** ************************
If you would like to make rec.boats an enjoyable place to discuss
boating, please do not respond to the political and inflammatory
off- topic posts and flames.
************************************************** **************************



LOL!

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

JimH wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD player
we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up together, with
an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the highest possible
video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also carries audio signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a "Monster"
cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of resemble the flat
ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no idea
SONY had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier who
has the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two 50-cent
ends on it.


Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer. By
the way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer them a
little slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....


S-Video is the way to go when connecting the DVD to the TV.

Jim, you may want to do some research, SVideo is outdated, obsolete
technology.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to looking at the manuals for a TV set and DVD
player
we have, and noticed there was a "new" way to hook them up together,
with
an "HDMI" cable. The cable is supposed to provide the highest possible
video quality from a DVD to the TV set, and it also carries audio
signals.

$100+ for the manufacturer's branded cable, same price for a "Monster"
cable. Unbelievable. The fittings on the cable sort of resemble the
flat
ones on a USB cable, but they are not the same.

$100, for what I am sure is a perfectly ordinary cable. I had no idea
SONY had been taken over by the boating industry.

Anyway, I shopped around for a while, and found a no-name supplier who
has the cable for *only* $35. Sheesh. For a 6' cable with two 50-cent
ends on it.


Margins are pretty slim in the video biz. Accessories are the answer.
By
the way, Monster Cable is pretty good stuff. They manufacturer them a
little slower. Better solder connections, etc etc....


S-Video is the way to go when connecting the DVD to the TV.

Jim, you may want to do some research, SVideo is outdated, obsolete
technology.


I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video works
just fine for us.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
I had to look up Component Video Inputs to see what they are .....

They are just RCA plugs.



No they are not. Well, yes the plugs are RCA, but the whole transmission
system is different. A basic primer:

Yellow "video" (composite) plug with RCA jacks are nothing more than audio
type wires and connectors. These are the ones that are packaged with
every audio/video device and are of the poorest quality in terms of
transmission of a video signal.

Higher quality video coaxial cable - RCA plugs again, but the wire is of
better quality, the dielectrics used are better, the shielding is better
and the resultant reactive impedance is more consistent. Much better than
the cheap "yellow" audio wires for video.

S-Video - DIN type connector - twisted pair of shielded wires for video
signal transmission - usually differentially inputted - better quality
transmission for video than both above.

Component cables. High quality RCA plugs - usually gold plated, but the
main difference is the video transmission scheme. Simply put, component
cables transmit the Blue, Green and Red components of the video signal
individually and are then recombined in the proper sync and levels at the
TV, monitor or whatever the video display is. By separating each drive
color, losses in the cables are compensated for. Best way to transmit
video.

HDMI - high quality lines for both video and digital audio. Basically,
mini coax versions of the component cables that allow for high bandwidth
signals with low loss or distortion.

Eisboch


You are a good man if you can tell the difference in picture quality when
using component cables vs. S-video.

Add a bad signal from the cable company or sat. TV provider and poof.......

It is all hype........and all touted by the manufacturers and retailers.

And looking at the differences in prices...........I can understand why.

Hurry folks.............lookie see.......Jenuwine gold plating and assembled
only in kosher kitchens during a full moon. Git em while yew can.. ;-)

You probably should go back to rabbit ears and a black and white tv
using your reasoning.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:


I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video
works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?

Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a basic
cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is simply hooked up
to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the TV tuner to choose the
channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:


I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video
works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?

Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a basic
cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is simply hooked
up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the TV tuner to choose
the channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch

We have analog also although digital is offered. I just refuse to pay the
extra bucks for it.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
...


We have analog also although digital is offered. I just refuse to pay the
extra bucks for it.


Same for me for years ... I just wasn't into watching TV that much. But, at
the constant goading by a few people (who shall remain nameless) to "get
with it before the NFL playoffs start!", I tried the HD routine. I have
to admit - it's not bad. Only problem is that now I've noticed that some of
the most beautiful women movie stars have facial hair.

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video
works just fine for us.

Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?

Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a basic
cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is simply hooked
up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the TV tuner to choose
the channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch


Really? I had no idea you could still "do" that. No wonder I keep seeing
"PSAs" about "cable theft." I was wondering how the hell you could do that
if you had a remotely accessed cable control box on top of your TV set
that can be shut off by the cable company.


