# ATSC Roamio



## tykoto (Jan 22, 2008)

Could it be possible to get a Tivo Roamio Plus or Pro and add some sort of cable card or something to convert it to ATSC instead of just QAM?

I need more hard drive space and I need component out connectors. Since my antenna signal is a little weak, it would be nice to not have to split the signal and lose some stations by having multiple Tivo units. 

I'd like to be able to feed multiple TV's off one Tivo with no signal loss from my antenna. But I need component out, not to mention more hard drive space. The regular Roamio is nice but it really just an afterthought for us antenna users. (Is Tivo not aware of just how many subchannels there are now with movies and content that will fill up the hard drive of a family of 4?)


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

You can just plop a new 3T drive in the base unit and you are good to go with additional space.


----------



## tykoto (Jan 22, 2008)

I know that but it doesn't solve the problem of component out.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Use a Mini and get the component out cables.


----------



## tykoto (Jan 22, 2008)

I suppose that would work but I'm not very happy about it. I'd have to put the Roamio in another room and bring the mini into the room with the antenna drop. But maybe the signal wont degrade running the wire another 25 feet or so. I'd have to test it.


----------



## Tico (Dec 10, 2002)

http://smile.amazon.com/E-More®-Com...keywords=hdmi+to+component&pebp=1416339789568


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Tico said:


> http://smile.amazon.com/E-More%C2%AE-Component-Converter-Supporting-Coaxial/dp/B00JVNUAEI/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1416339776&sr=8-4&keywords=hdmi+to+component&pebp=1416339789568


Cool device. Does it defeat hdcp copy protection?


----------



## Tico (Dec 10, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Cool device. Does it defeat hdcp copy protection?


Nope


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

Roamio Plus/Pro is only for digital cable use, no antenna. 

The basic model is the only Roamio model with antenna or cable use. The drive can be easily changed over to a much bigger one, up to 3Tb without any special intervention. The only caveat is this will void the warranty. Basic Roamio has HDMI and with a special cable, is composite (yellow, with audio white/red)

Technically, QAM is ATSC, rather all digital signals are ATSC. The old analog is NTSC. This is just a format of the signals (I think).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ThAbtO said:


> Technically, QAM is ATSC, rather all digital signals are ATSC. The old analog is NTSC. This is just a format of the signals (I think).


Not quite. ATSC and QAM are two separate modulation standards. All digital TV is still transmitted via analog signals, they just hide digital data in the analog signal using special modulation, which is a pattern in the frequency fluctuations. Like how an old modem would transmit data as analog phone signals using sounds. The modulation standard (ATSC & QAM) determines the exact pattern used to encode the digital data into the analog stream. Those two standards use slightly different patterns for encoding their data.

NTSC was true analog. It didn't hide digital bits in the stream, the variations in the signal actually translated directly into a signal that could drive the monitor. (at least in the old CRT days)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> All digital TV is still transmitted via analog signals,


Ok, Sheldon.

By that nitpickery, everything is analog.



Dan203 said:


> NTSC was true analog. It didn't hide digital bits in the stream,


Except for closed captions.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> Ok, Sheldon.
> 
> By that nitpickery, everything is analog.


My point was that the modulation between digital formats is different, so his statement that "all digital signals are ATSC" isn't really true. I went into detail so that maybe he, or someone else reading the post, could learn something they didn't know. Wasn't trying to be a d*ck, just spreading information.


----------



## tykoto (Jan 22, 2008)

I just thought the Tivo option would be a good way to avoid having to invest in more antennas or distribution amps to feed more than one TV. But I feel like for Tivo that is an afterthought and certainly small potatoes. Otherwise, why would you cripple the only version that has the ATSC tuner, with a smaller HD and no component out? Save a few bucks wherever you can I guess? A larger HD would be ideal since there are so many sub-channels now with lots of movies. I think now that stations realize they can have more revenue streams, we'll see more sub-channel stations. On analog they only had one, and now they can have more. And I know more and more people who are opting to drop cable altogether. 

