# TiVo AUX flicker problem



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

I tried searching on this forum for the answer to this but couldn't locate it, hence this post so apologies if I've missed it.

Since disconnecting and reconnecting my TiVo yesterday, and a load more things, I have a weird problem when watching via AUX on the TiVo in that the picture either flickers, or everything looks outlined like a cartoon or it flickers as if it's Macrovisioned - which it isn't as it happens on all channels - but the recording of the programme is fine.

I'm not sure if there's some RGB funny business going on but I've tried turning the RGB options on and off in the TiVo and the Sky box. My TV is a Panasonic TXW32R4 and it's connected to the same AV1 connection on there as it was before, so with everything being equal I've no idea what's causing it.

I've tried taking the Sky source from the Sky box's TV SCART and the VCR SCART, and with different SCART leads but no change.

I thought the TiVo AUX SCART might be the problem but I'm always gentle when unplugging stuff and it records and plays back perfectly fine so it's a very odd problem.

I also tried connecting my Xbox as a source and the same effect happened, and in both cases it's on darker pictures and not light ones.

TIA,


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

Try rebooting the Tivo. Its amazing what it sorts out. Worth a try.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

RichardJH said:


> Try rebooting the Tivo. Its amazing what it sorts out. Worth a try.


Thanks for the input, but it's still the same


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Hi Dom,

I run my TiVo signal through a DVD Recorder to the tv & I get a big flicker on most of the menu pages but not while watching content. It's not the answer to your problem but it might help to pinpoint it if you have a DVDR.

Regards,

Martin


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

martink0646 said:


> Hi Dom,
> 
> I run my TiVo signal through a DVD Recorder to the tv & I get a big flicker on most of the menu pages but not while watching content. It's not the answer to your problem but it might help to pinpoint it if you have a DVDR.
> 
> ...


Hi, I've just tried taking the DVD recorder out of the equation (I was recording a lot of things tonight on DVD and/or TiVo so didn't want to disturb the SCARTs) by unplugging the connecting SCARTs to it and unplugging the DVD recorder itself, but no change.

Tried taking the TiVo out of the loop altogether so I just got the Sky box running to the TV and that was fine, so it seems like a problem with the TiVo AUX but I don't get it as that's just meant to be passing through the source signal.

I also tried unplugging the TiVo, in addition to trying a restart earlier, but no joy either


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Dom,

What DVDR are you using?

Martin


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

martink0646 said:


> Dom,
> 
> What DVDR are you using?
> 
> Martin


Philips DVDR615.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

An addition to this, I'm wondering if the TiVo is creating some kind of problem with the contrast (which isn't corrected by anything I can do with the TV) as when I go to AUX it's almost like the picture is doing the problems I described while being very bright at the same time, and then when going back to the TiVo menu, the menu sometimes appears with bright contrast and sometimes with very dim contrast.

When it's dim, I can press AUX twice to see the source with its problems and then come back to the menu and it's generally bright again. That said, I don't know if this has any bearing on the original problem since I've also got the TiVo hooked up to a second TV (an old 4:3 in the same room - well, occasionally I like to play some Xbox while watching something undemanding at the same time) via RF which shows exactly what I can see on the main TV but without the contrast problems (it still shows the AUX problems described earlier, though, which is indicating that something dicky is happening in the TiVo)


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Just another quick addition - a youtube clip of the problem, in which I come across sounding like a depressed Alan Partridge on occasion, although that wasn't intentional 






Any further advice on this much appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Dom,

Whatever happened about your earlier sound problems with your faulty Tivo? I don't remember us seeming to hear of a final resolution on that although it seems you are still using a Tivo to record tv programs?


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

The sound problem remained unresolved, alas, and since other people had reported similar or the same problem I figured it was just one of those things that the TiVo eventually did.

I thought that started around October last year when I replaced the hard drive with a 120Gb drive, but later on I got round to listening to the Linda Smith tribute on BBC7 (recorded in June 2006) and the first series of Autopsy with the German surgeon bloke with trilby (recorded in, I think, January 2005), and those featured pops so this thing must've been happening for far longer before I actually realised it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> I thought that started around October last year when I replaced the hard drive with a 120Gb drive, but later on I got round to listening to the Linda Smith tribute on BBC7 (recorded in June 2006) and the first series of Autopsy with the German surgeon bloke with trilby (recorded in, I think, January 2005), and those featured pops so this thing must've been happening for far longer before I actually realised it.


You mean you slowly tuned in your ear to listen for them? I must say I seem to be very lucky with this Tivo in relation to those things having not happened so far (touch wood) despite it being a Day 1 box. Or perhaps I just have lousy hearing.

But doesn't a DVD afficionado like yourself who is sure to be in to lots of HD movies etc also have a Sky HD or a V+ box by now too? Of course I know one can't rely on those boxes to record things accurately like one can with the Tivo though.........


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> You mean you slowly tuned in your ear to listen for them? I must say I seem to be very lucky with this Tivo in relation to those things having not happened so far (touch wood) despite it being a Day 1 box. Or perhaps I just have lousy hearing.


