 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Indeed. Except most signals aren't RF-modulated any more anyway. ;-)
They are over the air or over "raw" cable here. Perhaps things are different
in the UK.
> Having seen a few in the shop, there's absolutely no visible difference
> at all between a normal 50 Hz TV and a 200 Hz TV right next to it
> showing the same signal. (There *was*, however, a 4x price difference.)
Hmm. I could see the difference. Maybe you need an appropriate signal. Or
maybe I was fooling myself. :-)
>> It conducts better. And it never corrodes, so it'll keep conducting
>> better. And it doesn't rub off unless you plug it in and out a few
>> hundred times.
>
> Better... than what?
Better than other kinds of metals, in part because it doesn't corrode. I.e.,
in practice it conducts better than copper or aluminum. In theory, others
might be better, but you need that perfect connection to maintain it. Hence,
copper cables with gold cladding where it's exposed to the air.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But it's digital too, right?
Yes.
> ...but if it's digital then, by definition, it *doesn't matter* how good
> the lead is. (So long as the S/N ratio isn't *absurdly* low.)
Not really, since it's OK if the signal is lossy. Sure, once you get above a
particular quality, it doesn't help to have higher quality. But you can get
bit errors with sufficiently long or unshielded cables, just like with (for
example) ethernet. You can't run (for example) gigabit ethernet over a cable
only designed to support 10Mbps.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Recipe...book...?
Yeah. I think they had some ROM left over or something. Who would put a 50"
TV in the kitchen, tho?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Can you typically tell the difference between progressive-scan and
>> interlaced? (Obviously I've been watching interlaced all my life, and
>> I don't think I've ever seen progressive-scan - except on computer
>> monitors.)
>
> Yes, on fast-moving scenes. But not a lot.
>
Dunno if it's caused by the projector (it might eg. have crappy
uninterlacing), the player or feature of signaling itself, but there's
continous significant effect, if I enable progressive output from my
DVD-player. I don't think the interlaced picture of that player is
crappy though, since even it is better than with the LG I tried first.
Ie. hardware and it's faults can make the difference bigger.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But it's digital too, right?
>
> Yes.
>
>> ...but if it's digital then, by definition, it *doesn't matter* how
>> good the lead is. (So long as the S/N ratio isn't *absurdly* low.)
>
> Not really, since it's OK if the signal is lossy. Sure, once you get
> above a particular quality, it doesn't help to have higher quality. But
> you can get bit errors with sufficiently long or unshielded cables, just
> like with (for example) ethernet. You can't run (for example) gigabit
> ethernet over a cable only designed to support 10Mbps.
Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for
absurdly high bitrates.
Oh, wait...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Having seen a few in the shop, there's absolutely no visible
>> difference at all between a normal 50 Hz TV and a 200 Hz TV right next
>> to it showing the same signal. (There *was*, however, a 4x price
>> difference.)
>
> Hmm. I could see the difference. Maybe you need an appropriate signal.
> Or maybe I was fooling myself. :-)
Never underestimate the power of the human mind to fool itself! ;-)
"That one costs 4x as much? Oh yes, it *does* look better..."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The contrast ratio merely tells you how "black" a black screen really is.
No it does not. It only tells the ratio of brightest white and blackest
black. It doesn't tell if you really have a very good balck or very
bright white. Only the ratio of the two. LCD screens traditionally have
worse (brighter) black than CRTs and that is something the consumer has
to read from test reviews.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for
> absurdly high bitrates.
Error rates also go up very quickly with longer cables, so a 10-meter cable
is going to need to be much higher quality than a 1-meter cable.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for
>> absurdly high bitrates.
>
> Error rates also go up very quickly with longer cables, so a 10-meter
> cable is going to need to be much higher quality than a 1-meter cable.
Indeed. But who on earth is going to need a 10-meter HDMI lead? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:15:39 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yeah, but the "minimum quality" is really, *really* low, except for
>>> absurdly high bitrates.
>>
>> Error rates also go up very quickly with longer cables, so a 10-meter
>> cable is going to need to be much higher quality than a 1-meter cable.
>
>Indeed. But who on earth is going to need a 10-meter HDMI lead? ;-)
There are more things in heaven and earth, Andrew,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