I suppose you could steal the service, assuming the cable company didn't
disconnect the cable at the pole. You can subscribe to it and it only costs
about 12.95 a month. Senior citizens can get it for about 9 bucks and they
get all the local channels plus most of the no cost cable channels.

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video
works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a basic
cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is simply hooked up
to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the TV tuner to choose the
channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch


We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video
works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a basic
cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is simply hooked
up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the TV tuner to choose
the channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch
We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)

When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or 2009) there
will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you have cable.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
. ..


When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or 2009) there
will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you have cable.


How do you figure that?

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
. ..


When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or 2009) there
will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you have cable.


How do you figure that?

Eisboch


The same as today with digital provided by the cable company yet viewable on
an analog set because of the digital receiver/cable box provided by the
cable company. It may no be HD quality, but it is digital.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


When you are ready to buy, take a long look at the glass tube flat screen
HD TVs before you pay extra for one of the thin screens. It is still true
that the glass tube TVs produce better pictures, and without your being
able to see pixels. And, of course, the viewing angle with a glass tube TV
is still wider than that of an LCD or plasma (overpriced) screen.


Ahem ... (cough) ... aaahhh....

I agree with your statement somewhat .... assuming you are talking about a
true CRT type monitor, of which only a few are still made for HD. All of
the non-plasma, non-LCD HD monitors I looked at were rear projection
types - looks like a big ol' picture tube, but isn't. These monitors suffer
from a significant view angle limitation.

Plasma does not. You can still view it at extreme angles.

Many of the new monitors - Plasma, LCD and rear projection are using a
glossy glass panel on the front as opposed to the low reflectance panels
used in the past. Even my new HP laptop has a LCD 17" Widescreen display
that looks glassy.

I am not sure about the future of CRT based HD television.

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com wrote in message
. ..


When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or 2009) there
will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you have cable.


How do you figure that?

Eisboch


The same as today with digital provided by the cable company yet viewable
on an analog set because of the digital receiver/cable box provided by the
cable company. It may no be HD quality, but it is digital.


Ok. I thought you were intimating that somehow you would get HD on a non-HD
set.
With digital you either get the channel or you don't. Analog will come in
although it may be weak, snowy or jittery.

Eisboch

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:05:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Same for me for years ... I just wasn't into watching TV that much. But, at
the constant goading by a few people (who shall remain nameless) to "get
with it before the NFL playoffs start!", I tried the HD routine.

Sounds like you are able to get HD reception on analog cable, or did I
read that incorrectly?

Does anyone know if HD is available via satellite? One of my goals
for the year is to get satellite TV for the boat and then figure out
how to pipe it into the house when we are home, followed closely by
kissing the cable company goodbye.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


When you are ready to buy, take a long look at the glass tube flat screen
HD TVs before you pay extra for one of the thin screens. It is still true
that the glass tube TVs produce better pictures, and without your being
able to see pixels. And, of course, the viewing angle with a glass tube
TV is still wider than that of an LCD or plasma (overpriced) screen.


Ahem ... (cough) ... aaahhh....

I agree with your statement somewhat .... assuming you are talking about a
true CRT type monitor, of which only a few are still made for HD. All of
the non-plasma, non-LCD HD monitors I looked at were rear projection
types - looks like a big ol' picture tube, but isn't. These monitors
suffer from a significant view angle limitation.

Plasma does not. You can still view it at extreme angles.

Many of the new monitors - Plasma, LCD and rear projection are using a
glossy glass panel on the front as opposed to the low reflectance panels
used in the past. Even my new HP laptop has a LCD 17" Widescreen display
that looks glassy.

I am not sure about the future of CRT based HD television.

Eisboch



And a Plasma TV, while SWMBO loves it as it does not dominate the room, uses
4 times the power of a normal TV. Big power hog.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:05:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Does anyone know if HD is available via satellite? One of my goals
for the year is to get satellite TV for the boat and then figure out
how to pipe it into the house when we are home, followed closely by
kissing the cable company goodbye.