They may well be happening. I never spotted them until after changing the hard drive. It's like when you see a film in the cinema and, for some time, don't spot the cue dots in the top-right corner every 20 mins at the reel change (not sure if this still happens now given the advances in cinema technology and the fact I haven't been to the cinema in 5 years). Once you're told about them, or spot them for the first time, you'll always spot them.



> But doesn't a DVD afficionado like yourself who is sure to be in to lots of HD movies etc also have a Sky HD or a V+ box by now too? Of course I know one can't rely on those boxes to record things accurately like one can with the Tivo though.........


To be honest, I couldn't give a hoot about HD (I'm not being rude or dismissive to you here, I just think it's very Emperor's New Clothes for reasons I'll explain).

I don't think HD will take off in the UK. Given the number of Joe Punters out there who think a 16:9 TV makes everything widescreen just by switching the TV on (how many of us have had to correct another's TV because they stretch an analogue or letterbox picture across the screen and think it looks alright?), similarly there are people who think buying an HD makes everything HD-quality.

Add to that, the fact that better systems are being worked on all the time and they'll try to sell us something new in a few years anyway, by which time even Joe Punter will have had chance to give DVD a good go.

I like my gadgets but I couldn't give a hoot about HD because (a) I'd need a screen size of at least 42" to make it worth the bother, and (b) it won't make Eastenders any less depressing or my shares go up any faster on Working Lunch (!)

As for Blu Ray or HD-DVD, why bother with either format when USB hard drives come in massive sizes and can store loads of stuff without the need for a possibly-redundant format and expensive discs.

Also, the BBC HD service was started 20Mbps and then they dropped it to 10Mbps, which isn't much more than DVD. They'll keep squeezing it, thinking the public won't notice.

For standard definition, the BBC (and other broadcasters) use such a dreadful bitrate on digital TV. The BBC's bitrate on digital satellite, for example, used to be excellent when I first got it in Feb 2000 (changing from analogue partly because there was more stuff on there, and partly because that included being able to watch [.tv] for 12 hours a day instead of 2!), but - and this was confirmed by their own admission when I asked someone at the BBC who will remain nameless - they dropped the bitrate like a stone shortly after this so the picture looked terrible, and then only brought it back up to half of the difference by the start of the 2000 Olympics.

So, basically, my theory TV-wise is that if the broadcasters can't get standard-def TV right, what the hell chance is there of them getting HDTV right and, instead, skimping on the bitrate for that when they want to shove in more channels?

Computer games would look good in HD, though. I've got an Xbox 360 and I thought about getting a Samsung 32" Slimfit HD CRT TV a while back but they've had 2 or 3 models out now and they've all had big problems. I wanted to stick with CRT as LCD and plasma don't seem to do standard-definition pictures any favours.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Totally agree with you that HD is an Emperors New Clothes job as was widescreen tv before it. In fact the 4:3 to widscreen format change has always been especially maddening because of all the years of inconvenience with cut off or stretched or letterboxed pictures that everyone has had to suffer as a result, just so the tv industry could find a way to keep up the sales of new tellies.

I stubbornly have a 9 year old 100hz 4:3 29" Philips Matchline Tv because I am a Formula 1 fan and Formula 1 is still broadcast in 4:3 and I hate watching 4:3 pictures stretched to fit a 16:9 screen and I hate watching a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 set with pillar boxed bars even more. Having said that the stretching technology seems to have got better on the more recent Plasman and LCD panels I have messed around with including the 32" LCD set my sister got a year or so ago. And yes she had set it up to stretch the 4:3 format picture to 16:9 format as you feared and had fed the picture to the tv via a coax aerial cable as she was used to with her old Sony 14" colour set that had no Scart socket. I still haven't persuaded her about the Scart cable and as I'm only there once a month or so I have given up for the time being.

To me program content is all important and visual quality is only a very modest aspect of the proceedings. And although I'm glad visual quality has moved on from Black & White to 4:3 colour really the visual improvment between 4:3 colour and 16:9 HD is tiny compared to the massive leap up from Black & White to a flattish screen 4:3 29" tv. But its amazing how even the most modestly budgeted households seem to have replaced a perfectly good CRT set with some widescreen set or other just because its the latest fashion. Ditto many households go on paying £35 per month to Sky because they wrongly imagine their Sky box stops working and is repossessed if they desubscribe.

Sorry to hear about the sound pops issue. I think it must just be your box as I my hearing is notoriously acute, even though my vision is very much so/so and only at all adequate when corrected from its heavy short sightdness by very strong lenses, and yet I never hear these emanating from the Tivo feed to my television.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Widescreen TV is fine, and I don't mind watching new programmes in 4:3 only if they were made that way (eg. Scrubs), but I don't want anything cropped which is why I rarely bother with films on TV since the main channels crop them to 16:9, so it's good that Film4 have finally got the hint since they went free and have gone back to showing 2.35:1 films in 2.35:1 and not cropped to 16:9 as they first did when they went free, making it no better than terrestrial C4.