I had looked at the HDFury HDMI to component out product as well. But if I am stuck with composite output instead of component, I might as well look at the Tablo. At least with that, I don't have to add on a separate Tivo stream and the Roku players are much cheaper. But maybe it will drive me crazy not being able to change channels very quickly? I don't know.

Also, I know about the modulation schemes. I'm still not sure why we chose ATSC. It seems to have a lot of problems with multipath. But according to rabbitears.info, there are some refinements to ATSC that could happen and there are improved tuners on the horizon as well. I was sorta hoping against reality that somewhere someone was thinking, what if we made a tuning card that could convert from one format to another. I don't even know if that is possible.

I'm sorry if I seem bitter but I'm just tired of thinking about this and doing all the number crunching. It just seems to be too much money at this point for a product that lacks just enough flexibility to make it annoying.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The ATSC tuners available now are much, much better than what I was using back in 2001. Or my First DirecTV HD TiVo with ATSC tuners in 2004.


----------



## pppingme (Apr 21, 2012)

mattack said:


> Ok, Sheldon.
> 
> By that nitpickery, everything is analog.
> 
> Except for closed captions.


Actually... in analog days, CC just "stole" the first line of video, if you have a monitor that doesn't overscan, you can see this, the very top edge (first scan line) of the video will be different than the rest, thats CC and other info.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

ATSC and NTSC are names of a bunch of old guys making up standards. "C" stands for Committee. Modulation methods are 8VSB for digital OTA and QAM for 99% of cable. QAM comes in several flavors, so does vsb. Check it with Google.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

pppingme said:


> Actually... in analog days, CC just "stole" the first line of video, if you have a monitor that doesn't overscan, you can see this, the very top edge (first scan line) of the video will be different than the rest, thats CC and other info.


But the captions were encoded as digital data. They used a pattern encoded into the luma of that first scan line to convey that digital info to the decoder. So he was right that NTSC wasn't 100% analog like I said.

Also it's not always just the first scan line. Some stations encoded additional info using the first few lines. This is where things like WebTV URLs and those TiVo "press thumbs up for more info" signals were stored.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

tykoto said:


> I just thought the Tivo option would be a good way to avoid having to invest in more antennas or distribution amps to feed more than one TV. But I feel like for Tivo that is an afterthought and certainly small potatoes. Otherwise, why would you cripple the only version that has the ATSC tuner, with a smaller HD and no component out? Save a few bucks wherever you can I guess?


I find the complaint that the hard drive is too small to be incongruous with the complaint that there is no composite out. If you want composite out, you could buy one of these: http://www.amazon.com/Component-Composite-w-Down-Scaling/dp/B003FJKHBU

Or get a black friday special TV that can do HDMI, which would probably be the better investment: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN32H...R&s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1416929765&sr=1-8


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Isn't it crippled by having any analog outputs? It's almost 2015. HDMI has been around for a long time now. I got my first HDMI devices back in 2004.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> Isn't it crippled by having any analog outputs? It's almost 2015. HDMI has been around for a long time now. I got my first HDMI devices back in 2004.


And I still have HDMI handshake issues in 2014 with a TV and DVR I bought in 2012. My Hopper will not work over HDMI reliably with my nearly top-of-the-line Samsung Plasma. Component works great though.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ncted said:


> And I still have HDMI handshake issues in 2014 with a TV and DVR I bought in 2012. My Hopper will not work over HDMI reliably with my nearly top-of-the-line Samsung Plasma. Component works great though.


I can't say I have those issues. I run some devices through an HDMI splitter, then through multiple HDMI switches before going into an HDMI port in my video processor. Then it goes to my receiver over HDMI to decode the audio and then goes to a Darbee Darblet for video enhancement over HDMI before going to an HDMI input on my display. Even going through all those devices it still works great over HDMI.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> I can't say I have those issues. I run some devices through an HDMI splitter, then through multiple HDMI switches before going into an HDMI port in my video processor. Then it goes to my receiver over HDMI to decode the audio and then goes to a Darbee Darblet for video enhancement over HDMI before going to an HDMI input on my display. Even going through all those devices it still works great over HDMI.


