DTV Pal running slow

[Mike S.]

In article <rsudnRkY48G7VpXXnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Kalarama <xxxx@whobody.com> wrote:

"DaveC" <me@bogusdomain.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C62DBAA0040B8C2FB04709AF@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
My DTV Pal set top box is starting its scheduled channel changes late.
Currently it's running 10 minutes late.
-snipped for brevity-

Have you tried the newest [f207] firmware?

More Q&As , with clock info, here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1099071

Upgradeable firmware for the STB? I think we're confusing two different
product here; the STB and the DVR.

 

[John E.]

Because the product called the DTV Pal works with ATSC. It's just
a name. (It originally was called the TR-50 (not TR-40, the -40 was
a CECB)).

I think ya got it backward:

The DTVPal is equivalent to TR-40; just a ATSC converter.

the DTVPal DVR -- a.k.a. TR-50 -- is a ATSC converter and DVR rolled into
one.
--
John English

 

[Eeyore]

akaSoetoro wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andy from Dover wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
DaveC wrote:

Model, make etc ?
DTV Pal (also marketed under the model name TR-40) by Dish Network.
Means nothing to me. Why are you using PAL in the USA ?
Not PAL as in the video standard but Pal as in that's what the set-top box
is called. Kind of like VCR meant any format (VHS or Beta) Video Casette
Recorder in the US and not a specific format of Video Casette Recorder or
Video.

How deliberately confusing is that ?

PAL = Phase Alternate Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL

NTSC = never twice the same colour.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/why.html

Eeyore=Idiot

There is another acronym.

PAL = Pure Aesthetic Loveliness.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Alan wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

How deliberately confusing is that ?

PAL = Phase Alternate Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL

NTSC = never twice the same colour.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/why.html

Apparently only to someone who has had their brain fried by the 50 Hz
flicker of slow television.

It has been accepted by many, that NTSC has given *better* color than
PAL ever since solid state electronics have made phase response stable
in the early 1970's.

And how do you justify that statement ?

We were broadcasting TV in Britain quite some time before WW2 sonny.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

DaveC wrote:

See this link, similar problem. Could be the station clock is off ...

No such luck. Each station is spot on and agrees with my computer's clock
(I'm using a computer as a DVR).

I assume he meant your cable provider's clock is off, not the programme
providers themselves.

Graham

 

[William Sommerwerck]

It has been accepted by many, that NTSC has given *better* color
than PAL ever since solid state electronics have made phase
response stable in the early 1970's.

This is wrong for several reasons.

First, NTSC originally incorporated phase alternation, but it was dropped
because (in the early '50s) there was no easy way to take advantage of its
advantages. (I have the issue of Electronics magazine to prove this. The
earliest NTSC proposals also used equal-bandwidth R & B primaries. In short,
NTSC was basically PAL.)

Phase alternation was also dropped because the US microwave transmission had
excellent group-delay characteristics, which European transmission did not.
So phase-alternation's ability to automatically compensate for hue errors
(caused by non-linear group delay) -- at the cost of desaturation -- was not
much of an advantage.

Strictly speaking, NTSC is "better" than PAL because it provides wider color
bandwidth. The systems are pretty "Tweedle-Dum" and "Tweedle-Dee". They are
slightly different ways of doing exactly the same thing.

The reason NTSC too-often didn't look very good was simply lack of concern.

 

[Eeyore]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

It has been accepted by many, that NTSC has given *better* color
than PAL ever since solid state electronics have made phase
response stable in the early 1970's.

This is wrong for several reasons.

First, NTSC originally incorporated phase alternation, but it was dropped
because (in the early '50s) there was no easy way to take advantage of its
advantages. (I have the issue of Electronics magazine to prove this. The
earliest NTSC proposals also used equal-bandwidth R & B primaries. In short,
NTSC was basically PAL.)

Phase alternation was also dropped because the US microwave transmission had
excellent group-delay characteristics, which European transmission did not.
So phase-alternation's ability to automatically compensate for hue errors
(caused by non-linear group delay) -- at the cost of desaturation -- was not
much of an advantage.

Strictly speaking, NTSC is "better" than PAL because it provides wider color
bandwidth. The systems are pretty "Tweedle-Dum" and "Tweedle-Dee". They are
slightly different ways of doing exactly the same thing.

The reason NTSC too-often didn't look very good was simply lack of concern.

I thought the audio carrier frequency was lower with NTSC than PAL, giving PAL a
larger video bandwidth.

Yup NTSC's audio carrier is 1.5MHz lower acc to Wikipedia. Plus PAL had 100 more
lines. That's probably where the bandwidth went.

Then wasn't there a 'PAL + ' that recovered video above the audio signal. Never
knew how far that got.
Not sure what to make of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%2B

Graham

 

[Nobody]

On Tue, 12 May 2009 17:54:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

It has been accepted by many, that NTSC has given *better* color than
PAL ever since solid state electronics have made phase response stable
in the early 1970's.

And how do you justify that statement ?

We were broadcasting TV in Britain quite some time before WW2 sonny.

Not in colour

IIRC, QE2's coronation (1953) was the first colour TV broadcast.

 

[DaveC]

I assume he meant your cable provider's clock is off, not the programme
providers themselves.

Graham

I have no cable service. This is all over-the-air reception (DTV) in the USA.