However, Joe Punter still hasn't quite got to grips with widescreen TV and hasn't been used to DVDs for more than a few years so he's not going to suddenly dump that for the HD format which is why I don't think it'll take off in the UK. It's different for the US and Japan who have had to put up with NTSC for years.

Anyway, I'll call time on my HD rant there as it's gone off-topic


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> but I don't want anything cropped which is why I rarely bother with films on TV since the main channels crop them to 16:9, so it's good that Film4 have finally got the hint since they went free and have gone back to showing 2.35:1 films in 2.35:1 and not cropped to 16:9 as they first did when they went free, making it no better than terrestrial C4.


Could one of those projector television setups (not a back projector but simply one that projects on to a wall or a white projection screen in a darkened room) show a 2.35:1 film without having to resort to black bars at top and bottom?

I used to be an early adopter of a lot of technology but my removal from the world of high paid office servitude and surviving on a more modest income along with advancing years has persuaded me that a lot of the changes are simply a marketing con designed to extract more money.

Of course there are exceptions like Tivo which brought us a very real and major step forward in both convenience and functionality.

Coming back to the widescreen tvs why aren't there any 2.35:1 models out there are are there any films made with a wider aspect ratio than that?


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Could one of those projector television setups (not a back projector but simply one that projects on to a wall or a white projection screen in a darkened room) show a 2.35:1 film without having to resort to black bars at top and bottom?


Unlikely, since I'd imagine projectors are based on a 4:3 or 16:9 ratio so they can show a variety of things. Still, black bars on a 4:3 or 16:9 TV never bothered me because I'm watching the content between them.



Pete77 said:


> I used to be an early adopter of a lot of technology but my removal from the world of high paid office servitude and surviving on a more modest income along with advancing years has persuaded me that a lot of the changes are simply a marketing con designed to extract more money.


You don't have to spend a fortune. I replaced old TVs in my lounge, and also my bedroom (that one a 14" portable which is now in the kitchen), both with 28" WS TVs which were £160 each from Argos (in a 20% sale reduced from £200). The brand name says Thomson but it's generally the same TV inside whether it's Thomson, Bush or one of a number of names as long as the rest of the unit looks the same.



Pete77 said:


> Of course there are exceptions like Tivo which brought us a very real and major step forward in both convenience and functionality.
> 
> Coming back to the widescreen tvs why aren't there any 2.35:1 models out there are are there any films made with a wider aspect ratio than that?


16:9 is as close to the golden ratio (1.61:1) as you can get, which is the ratio in which we see through our eyes. 16:9 also sits just about slap bang in the middle, mathematically, between 4:3 and 2.35:1. A TV with a 2.35:1 would be too unfeasible to lug about or position in the average house, so you wouldn't get enough takers to make it viable, and would be useless for 4:3 material.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> 16:9 is as close to the golden ratio (1.61:1) as you can get, which is the ratio in which we see through our eyes. 16:9 also sits just about slap bang in the middle, mathematically, between 4:3 and 2.35:1. A TV with a 2.35:1 would be too unfeasible to lug about or position in the average house, so you wouldn't get enough takers to make it viable, and would be useless for 4:3 material.


My maths suggest that 15:9 (1.67:1) and 14:9 (1.56:1) are both closer to the Golden Ratio of 1.61:1 than 16:9 which is 1.78:1 But perhaps 16:9 is meant to allow for super humans? However as you view a television picture at a distance of several feet and can take in all of it I can't see that the Golden Ratio argument actually applies? There also seems to be scope for dispute given the BBC's extensive use of 14:9 for a lot of material broadcast on UHF analogue channels,

People seem to have coped with cinema screens for years and these I think are close to the 2.35:1 ratio? Of course perhaps that is why being in the front two or three rows at the cinema is not a good idea?


----------



## Cainam (May 25, 2004)

> Originally posted by Pete77
> because I am a Formula 1 fan and Formula 1 is still broadcast in 4:3 and I hate watching 4:3 pictures stretched to fit a 16:9 screen


Are you sure about that? My wife is the F1 fan in our house, but I saw a few minutes of the Australian GP this year and that was definately in widescreen. I asked her about it and she told me she had read in her F1 magazine that this was indeed the first race they were showing in widescreen.

Not seen any of the other races though, so cannot confirm if it was a one-off or a trial or anything.

Cainam


----------



## Ian_m (Jan 9, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> I stubbornly have a 9 year old 100hz 4:3 29" Philips Matchline Tv because I am a Formula 1 fan and Formula 1 is still broadcast in 4:3 and I hate watching 4:3 pictures stretched to fit a 16:9 screen and I hate watching a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 set with pillar boxed bars even more.


What are you waffling about.......  Please check facts before waffling.

The F1 on ITV is in 16:9 widescreen, I suppose if you are stuck with a 4:3 set you would have never realised otherwise.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Cainam said:


> Are you sure about that? My wife is the F1 fan in our house, but I saw a few minutes of the Australian GP this year and that was definately in widescreen. I asked her about it and she told me she had read in her F1 magazine that this was indeed the first race they were showing in widescreen.
> 
> Not seen any of the other races though, so cannot confirm if it was a one-off or a trial or anything.