Wow. That seems...excessive. Is this perhaps your *hobby*?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ncted said:


> I find the complaint that the hard drive is too small to be incongruous with the complaint that there is no composite out. If you want composite out, you could buy one of these: http://www.amazon.com/Component-Composite-w-Down-Scaling/dp/B003FJKHBU


He was complaining that it didn't have component out. It has composite. There is an A/V breakout port that has composite video and analog audio. Unlike the Mini there is no breakout port for component video though.

I can't seem to find any devices that can convert HDMI to component. Probably because HDCP prevents it.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> He was complaining that it didn't have component out. It has composite. There is an A/V breakout port that has composite video and analog audio. Unlike the Mini there is no breakout port for component video though. I can't seem to find any devices that can convert HDMI to component. Probably because HDCP prevents it.


I think the HDFury line works Dan. I'm not sure though, I haven't used one for years since I used to have my big Sony G90 CRT projector that only had YPbPr/RGBHV inputs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> I think the HDFury line works Dan. I'm not sure though, I haven't used one for years since I used to have my big Sony G90 CRT projector that only had YPbPr/RGBHV inputs.


Yikes, those are $400+. Cheaper to just buy a new TV at that point.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

I'm also in the boat of having HDMI issues, with every TV in the house, when using base model Roamios. Even with direct-to-TV HDMI, it's been a PITA, since I migrated to 3 base Roamios, rather than 4 Premieres, and 2 TiVo HDs.

The fact that I could, and did, use HDMI switches with my older TiVos, only to have my Roamios not work well with anything (and not have component, while my TVs are just old enough to still have), has been a constant thorn in my side.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Yikes, those are $400+. Cheaper to just buy a new TV at that point.


Find the older used ones.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tykoto said:


> Could it be possible to get a Tivo Roamio Plus or Pro and add some sort of cable card or something to convert it to ATSC instead of just QAM?


Theoretically, yes, but TiVo has never offered support for anything like that.



> I need more hard drive space and I need component out connectors. Since my antenna signal is a little weak, it would be nice to not have to split the signal and lose some stations by having multiple Tivo units.


1. The Roamio is way better at tuning channels than the Premieres ever were.
2. An amp isn't a big deal to add, and should get the levels back up.
3. Get a new TV to replace that giant CRT RPTV, or whatever the heck you're using that doesn't have HDMI.
4. Put a 3TB hard drive in a Base Roamio.



> The regular Roamio is nice but it really just an afterthought for us antenna users.


OTA is an afterthought for TiVo for the most part. TiVo primarily builds cable DVRs, and their primary market is cable MSOs like RCN and Suddenlink. Then retail cable, and then, finally, OTA. Most users who are sophisticated enough to have a TiVo also have cable or FIOS.



> (Is Tivo not aware of just how many subchannels there are now with movies and content that will fill up the hard drive of a family of 4?)


There are basically 5 OTA channels, and a bunch of garbage that's not broadcast in HD. Sure, there's technically like 50 in many markets, but FIOS is pushing something like 400 channels, technically, but probably all but 50 of them are basically garbage.



Dan203 said:


> Not quite. ATSC and QAM are two separate modulation standards.


Well actually, OTA uses ATSC-8VSB, and cable uses ASTC-QAM.



tykoto said:


> I just thought the Tivo option would be a good way to avoid having to invest in more antennas or distribution amps to feed more than one TV. But I feel like for Tivo that is an afterthought and certainly small potatoes. Otherwise, why would you cripple the only version that has the ATSC tuner, with a smaller HD and no component out?


The OTA market basically has 5 channels to record, excluding the crappy SD sub-channels that are just old junk and re-runs, and the target market who doesn't have cable also is too cheap to spend much on a TiVo, so it wouldn't make sense to make a bigger, more powerful OTA TiVo. Also, basically no one needs component anymore, so it makes sense to get rid of it. Anyone who even knows what component is already has a TV with HDMI (or three).