Both DISH and DirecTV offer HD programming. An HD capable sat receiver is
required. As far as sat TV for the boat and home, not a tough deal to
accomplish. I'm a DISH subscriber. I pay the going rate for my service
package at home, and for an extra $5 per month I can have an additional
receiver access my account. In my case, the additional receiver resides
permanently on the boat. I started with DirecTV years ago with a receiver
only on the boat. I liked the service so well, I wanted to add it to the
house. DirecTV offers the same $5 monthly rate for an additional receiver,
but stipulates that both receivers be attached to the same telephone line.
I have no hard-wired telephone service at the dock in the marina, so DirecTV
wanted to charge me a full service subscription for the second receiver.
Dish has no such restrictions, and was happy to let me have the second
receiver anywhere I wanted it, with only the $5 extra monthly fee. Works
great for me. Before I subscribed to satellite TV, I briefly tried Cox's
digital cable service and didn't care for it. I like the DISH service much
better. I have basic cable going to the less important TV's in the house
and Cox's broadband cable internet service, which is terrific.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "RG" wrote:

Both DISH and DirecTV offer HD programming. An HD capable sat receiver is
required. As far as sat TV for the boat and home, not a tough deal to
accomplish. I'm a DISH subscriber. I pay the going rate for my service
package at home, and for an extra $5 per month I can have an additional
receiver access my account. In my case, the additional receiver resides
permanently on the boat. I started with DirecTV years ago with a receiver
only on the boat. I liked the service so well, I wanted to add it to the
house. DirecTV offers the same $5 monthly rate for an additional receiver,
but stipulates that both receivers be attached to the same telephone line.
I have no hard-wired telephone service at the dock in the marina, so DirecTV
wanted to charge me a full service subscription for the second receiver.
Dish has no such restrictions, and was happy to let me have the second
receiver anywhere I wanted it, with only the $5 extra monthly fee. Works
great for me. Before I subscribed to satellite TV, I briefly tried Cox's
digital cable service and didn't care for it. I like the DISH service much
better. I have basic cable going to the less important TV's in the house
and Cox's broadband cable internet service, which is terrific.

==================

Thanks, good information.

When you say "additional receiver", I assume you mean receiver and
antenna both?

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

..

When you say "additional receiver", I assume you mean receiver and
antenna both?


Yes. Since the boat is some 50 miles away from home, a second dish is
pretty much a requirement. The cost of the hardware (specially the dish
antennas) is chump change. The cost of the service is directly proportional
to the number of premium channels you subscribe to, just like with cable.
If you are considering the move to a satellite service, by all means get a
receiver with a built-in digital video recorder (same concept as TIVO). I
can tell you that it will absolutely change the way you think about, plan
for, and ultimately watch TV, and all for the better. The nice part of
having the DVR incorporated with the sat receiver is it cuts down on space
requirements and cabling, and you use the native guide for selecting
recording events. Way cool.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:13:44 -0700, "RG" wrote:

When you say "additional receiver", I assume you mean receiver and
antenna both?


Yes. Since the boat is some 50 miles away from home, a second dish is
pretty much a requirement. The cost of the hardware (specially the dish
antennas) is chump change. The cost of the service is directly proportional
to the number of premium channels you subscribe to, just like with cable.
If you are considering the move to a satellite service, by all means get a
receiver with a built-in digital video recorder (same concept as TIVO). I
can tell you that it will absolutely change the way you think about, plan
for, and ultimately watch TV, and all for the better. The nice part of
having the DVR incorporated with the sat receiver is it cuts down on space
requirements and cabling, and you use the native guide for selecting
recording events. Way cool.

Thanks again.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

JimH wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:


I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video
works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a basic
cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is simply hooked
up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the TV tuner to choose
the channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch

We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)


When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or 2009) there
will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you have cable.


Huh?
HD and digital are two different things.
If you want the best quality picture, you must buy a HD TV which taked
full advantage of the HD signals that most stations are ramping up.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the
S-video works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a
basic cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is
simply hooked up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the
TV tuner to choose the channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch

We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)



When you are ready to buy, take a long look at the glass tube flat
screen HD TVs before you pay extra for one of the thin screens. It is
still true that the glass tube TVs produce better pictures, and without
your being able to see pixels. And, of course, the viewing angle with a
glass tube TV is still wider than that of an LCD or plasma (overpriced)
screen.


I've been keeping close watch on Consumer Reports magazine (just paid
the $12.00 US so I could search online) for any ecommendations in HD
TVs. Quite a choice between the CRT type, LCDs, Plasma & DLP.
I'll increase my research when I get close to buying one.
My smaller living room (in a WW2 era house) calls for a 32" max.
Anything bigger is getting hard to lug around.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:


I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the S-video
works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a
basic cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is simply
hooked up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the TV tuner to
choose the channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch

We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)


When all channels in the US go digital (I believe in 2008 or 2009) there
will be no need to upgrade your TV's to HD if you have cable.
Huh?
HD and digital are two different things.