Well I'm watching on a 4:3 set with a Sky Digibox set to crop the sides of the picture to make it fit so I wouldn't have noticed if it had changed. If it has I can see that the case for going to Widescreen has become much stronger.

However I am still very sceptical of using a widescreen LCD or Plasma with mainly SD material. So perhaps its time to pick myself up a widescreen CRT set on Ebay or via http://www.freecycle.org/


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Well I'm watching on a 4:3 set with a Sky Digibox set to crop the sides of the picture to make it fit so I wouldn't have noticed if it had changed. If it has I can see that the case for going to Widescreen has become much stronger.


Oh, smacked hands for Pete77! Cropping a 16:9 image to 4:3 is the devil's work! I saw my friend's parents do this on their 4:3 when they got cable several years ago. I couldn't figure out what the advantage was of paying out for cable, which could get a 16:9 image, and then cropping to 4:3 so they got a picture even less than the 14:9 they got with bog-standard analogue! Madness, I tells ya!



> However I am still very sceptical of using a widescreen LCD or Plasma with mainly SD material. So perhaps its time to pick myself up a widescreen CRT set on Ebay or via http://www.freecycle.org/


What price are you looking at? It also depends on what size 4:3 TV you have now. A 28" WS TV has the same picture height has a 21" 4:3, and a 32" WS TV relates to a 25" 4:3.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> I couldn't figure out what the advantage was of paying out for cable, which could get a 16:9 image, and then cropping to 4:3 so they got a picture even less than the 14:9 they got with bog-standard analogue! Madness, I tells ya!


The advantage is avoiding part of the tv screen that you have paid for no longer showing any picture and having those incredibly irrritating black bars showing (not to you but to me and to lots of people). OK so you are a purist but most people prefer to have their television screen filled up and only the minority set their widscreen to always show the true aspect ratio. Of course perhaps my acceptance of cropped pictures is why I never find any issues with using Basic recording quality.



> What price are you looking at? It also depends on what size 4:3 TV you have now. A 28" WS TV has the same picture height has a 21" 4:3, and a 32" WS TV relates to a 25" 4:3.


I have a 29" 4:3 so I imagine I need a 37" widescreen to get the same picture area. That also happens to be the smallest size in which Plasma screens are widely available. And Plasma seems in most people's opinions (apart from TCM2007 who maintains there is no difference mainly because he enjoys proving me wrong) to on average give a better result with SD material.

But because people paid over £1,000 for their monster 32" or 36" CRT set they seems to expect to still at least get around a couple of hundred for it but when you can get new 32" widescreen HD ready set of a tolerable quality around £500 or £600 or one of the Samsung CRT 32" HD sets refurbished for around £250 this seems madness to me, especially when they expect you to pick up the bloody thing from them as well. I would expect them these big CRT sets go for only about £50 to £80 to make the comparison with a new HD LCD or Plasma set far more appealing.

Personally I think I should wait for better and yet lower priced 37" and 42" Plasma sets to come out before making the change. The launch of the BBC and ITV's HD satellite service next year will I think what tips me over the edge on both widescreen use and possibly exclusive Tivo use (assuming the BBC/ITV box also has a hard drive and a PVR facility). When you are talking not only upgrading to not only widscreen Grand Prix coverage but HD widescreen Grand Prix coverage I will have to have it....................

Also there is always a chance my Philips may decide to break down again and decide the issue for me, although it has been stubbornly reliable since it was repaired for a dry joint fault four and a half years ago.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Ian_m said:


> The F1 on ITV is in 16:9 widescreen, I suppose if you are stuck with a 4:3 set you would have never realised otherwise.


Now it is 16:9 it appears but it wasn't until very recently, which you fail to admit in order to make yourself look cleverer.

Your second name isn't Murdoch by any chance is it?


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> The advantage is avoiding part of the tv screen that you have paid for no longer showing any picture and having those incredibly irrritating black bars showing (not to you but to me and to lots of people). OK so you are a purist but most people prefer to have their television screen filled up and only the minority set their widscreen to always show the true aspect ratio. Of course perhaps my acceptance of cropped pictures is why I never find any issues with using Basic recording quality.


You're making it out that the black bars are covering up the picture. They're not (as an aside there's something called Super 35 which is a separate entity in itself, but I digress).

This page gives a very good example of why cropping is madness, comparing 4:3 to 2.35:1
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_rotk/index.shtml



> I have a 29" 4:3 so I imagine I need a 37" widescreen to get the same picture area. That also happens to be the smallest size in which Plasma screens are widely available. And Plasma seems in most people's opinions (apart from TCM2007 who maintains there is no difference mainly because he enjoys proving me wrong) to on average give a better result with SD material.


On screen size, you don't need a 29" 4:3 image. Since most things are shot in 16:9 now, they tend to frame them differently so they use the width more and a bit less of the height that was used previously.

I wouldn't have a Plasma because the screen-burn-in on those is quicker than other types of TV for onscreen logos.