> Also, I know about the modulation schemes. I'm still not sure why we chose ATSC. It seems to have a lot of problems with multipath. But according to rabbitears.info, there are some refinements to ATSC that could happen and there are improved tuners on the horizon as well. I was sorta hoping against reality that somewhere someone was thinking, what if we made a tuning card that could convert from one format to another. I don't even know if that is possible.


True, we picked an oddball standard over DVB like the rest of the world uses.



> I'm sorry if I seem bitter but I'm just tired of thinking about this and doing all the number crunching. It just seems to be too much money at this point for a product that lacks just enough flexibility to make it annoying.


Tablo appears to be a better solution for OTA-only users, as TiVo seems to be designed around the limitations of CableCard and CableLabs more than anything else as a cable-centric product.



ncted said:


> Wow. That seems...excessive. Is this perhaps your *hobby*?


aaronwt has me beat, but I have an HDMI switch feeding a DVDO EDGE, which then splits the audio and video for my TV and AVR.



Dan203 said:


> Yikes, those are $400+. Cheaper to just buy a new TV at that point.


Yeah, they're for high-end projection systems, although even those are mostly being replaced anyway at this point.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Also, basically no one needs component anymore, so it makes sense to get rid of it. Anyone who even knows what component is already has a TV with HDMI (or three).


Sweeping generalizations suck. Plenty of people have things like higher-end displays which don't always have enough HDMI inputs.

What with Tivo, Chomecast and an Amazon box my Pioneer 50" with only two HDMI inputs is a problem. Couple it with wanting to avoid the adventures of spousal rejection of complicating the source selection process. Yeah, yeah, universal remotes and all that... Pressing Input on the Tivo remote is still the least complicated way to avoid degrading the WAF. Don't get me started on the nonsense of HDMI switches...

So there's definitely still an audience out there that wants component. I'm just POd I didn't realize they'd stripped it out of the basic Roamio. WTF? All this matrix of what does/doesn't exist in the units is just STUPID.

Anyway, I'd still like to find an HDMI to component gizmo that won't introduce SOME set of nonsense over time.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

wkearney99 said:


> Sweeping generalizations suck. ............ So there's definitely still an audience out there that wants component. ...........


Yeah, like those of us with a Slingbox or three!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wkearney99 said:


> Sweeping generalizations suck. Plenty of people have things like higher-end displays which don't always have enough HDMI inputs.
> What with Tivo, Chomecast and an Amazon box my Pioneer 50" with only two HDMI inputs is a problem. Couple it with wanting to avoid the adventures of spousal rejection of complicating the source selection process. Yeah, yeah, universal remotes and all that... Pressing Input on the Tivo remote is still the least complicated way to avoid degrading the WAF. Don't get me started on the nonsense of HDMI switches...
> 
> So there's definitely still an audience out there that wants component. I'm just POd I didn't realize they'd stripped it out of the basic Roamio. WTF? All this matrix of what does/doesn't exist in the units is just STUPID.
> ...


That's what HDMI switches are for.(And universal remotes) I use at least eight HDMI switches in my three setups. I would never choose component over HDMI. one is analog one is digital. I do have a Slingbox that uses component, but you don't have a choice there. The ones that have an HDMI input are mostly useless with cable because of copy protection.

With my HDMI switches I use some that are auto switching and some that require a remote. With my Harmony remotes it changes everything automatically. And with the auto HDMI switches they also work perfectly too if you don't put more than one device on the switch that has a constant signal. So my Chromecast goes on one auto switch, my FireTV goes on another(my Roku has it's own input though because of the RGB output). I have around twenty HDMI devices in my main setup and i just hit one button on my harmony and everything that needs to be on, turns on. And everything is on the right input.

Without the Harmony remote it would be a pain trying to remember where everything is. But it makes it very easy. the touch screen display shows what the activity is and you just press it. And everything turns on or off that needs to.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We just bought a brand new 60" LG TV and it only has 1 HDMI port on the back. (+1 on the side) I was shocked! It's for a secondary room which will only have a Mini hooked up, so it's no big deal, but you'd think a relatively high end TV like that would have more then one HDMI input on the back.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wkearney99 said:


> Sweeping generalizations suck. Plenty of people have things like higher-end displays which don't always have enough HDMI inputs.