I never said otherwise Don.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

Harry Krause wrote:


I happen to have a recent vintage, SONY CRT HD monitor, 34" wide, and it
weighs 200 pounds, plus. It has what SONY calls an FD Trinitron Wega
picture tube. It happens to be the largest size screen that would fit
into the space I had, and when I bought it some months ago, I looked
very carefully at the plasma and LCD screens. To my eyes, the glass tube
monitor looked best. Our local "BestBuy" store has a huge selection of
big screen TVs of all types, and has viewing rooms, too. The plasmas
aren't bad, but they still do not outperform the glass tube models.


Here's what Consumer Reports says...

TV types: Weigh pros, cons, and prices

Today's market offers everything from familiar picture-tube TVs in new
shapes and sizes to jumbo rear-projection sets and flat-panel LCD
displays and plasma TVs that can be mounted on a wall. Each has pros and
cons, and there are vast differences in price. A growing number of the
TVs you'll find in stores are high-definition (HD) models. For more
details on these sets, see our HDTV report.

The main television choices available today a

Conventional picture-tube TVs Picture-tube TVs
The familiar sets with CRTs (cathode-ray tubes).
Quick take: Still tops for picture quality, these offer wide selection
and the best value.
Common screen sizes: 13 to 36 inches.
Typical selling prices: For HD-ready sets--about $800 for a 32-inch 4:3
set; $1,300 for a 34-inch wide-screen model. For standard-definition
analog sets--about $200 to $400 for a 27-inch set; $350 to $600 for a
32-inch model.
Pros: Least expensive type of TV, still the standard for best picture
quality. Mature technology with proven reliability and long life. No
limit on viewing angle.
Cons: Maximum screen size limited to 36 inches. Bulky, at 2 feet deep or
more. Heavy, with larger sets weighing 100 pounds or more.

LCD TVs LCD TVs
Like flat-panel computer displays, these thin sets have a backlight and
thousands of red, green, and blue pixels that open or close to let light
through, creating colorful images.
Quick take: Trendy flat screen with decent picture quality, but larger
screen sizes are more expensive than other types of TVs.
Common screen sizes: 14 to 37-plus inches.
Typical selling prices: About $1,000 to $1,500 for a 26-inch wide-screen
HD-ready set; $1,200 to $2,000 for a 32-inch. Prices could drop sharply
this year.
Pros: Thin and light. Can be wall-mounted. The best (generally HD sets)
are capable of displaying very good, bright images. Antireflective
screen minimizes glare from bright light. No risk of burn-in of static
images.
Cons: Price goes up sharply as screens get bigger. Most sets can't
display deep black or distinguish subtle shades of gray and black.
Fast-moving images may blur. Image may dim as you angle away from center
of screen, especially up and down. Long-term reliability not yet known,
but our initial data indicate low rate of repairs during first year of use.

Plasma TVs Plasma TVs
Flat-panel, big-screen TVs with thousands of red, green, and blue pixels
that are activated by "plasma"; these work somewhat like fluorescent
lights, creating very bright images.
Quick take: Big, bright screens with a real wow factor, but expensive.
Common screen sizes: 42 to 60 inches.
Typical selling prices: About $2,500 to $3,000 for a 42-inch HD-ready
set, $3,500 to $4,500 for a 50-incher.
Pros: Thin and light enough to be wall-mounted. The best (generally HD
sets) are capable of displaying excellent images with high brightness
and contrast and crisp detail. No limit on viewing angle. Bigger sizes
are cheaper than LCD TVs of comparable size.
Cons: Shiny surface can produce annoying reflections in bright lighting.
Brightness dims over time. Use a lot of power and generate a lot of
heat. Fixed items displayed for long periods can leave ghosted image.
Some sets don't include speakers or a tuner. Long-term reliability not
yet known, but our initial data indicate low rate of repairs during
first year of use.
Rear-projection (CRT-based) Rear-projection (CRT-based)
Jumbo sets that beam images onto a screen from three small CRTs
inside.br Quick take: The lowest-cost big screens, but they're space hogs.
Common screen sizes: 47 to 60 inches.
Typical selling prices: About $1,000 for a 51-inch integrated HD set.
Pros: Low price, wide selection, plentiful features. Mature technology
proven to have decent reliability.
Cons: Picture quality ranks lowest overall among all TV types. Big,
bulky, and heavy--more than 200 pounds for largest. Image may dim as you
angle away from center of screen. Shiny surface can produce annoying
reflections. Fixed items displayed for long periods can leave ghosted image.