> But because people paid over £1,000 for their monster 32" or 36" CRT set they seems to expect to still at least get around a couple of hundred for it but when you can get new 32" widescreen HD ready set of a tolerable quality around £500 or £600 or one of the Samsung CRT 32" HD sets refurbished for around £250 this seems madness to me, especially when they expect you to pick up the bloody thing from them as well. I would expect them these big CRT sets go for only about £50 to £80 to make the comparison with a new HD LCD or Plasma set far more appealing.


There's often a reason why HD TVs are £500-600. They're bobbins.



> Personally I think I should wait for better and yet lower priced 37" and 42" Plasma sets to come out before making the change. The launch of the BBC and ITV's HD satellite service next year will I think what tips me over the edge on both widescreen use and possibly exclusive Tivo use (assuming the BBC/ITV box also has a hard drive and a PVR facility). When you are talking not only upgrading to not only widscreen Grand Prix coverage but HD widescreen Grand Prix coverage I will have to have it....................


Why would Grand Prix in HD be any better? Is that so when the car zooms past the camera at the speed of light, the sponsor's logo can be seen more clearly for just that fraction of a second?



> Also there is always a chance my Philips may decide to break down again and decide the issue for me, although it has been stubbornly reliable since it was repaired for a dry joint fault four and a half years ago.


I used to have a Philips 32" WS TV. Tried 4 of them. They were all terrible. I'll never have a Philips TV again.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> You're making it out that the black bars are covering up the picture.


No I never said that. I just don't like the fact that having the bars means part of my picture tube is not serving any effective purpose and making my picture smaller than it could be.



> I wouldn't have a Plasma because the screen-burn-in on those is quicker than other types of TV for onscreen logos.


Everyone seems to have their own prejudices. You are the first one to mention this issue. Personally I think the move to flat screen Plasmas and HDTVs is mainly designed to increase manufacturer profit margins as they are obviously far cheaper to ship, store and make than CRTs once they are produced in large volume.



> There's often a reason why HD TVs are £500-600. They're bobbins.


It depends on the screen size. You can get a tolerable 32" HD Ready from a well respected brand for £600 now if you keep an eye out for bargains. Perhaps £800 is needed for 37" and around £1,000 for something reasonable in 42".



> Why would Grand Prix in HD be any better? Is that so when the car zooms past the camera at the speed of light, the sponsor's logo can be seen more clearly for just that fraction of a second?


You clearly don't watch F1. Many of the cameras are now mounted on board the cars and you see long shots of action that don't just involve something passing quickly. HD would let you see the dashboard in more detail for instance.


----------



## Ian_m (Jan 9, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> Now it is 16:9 it appears but it wasn't until very recently, which you fail to admit in order to make yourself look cleverer.
> 
> Your second name isn't Murdoch by any chance is it?


1. This is on DTT.

2. Why do people always associate Sky with Murdoch nowadays. News International (?) is now only a part share holder in Sky (35%) I think. Its in Sky's annual report. I got slightly pulled apart (on this forum) once for calling Sky & Murdoch being the same, so I investigated and they are not.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Ian_m said:


> 2. Why do people always associate Sky with Murdoch nowadays. News International (?) is now only a part share holder in Sky (35%) I think. Its in Sky's annual report. I got slightly pulled apart (on this forum) once for calling Sky & Murdoch being the same, so I investigated and they are not.


Perhaps because none other than his son James Murdoch is the CEO of Sky!


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

Lots of good info. BUT way off topic for


> TiVo AUX flicker problem


Why does it happen so often


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

RichardJH said:


> Lots of good info. BUT way off topic for
> 
> Why does it happen so often


Yes it is off topic but pretty much with the consent of the thread starter who indeed started and also embraced the off topic discussions.

The reason it happens so often is because people expect forum discussions to be like a normal conversation with a human being at the pub in the evening. And there it is permissible to start discussion on one one topic and move to the other with there usually being some vague connection between the two.

If someone maliciously drags a thread off topic without the permission of the thread starter or most of the other thread participants that is when it becomes objectionable. However the line has to be drawn somewhere and when TCM started a thread saying it was about suitable hard drives for a Tivo and where the real thread subject was "Where has Pete 77 gone to" that was an off topicness too far and without any real excuse by almost anyone's standards.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

> You're making it out that the black bars are covering up the picture.
> 
> 
> Pete77 said:
> ...


You haven't really grasped the reason for widescreen. You get more picture with the image you're viewing, and it's the image you're viewing not the black bars. If black bars bother you on a 29" 4:3 TV, something seems a little not quite right there.



> I wouldn't have a Plasma because the screen-burn-in on those is quicker than other types of TV for onscreen logos.
> 
> 
> > Everyone seems to have their own prejudices. You are the first one to mention this issue. Personally I think the move to flat screen Plasmas and HDTVs is mainly designed to increase manufacturer profit margins as they are obviously far cheaper to ship, store and make than CRTs once they are produced in large volume.


Plasma/LCD/HDTV are "sexy", and "sexy" sells, regardless of whether they're any good. They're lighter, cheaper to ship, as you say, plus there's bugger all money to be made in CRT these days. However, the SD picture on a LCD/Plasma can't yet manage the quality of a CRT, AFAIK.