HDMI switch or AVR. I have both plus a video processor. Not rocket science.



> So there's definitely still an audience out there that wants component. I'm just POd I didn't realize they'd stripped it out of the basic Roamio. WTF? All this matrix of what does/doesn't exist in the units is just STUPID.


Not really. 2003 called, and it wants it's giant Mitsubishi RPTV back. It's finally time for legacy crap like component to die.



> Anyway, I'd still like to find an HDMI to component gizmo that won't introduce SOME set of nonsense over time.


It's called an HDMI switch or a new TV depending on the situation. Those Gizmos were a bridge for super expensive CRT projection setups that didn't have HDMI, but even those are probably all gone by now.



aaronwt said:


> That's what HDMI switches are for.(And universal remotes) I use at least eight HDMI switches in my three setups. I would never choose component over HDMI. one is analog one is digital. I do have a Slingbox that uses component, but you don't have a choice there. The ones that have an HDMI input are mostly useless with cable because of copy protection.


Yeah, I fought HDMI for a while, and then finally moved everything to HDMI, as it's just easier. Many HDMI switches are also auto-switching, although that only work for things that fully turn off. I have several of my secondary devices (Wii U, BD, XBOX) on an HDMI switch, so the auto-switching does work. My Roku, AppleTV, and other stuff are connected directly to the my video processor.



> I have around twenty HDMI devices in my main setup and i just hit one button on my harmony and everything that needs to be on, turns on. And everything is on the right input.


Darnit! You have more than me! I only have like 10 or 12!



> Without the Harmony remote it would be a pain trying to remember where everything is. But it makes it very easy. the touch screen display shows what the activity is and you just press it. And everything turns on or off that needs to.


Admittedly, my setup is smaller, but I have a schematic I made in Excel that shows what is hooked up to what.



Dan203 said:


> We just bought a brand new 60" LG TV and it only has 1 HDMI port on the back. (+1 on the side) I was shocked! It's for a secondary room which will only have a Mini hooked up, so it's no big deal, but you'd think a relatively high end TV like that would have more then one HDMI input on the back.


WOW. Every TV that I've seen over the past few years has 4, with one working for ARC. Still, hooking everything up to the AVR would solve issue, or if it's an old AVR without HDMI, an HDMI switch.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> WOW. Every TV that I've seen over the past few years has 4, with one working for ARC. Still, hooking everything up to the AVR would solve issue, or if it's an old AVR without HDMI, an HDMI switch.


In this case we don't intend to use an AVR. The TV will be hung on the wall with the Mini stuck to the back. I might get a sound bar eventually as a minor improvement over built in speakers, but that's it. (Need to see if the optical out passes AC3 5.1 or is down mixed to stereo)


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> That's what HDMI switches are for.(And universal remotes) I use at least eight HDMI switches in my three setups. I would never choose component over HDMI. one is analog one is digital.


Component DOES NOT have to mean analog. Likewise I mentioned my preference to avoid complicating the remote and switching situation.

_...reading comprehension seems a lost art sometimes..._


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

wkearney99 said:


> Component DOES NOT have to mean analog.


Yes it does! Component is an analog by definition.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Yes it does! Component is an analog by definition.


Wrong:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_component_video

It has become common language to refer to component video as the analog Red, green and blue rca/bnc connector signals on many consumer electronics devices, but that is certainly NOT "by definition". It is the same as how everyone calls tissues "Kleenex" or adhesive bandages "Band-Aids".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Wrong:
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_component_video
> 
> ...


So is digital component still three cables? If so then I don't see the point. Either way despite what it says on that page I would be shocked if it were to catch on.