Rear-projection microdisplays Rear-projection microdisplays
Newer, pricier big-screen sets, most of which use LCD, DLP, or LCoS
technology that allow for fairly slim cabinets.
Quick take: Relative slimness makes them an attractive big-screen
alternative.
Common screen sizes: 47 to 60 inches.
Typical selling prices: $2,200 to $3,000 for a 50-inch LCD- or DLP-based
integrated HDTV.
Pros: Thinner and lighter than CRT-based siblings. Cost less than
comparably sized plasma sets. No risk of burn-in of static images.
Cons: Image on some sets may dim as you angle away from center of
screen. May need to replace the lamp ($300 or more) during the life of
the set. Not as good as picture-tube sets for displaying deep blacks.
Some DLP models suffer from rainbow effect--annoying flashes of color
visible to some viewers. Reliability not yet known.

A front projector. Front projectors (available to subscribers).
A theaterlike experience on a giant screen but you must deal with a
complex setup.
Common screen sizes Screen, bought separately, comes in sizes up to 200
inches. Can use a wall. Projector has 9x12-inch or smaller footprint.
Typical price $1,100 and up for HD projector. Several hundred dollars
for screen.
Pros Picture size and characteristics are most like a theater screen's.
Cons Best viewed in dark room. TV tuner and speakers not included.
Screen affects picture quality and brightness. Most DLP units are
subject to “rainbow effect,” troubling to some viewers; LCD and LCoS
models often cannot render deep black. All three types require periodic
lamp replacement. No data on reliability. Professional installation can
be costly.

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:12:42 GMT, Don White wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:

I guess so. We do not have digital cable or HD tv sets so the
S-video works just fine for us.


Comcast hasn't gone to "digital" cable in your part of the country?


Many subscribers, me included up until a few days ago, just have a
basic cable service meaning there is no cable box. The cable is
simply hooked up to the VHF antenna input on the TV and you use the
TV tuner to choose the channels. In this case, all channels are analog.

Eisboch

We updated a year ago to digital.
Getting ready for the big shift to HDTV in the near future.
(read:...saving for the TV)



When you are ready to buy, take a long look at the glass tube flat
screen HD TVs before you pay extra for one of the thin screens. It is
still true that the glass tube TVs produce better pictures, and without
your being able to see pixels. And, of course, the viewing angle with a
glass tube TV is still wider than that of an LCD or plasma (overpriced)
screen.


I've been keeping close watch on Consumer Reports magazine (just paid
the $12.00 US so I could search online) for any ecommendations in HD
TVs. Quite a choice between the CRT type, LCDs, Plasma & DLP.
I'll increase my research when I get close to buying one.
My smaller living room (in a WW2 era house) calls for a 32" max.
Anything bigger is getting hard to lug around.

We went with the Sony KV-34XBR910, and absolutely love it. It's over a year old now,
so there may be a new model. This series also came in a 30". Ours is 34"

Something like this. http://tinyurl.com/92sh9

Consumer Reports liked the one we bought, and we've been very happy with it.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Yikes! Consumer Electronic Rip...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:05:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Same for me for years ... I just wasn't into watching TV that much. But,
at
the constant goading by a few people (who shall remain nameless) to "get
with it before the NFL playoffs start!", I tried the HD routine.

Sounds like you are able to get HD reception on analog cable, or did I
read that incorrectly?

Does anyone know if HD is available via satellite? One of my goals
for the year is to get satellite TV for the boat and then figure out
how to pipe it into the house when we are home, followed closely by
kissing the cable company goodbye.


With cable service the HD programs are on the cable (along with digital,
analog and internet). You need a cable co HD receiver to decode the HD
signal.

Both Direct TV and Dish Network offers HD programming.

Interestingly (and this confused me for a while) some HD TVs have a
built-in HD tuner that will decode broadcasts that are in HD. Broadcasts
meaning the old fashioned transmitter/antenna stuff - not cable or sat. The
Samsung I bought has this and initially I thought I would not need the cable
company box, but it is only for the "on the air" signal.

Eisboch

Eisboch