> There's often a reason why HD TVs are £500-600. They're bobbins.
> 
> 
> > It depends on the screen size. You can get a tolerable 32" HD Ready from a well respected brand for £600 now if you keep an eye out for bargains. Perhaps £800 is needed for 37" and around £1,000 for something reasonable in 42".


It's not about the screen size, it's that if you pay peanuts then you get a monkey of a TV. It's the old adage - you get what you pay for.

All that said, this is getting off-topic and is probly best suited to uk.tech.digital-tv or a similar newsgroup.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> You haven't really grasped the reason for widescreen. You get more picture with the image you're viewing, and it's the image you're viewing not the black bars. If black bars bother you on a 29" 4:3 TV, something seems a little not quite right there.


I do grasp what Widescreen tv is about which is (a) about letting us see films in something closer to their cinema aspect ratio, (b) about an image shape closer to what the human eye sees (although I think the edges of our fields of vision are actually an oval and not a rectangle aren't they unless my eyes are very unusual) and (c) about generating lots more tv sales for the tv industry by making perfectly healthy 4:3 tellies obsolete before their time.

Yes if I view with bars on a 4:3 image I see more of the picture that was filmed but to do so I also see a much smaller sized image in total, while part of my formerly serviceable picture tube area is wasted showing black bars. I have my perception of which I think is worse and you have your perception. The problem arises when, as with several participants in the forum with whom I have disagreed, you become convinced that only your point of view is valid on this issue. But if my point of view isn't valid then why do so many STB and widescreen manufacturers offer the option to fill the whole screen with a distorted image and why do so many tv owners prefer to use that option??? 

The reality is that to you not viewing in the original aspect ratio annoys the hell out of you but to me viewing black bars annoys the hell out of me. Simply two different points of view reflecting people with different priorites in their television viewing. And one of my original objections to getting a widescreen tv when there were few true widescreen broadcasts was that I would either have to watch lots of side pillar bars or see 4:3 pictures horribly stretched to fit as cutting off the top and bottom of a 4:3 picture to fit doesn't work as there is too much critical data there. By contrast historically there was rarely much important picture data one missed by cropping the far left and right sides of a 16:9 picture to fit a 4:3 screen.

[quote[Plasma/LCD/HDTV are "sexy", and "sexy" sells, regardless of whether they're any good. They're lighter, cheaper to ship, as you say, plus there's bugger all money to be made in CRT these days. However, the SD picture on a LCD/Plasma can't yet manage the quality of a CRT, AFAIK.[/quote]

Yes I know they have a less bright picture and poorer longevity and this in addition to the aspect ratio issue with stretching 4:3 pictures to fit them has kept me from upgrading from my 29" 4:3 set. By contrast I am one of the earliest adopters of DAB radio as it is a Win/Win situation in that FM radio still also exists.



> It's not about the screen size, it's that if you pay peanuts then you get a monkey of a TV. It's the old adage - you get what you pay for.


Sorry but it is all about the screen size as well as the product range's quality if we are talking money. All the manufacturers charge more for their LCD and Plasma tvs of any given screen quality level as you move up the screen sizes in their range. That is simply a matter of fact. Name me any manufacturer for which is this not true.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> I do grasp what Widescreen tv is about which is (a) about letting us see films in something closer to their cinema aspect ratio, (b) about an image shape closer to what the human eye sees (although I think the edges of our fields of vision are actually an oval and not a rectangle aren't they unless my eyes are very unusual) and (c) about generating lots more tv sales for the tv industry by making perfectly healthy 4:3 tellies obsolete before their time.


I still have a couple of 4:3 TVs - a portable in the kitchen and an old 26" set in my main room, which is nearby my 32" WS so I can play a game on the big TV while watching some TV on the 26" 4:3. Aside from the usual analogue, both 4:3 TVs only digital source is in 16:9 anamorphic (the portable can somehow picture up a Freeview box signal from upstairs) so I either get that vertically squeezed or, with the portable, I can squash it back down so it looks 16:9 letterbox.



> Yes if I view with bars on a 4:3 image I see more of the picture that was filmed but to do so I also see a much smaller sized image in total, while part of my formerly serviceable picture tube area is wasted showing black bars. I have my perception of which I think is worse and you have your perception. The problem arises when, as with several participants in the forum with whom I have disagreed, you become convinced that only your point of view is valid on this issue. But if my point of view isn't valid then why do so many STB and widescreen manufacturers offer the option to fill the whole screen with a distorted image and why do so many tv owners prefer to use that option???


They don't. Everyone I know who has a WS TV watches it properly. The example with my friend's parents was some time ago, but more up to date my Mum and my grandad have a 4:3 TV each with Freeview box. Both boxes are set to 16:9 letterbox.

If you think you're getting a great picture on your old 4:3, look up the word 'overscan' and be amazed.