And I call tissues, tissues. Never "Kleenex". Even though I do use the Kleenex brand of tissues. And I never said Xerox for a copy. Now with "Band-Aids" I will slip sometimes and use that instead of saying Adhesive Bandage.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Wrong:
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_component_video


While there may be a spec that allows digital data to be transmitted over component cables there are no devices in existence that actually use it. The component video being discussed in this thread, the one the Roamio basic lacks, is analog.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> So is digital component still three cables? If so then I don't see the point. Either way despite what it says on that page I would be shocked if it were to catch on. And I call tissues, tissues. Never "Kleenex". Even though I do use the Kleenex brand of tissues. And I never said Xerox for a copy. Now with "Band-Aids" I will slip sometimes and use that instead of saying Adhesive Bandage.





Dan203 said:


> While there may be a spec that allows digital data to be transmitted over component cables there are no devices in existence that actually use it. The component video being discussed in this thread, the one the Roamio basic lacks, is analog.


I'm not talking about digital over 3 separate cables like analog component. I'm talking about Digital component signals like that via HDMI, DVI, SDI, HD-SDI, etc. The YCbCr 4:2:0, 4:4:4, 4:2:2 type component signals.

i.e. - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#Terminology

and here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_SDI

*Color encoding
Several color encodings are possible in the serial digital interface. The default (and most common case) is 10-bit linearly sampled video data encoded as 4:2:2 YCbCr. (YCbCr is a digital representation of the YPbPr colorspace). Samples of video are stored as described above. Data words correspond to signal levels of the respective video components......"*

Dan, please don't spin doctor this. You said:



Dan203 said:


> Yes it does! Component is an analog *by definition*.


In response to this:



wkearney99 said:


> Component DOES NOT have to mean analog.......


and (in your words) *"by definition"*, that is completely wrong.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

HarperVision said:


> please don't spin doctor this.


For somebody that gets so mad over others using absolutes, or correcting you when you post inappropriate absolutes, you sure seem fine behaving the same way...

Just an observation, that's all. There's no subtext, or anything else to read into.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Dan, please don't spin doctor this. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WTF are you talking about? He said....



wkearney99 said:


> aaronwt said:
> 
> 
> > That's what HDMI switches are for.(And universal remotes) I use at least eight HDMI switches in my three setups. *I would never choose component over HDMI. one is analog one is digital.*
> ...


So in this particular context "component" was referring to the 3 analog cables used for video transmission. I realize there are several other meanings for the word "component", but the "definition" I was referring to was in context to the post I was quoting. I didn't realize I had to clarify exactly which version of "component" I was referring to, I thought it was clear by the context.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

OK, so let's look at this in a chronological flow:

*Originally Posted by aaronwt
I would never choose component over HDMI. one is analog one is digital.

Originally Posted by wkearney99
Component DOES NOT have to mean analog.

Originally Posted by Dan203
Yes it does! Component is an analog by definition

Originally Posted by HarperVision
Wrong:*

I know what the context of what was being said was. That wasn't what I was correcting. I was correcting your incorrect statement that "Component is an analog by definition", which it isn't and which is wrong.

Seems pretty clear cut to me, and right with the flow of what was said.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

nooneuknow said:


> For somebody that gets so mad over others using absolutes, or correcting you when you post inappropriate absolutes, you sure seem fine behaving the same way... Just an observation, that's all. There's no subtext, or anything else to read into.


I wasn't using an absolute, I was correcting Dan's absolute statement that "Component is an analog by definition", which it isn't.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

HarperVision said:


> I wasn't using an absolute, I was correcting Dan's absolute statement that "Component is an analog by definition", which it isn't.


My prediction: Bigg finds his way here, and chaos ensues!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

nooneuknow said:


> My prediction: Bigg finds his way here, and chaos ensues!


Haha, true!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> I know what the context of what was being said was. That wasn't what I was correcting. I was correcting your incorrect statement that "Component is an analog by definition", which it isn't and which is wrong.


So you're issue was that I used the phrase "by definition". Poor choice of words on my part, I'll give you that, but hardly worth derailing the entire thread over. This is basically the same as correcting my grammar. 