The stb (set-top-box) converter (DTV-to-NTSC analog) apparently receives time
code from one or more of the local DTV broadcast stations and synchronizes
its clock to the station's. Something in this process is broken. Either the
broadcaster's time info is not being collected properly, or the stb's' clock
is not being synchronized.

Hence my questions.
--
DaveC
me@bogusdomain.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

 

[Eeyore]

Nobody wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 17:54:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

It has been accepted by many, that NTSC has given *better* color than
PAL ever since solid state electronics have made phase response stable
in the early 1970's.

And how do you justify that statement ?

We were broadcasting TV in Britain quite some time before WW2 sonny.

Not in colour

No, but we were well ahead.

IIRC, QE2's coronation (1953) was the first colour TV broadcast.

I doubt that myself. I recall my Dad buying one of the new dual standard UHF
625 line sets plus the original VHF 405 line in the mid 60s just in time to
see the Apollo landings on BBC2 on 625 line. That was in B&W. There was a
selector switch for 405 / 625 ( VHF / UHF ) on the front and each had 4
channel presets available. I 'adopted' that ( tubed ) set once we got a
transistorised colour one and kept it for years.

I think Colour came to the UK on the UHF 625 line standard in the late 60s. I
recall seeing 'Cream' playing their last concert at the Albert Hall in colour
on BBC2 as a 15 year old IIRC and that would be 1969.

It took a long time for the commercial stations to catch up.

Graham

 

[Martin Riddle]

"DaveC" <me@bogusdomain.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C62F44920467E095B04709AF@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

I assume he meant your cable provider's clock is off, not the
programme
providers themselves.

Graham

I have no cable service. This is all over-the-air reception (DTV) in
the USA.


The stb (set-top-box) converter (DTV-to-NTSC analog) apparently
receives time
code from one or more of the local DTV broadcast stations and
synchronizes
its clock to the station's. Something in this process is broken.
Either the
broadcaster's time info is not being collected properly, or the stb's'
clock
is not being synchronized.

Hence my questions.
--
DaveC
me@bogusdomain.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

Well someone goofed. I'd say look for a RTC crystal (32.7khz thingy). If
not there then they are using the main processor clock. It could be just
that the parallel crystal caps are the wrong value, or the crystal is a
cheap cut.
Experiment, make a oven and keep a constant temp, does it loose time?

The programmer forgot to resync the clock from time to time.

Cheers

 

[Alan]

In article <4A09A9E1.72ABB323@hotmail.com> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

Alan wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

How deliberately confusing is that ?

PAL = Phase Alternate Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL

NTSC = never twice the same colour.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/why.html

Apparently only to someone who has had their brain fried by the 50 Hz
flicker of slow television.

It has been accepted by many, that NTSC has given *better* color than
PAL ever since solid state electronics have made phase response stable
in the early 1970's.

And how do you justify that statement ?

The color gamut of NTSC is wider than PAL. The frame rate of system M
provides visibly better motion rendition (at least to someone who has been
watching system M for years, 50 Hz systems are much poorer at rendering
motion). The phase errors that motivated the creation of PAL basically
ceased to exist in the early '70s when solid state electronics became stable
enough to hold phase without visible errors.

We were broadcasting TV in Britain quite some time before WW2 sonny.

In black and white. In fact, black and white broadcasts were occuring
in the U.S. before WW2 as well.

Alan

 

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

akaSoetoro wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andy from Dover wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
DaveC wrote:

Model, make etc ?
DTV Pal (also marketed under the model name TR-40) by Dish Network.
Means nothing to me. Why are you using PAL in the USA ?
Not PAL as in the video standard but Pal as in that's what the set-top box
is called. Kind of like VCR meant any format (VHS or Beta) Video Casette
Recorder in the US and not a specific format of Video Casette Recorder or
Video.
How deliberately confusing is that ?

PAL = Phase Alternate Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL

NTSC = never twice the same colour.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/why.html
Eeyore=Idiot

There is another acronym.

PAL = Pure Aesthetic Loveliness.

Or PAL = Peace At Last.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[DaveC]

Upgradeable firmware for the STB?

A reply from the manufacturer's support department confirms that no f/w
upgrades are available for the STB. Only the DVR model is supported for f/w
upgrades.
--
DaveC
me@bogusdomain.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

 

[Alan]

In article <0001HW.C62EE04604505EE9B01AD9AF@news.sf.sbcglobal.net> incognito@xbjcd.com writes:

Because the product called the DTV Pal works with ATSC. It's just
a name. (It originally was called the TR-50 (not TR-40, the -40 was
a CECB)).

I think ya got it backward:

The DTVPal is equivalent to TR-40; just a ATSC converter.

the DTVPal DVR -- a.k.a. TR-50 -- is a ATSC converter and DVR rolled into
one.
--
John English

Except the original poster referred to using it for recording, so
it was obvious that he was just shortening the name of the DTVPal DVR.
It was another poster who didn't understand that and mentioned the
TR-40.

Alan

 

[John E.]

Except the original poster referred to using it for recording, so
it was obvious that he was just shortening the name of the DTVPal DVR.
It was another poster who didn't understand that and mentioned the
TR-40.

Alan

It's a TR-40, just a converter.

I'm using a computer to do the DV recording.

Dave (the OP).

--
John English