> The reality is that to you not viewing in the original aspect ratio annoys the hell out of you but to me viewing black bars annoys the hell out of me. Simply two different points of view reflecting people with different priorites in their television viewing. And one of my original objections to getting a widescreen tv when there were few true widescreen broadcasts was that I would either have to watch lots of side pillar bars or see 4:3 pictures horribly stretched to fit as cutting off the top and bottom of a 4:3 picture to fit doesn't work as there is too much critical data there. By contrast historically there was rarely much important picture data one missed by cropping the far left and right sides of a 16:9 picture to fit a 4:3 screen.


These days, the image is better used to the full. Yes, most UK stuff has to be made 14:9-safe, but the 'scenery' (for want of a better term to call that bit that you get in 16:9 but not in 14:9) complements the rest. Some US shows, such as 24 and ER, really use the 16:9 frame to the full, so to crop those is impossible unless you don't mind whole characters being off-screen while they're talking(!)



> It's not about the screen size, it's that if you pay peanuts then you get a monkey of a TV. It's the old adage - you get what you pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> > Sorry but it is all about the screen size as well as the product range's quality if we are talking money. All the manufacturers charge more for their LCD and Plasma tvs of any given screen quality level as you move up the screen sizes in their range. That is simply a matter of fact. Name me any manufacturer for which is this not true.


That wasn't what I meant. I meant - if you pay under £1000 for an HD TV of any size then you're not going to get something that'll do the job as good as something of around £3000 and up. I think there we just missed what each other was driving at.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> That wasn't what I meant. I meant - if you pay under £1000 for an HD TV of any size then you're not going to get something that'll do the job as good as something of around £3000 and up. I think there we just missed what each other was driving at.


In short unless you have a very large salary and can afford an expensive HD television and Sky HD picking up one of the high end 36" Sony widescreens with a 1 year warranty on Ebay and watching SDTV may be a better bet.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Just getting back on topic, does anyone know what's causing this problem, please? (an example is at the Youtube link below). Thanks.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

dvdfever said:


> Just getting back on topic, does anyone know what's causing this problem, please? (an example is at the Youtube link below). Thanks.


Something is faulty with the Scart syncing on your television perhaps.

I used to be able to get a strange drunken rolling over and over output from my Tivo on the Scart output which was always cured by turning off the television and on again and cycling through the various different external socket sources. I then changed what I had attached to Scart 1 and the problem seemed to go away. Or was it when I had the Tivo on Scart 1 instead of Scart 2 that I had the problem. I forget now as I haven't seen that problem in ages.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Thanks, but I've tried swapping over what goes into the two SCARTs in the TV, and the effect (not the rolling, but the 'cartoon effect' - so it's not as badly affected) also passes through to a 4:3 TV in the same room which takes the same output from the TiVo but by RF.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Dom,

We've obviously drawn a blank here, but I'm wondering if there's something we're missing. You're obviously technically savvy with your kit and perhaps there's something you're considering benign which may not be. For example, you occasionally have mentioned DVDR, and a second TV also plugged into the same setup.

Take it back to basics. Sky -> Tivo -> TV. Tell us if there's a problem.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

dvdfever said:


> An addition to this, I'm wondering if the TiVo is creating some kind of problem with the contrast (which isn't corrected by anything I can do with the TV) as when I go to AUX it's almost like the picture is doing the problems I described while being very bright at the same time, and then when going back to the TiVo menu, the menu sometimes appears with bright contrast and sometimes with very dim contrast.


Ive just looked at the full screen version of the video to see it a bit clearer and it looks like for some reason, that the AUX input to your Tivo isnt properly terminated by a 75 ohm load. An unterminated video signal will be bright and also suffer from ghosting, in addition to which the incorrect video levels will also cause sync problems.

That seems to describe your problem EXACTLY !!!

Is this a permanent fault or does it come and go ?

If its permanent then you may be able to bodge a fix by putting 75 ohm resistors in the SCART plug going into Tivo across 17/20 (video/sync in), 13/15 Red, 9,11 Green, 5/7 Blue which will correctly terminate the signal but if it is only happening on Aux Bypass then resolving the problem could be more difficult.

Regards

Keith


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

katman said:


> Ive just looked at the full screen version of the video to see it a bit clearer and it looks like for some reason, that the AUX input to your Tivo isnt properly terminated by a 75 ohm load. An unterminated video signal will be bright and also suffer from ghosting, in addition to which the incorrect video levels will also cause sync problems.
> 
> That seems to describe your problem EXACTLY !!!
> 
> ...


There's definitely some ghosting in there which I can't shift, despite making all my SCART cables uni-directional, except for the one going to the DVD recorder (so the signal from that can pass through the TiVo to the TV) which I've already tried taking out of the equation to solve that.

It's permanent, but how do I put 75 ohm resistors into the SCART plug? (I'll happily sound a bit thick on this because it's something I've never done before).

It is also only happening on Aux bypass.

Might this be something that happened when having to move it about recently, so I've, in effect, damaged it?


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

dvdfever said:


> There's definitely some ghosting in there which I can't shift, despite making all my SCART cables uni-directional, except for the one going to the DVD recorder (so the signal from that can pass through the TiVo to the TV) which I've already tried taking out of the equation to solve that.
> 
> It's permanent, but how do I put 75 ohm resistors into the SCART plug? (I'll happily sound a bit thick on this because it's something I've never done before).


you need to open up the SCART plug and solder them to the pins of the plug. SCART plugs dont normally have resistors fitted to them, the resistors are normally in the equipment.



> It is also only happening on Aux bypass.


Im guessing that Tivo can automatically adjust its encoder to handle signals that arent the correct level so it is recording OK and when not on AUX Bypass you ar eviewing what Tivo has recorded



> Might this be something that happened when having to move it about recently, so I've, in effect, damaged it?


Quite possibly. SCART sockets particularly when used with thick heavy cables can put a lot of strain on the PCB connections and it is possible you may have broken some of the solder joints or PCB tracks.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

I'd probably be better buying a SCART that includes 75 ohm resistance, but out of this page:
http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/search/browse.jsp?N=411+401+111741+112630+1000448

please can you tell me which comes closest to this no-longer-stocked product (code AV00972) which was recommended in the link which follows it?
http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/Audio,+Video+&+TV/Leads/PRO+SIGNAL/AV00972/displayProduct.jsp?sku=AV00972

http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/topic/29669-1.html

(Edit: Just saw the P&P at CPC is £5.99 which almost doubles the cost. Are there any cheaper alternatives, as the nearest shop to me, Maplin, costs a fair amount for SCART leads)

(Edit again: Just found the cable they're talking about at this site which is £7.29 inc. P&P and I'll buy this if it'll solve the problem - http://www.kenable.co.uk/product_in...d/580?osCsid=f2722d4816375356fe56f9af6b8f588d )

TIA, Dom


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

dvdfever said:


> I'd probably be better buying a SCART that includes 75 ohm resistance


You wont be able to buy a cable with 75 ohm termination resistors because all equipment already has the resistors fitted.

Your Tivo somehow seems to have lost its terminations which is why you now need to try adding some.

Any reference you see to 75 ohm in relation to cables will be referring to the 75 ohm characteristic impeadance of the cable which is what all video cables should be.


----------



## Ashley (Apr 20, 2002)

Have you looked inside the TiVo to see if there are any breaks in the circuit board around the SCART sockets?


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Ashley said:


> Have you looked inside the TiVo to see if there are any breaks in the circuit board around the SCART sockets?


I haven't yet. I'm not sure what I'd do with them if I did, bar chuck it. Also, it'd mean unplugging a number of things and dealing with the other things stacked around it (which are the same it used to have so those shouldn't be a problem).


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

katman said:


> You wont be able to buy a cable with 75 ohm termination resistors because all equipment already has the resistors fitted.
> 
> Your Tivo somehow seems to have lost its terminations which is why you now need to try adding some.
> 
> Any reference you see to 75 ohm in relation to cables will be referring to the 75 ohm characteristic impeadance of the cable which is what all video cables should be.


Big thanks to katman who helped me out with trying this out with such a SCART lead, but unfortunately it didn't work, although I am very grateful for the assistance. :up:

Alas, I'm still on the lookout for the answer to this query and would really appreciate any further suggestions anyone has on this as it's still doing my head in


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Purchasing a replacement Tivo without the problem and transferring your lifetime subscription across (either officially with Tivo customer services of unofficially via the process that cannot be described here and that uses Telnet access) would seem to be the answer.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Purchasing a replacement Tivo without the problem and transferring your lifetime subscription across (either officially with Tivo customer services of unofficially via the process that cannot be described here and that uses Telnet access) would seem to be the answer.


Mine's one of the evaluation units, so I'd need to buy a replacement TiVo that has the lifetime subscription included.

That said, I was hoping the answer wouldn't include the words 'buy' and 'replacement'


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Just before I look into buying a new TiVo (well, one from Ebay), is there a customer service email address, please?

TiVo's main site just has an 0870 phone number and I don't want to spend ages initially trying to describe it over the phone when sending them an email to look at first including the Youtube link would allow them to digest it first. Ta.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

dvdfever said:


> Just before I look into buying a new TiVo (well, one from Ebay), is there a customer service email address, please?
> 
> TiVo's main site just has an 0870 phone number and I don't want to spend ages initially trying to describe it over the phone when sending them an email to look at first including the Youtube link would allow them to digest it first. Ta.


I'm not aware of an e-mail address - I'm not even aware of any TiVo staff at CS.

They are regular Sky CS staff - and TiVo calls are routed to TiVo trained staff.

You could call TiVo CS and Sky CS and get the same person each time.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

ozsat said:


> I'm not aware of an e-mail address - I'm not even aware of any TiVo staff at CS.
> 
> They are regular Sky CS staff - and TiVo calls are routed to TiVo trained staff.
> 
> You could call TiVo CS and Sky CS and get the same person each time.


Ta for the info. I've got an email address for Sky CS, although I suspect they only deal with basic queries and not technical ones. I could try the US TiVo customer service, I guess.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

Sky CS will not give you e-mail TiVo advice - and TiVo CS US will not help you with UK problems

Forget e-mail

If you have a particular query I may be able to get an answer if you PM me


----------