My point was that component video, as referenced in context to this thread, is always analog. wkearney99 implied that it could be digital, that's incorrect.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> In this case we don't intend to use an AVR. The TV will be hung on the wall with the Mini stuck to the back. I might get a sound bar eventually as a minor improvement over built in speakers, but that's it. (Need to see if the optical out passes AC3 5.1 or is down mixed to stereo)


Well, in that case, the input problem sort of solves itself, since there's no room to put anything else, other than maybe a Chromecast or a FireTV stick if the TV isn't already smart.



nooneuknow said:


> My prediction: Bigg finds his way here, and chaos ensues!


Not really. Dan already said what needs to be said:



Dan203 said:


> So in this particular context "component" was referring to the 3 analog cables used for video transmission. I realize there are several other meanings for the word "component", but the "definition" I was referring to was in context to the post I was quoting. I didn't realize I had to clarify exactly which version of "component" I was referring to, I thought it was clear by the context.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> ............Not really. Dan already said what needs to be said:


 As have I. The good doctor has been spun so much now, that we're all dizzy!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> As have I. The good doctor has been spun so much now, that we're all dizzy!


No, you were engaging in asinine technical nit-picking, while Dan was using common sense.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> No, you were engaging in asinine technical nit-picking, while Dan was using common sense.


There's the pot calling the kettle black.

Common sense in the AV world would never call component video "analog by definition".


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> There's the pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> Common sense in the AV world would never call component video "analog by definition".


Based on the context of consumer electronics, component video is entirely an analog system. We're not talking about a professional broadcaster's studio here.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Based on the context of consumer electronics, component video is entirely an analog system. We're not talking about a professional broadcaster's studio here.


Hmmmm, so HDMI and DVI are pro formats now. Interesting.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

FYI, from my "consumer" Epson 5030UB projector:


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> FYI, from my "consumer" Epson 5030UB projector:


What does that mean? It just shows that you are receiving a 1080P signal over component. There isn't anything unusual about a analog 1080P signal is there? I was using an analog 1080P signal to my first DLP set in 2005. Although I was using the VGA input for 1080P.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> What does that mean? It just shows that you are receiving a 1080P signal over component. There isn't anything unusual about a analog 1080P signal is there? I was using an analog 1080P signal to my first DLP set in 2005. Although I was using the VGA input for 1080P.


No, look closer please. It is the HDMI input receiving the digital component 1080p signal.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

aaronwt said:


> What does that mean? It just shows that you are receiving a 1080P signal over component. There isn't anything unusual about a analog 1080P signal is there? I was using an analog 1080P signal to my first DLP set in 2005. Although I was using the VGA input for 1080P.


<edit to insert> HarperVision beat me to the point/post, where he believes his projector menu readout vindicates his position </end edit>

As much as I hate to step into this (whatever), I think he's pointing out that the source input is "HMDI1" (implies a digital-only cable/interface), but the signal is identified as being "component" (which I don't even want to say what I think that implies, or speculate what he thinks that implies).

I'm no expert in the matter. But, the picture seems to imply component video being sent via HDMI cable, which I recall a great many articles stating only transports digital signals, leading to the part where said articles state HDMI cables either work, or don't, with no shades of gray in-between, thus making claims of one cable giving a better PQ, over another, null, void, and deceptive marketing practices.

I think that there's zero possibility of HDMI carrying analog signals, or the move to eliminate the analog hole, by removing component jacks, would make no sense, and active HDMI to component converters would need not exist, as simple passive adapters would work.

I think he sees this as proof that component can be digitally transmitted, and redeeming his arguments. I think it looks like a projector improperly identifying the signal, or using the wrong terminology.

DVI and VGA interfaces/cables can carry analog. But, at least one DVI interface leaves out the four pins that would carry it, just as DVI<->HDMI passive adapters lack those four pins on the DVI side, but DVI<->VGA passive adapters have to have those analog pins, or they'd be pointless. Neither of the two passives convert the signals, and both take measures to prevent being plugged into the wrong type of DVI signal source, by using a widened blade-type pin, that differs in width.

Regardless of what I say or think, I'm sure the debate will rage on...

Please just try not to drag me through the (expletive), as I have no interest in being part of the argument, which I doubt has moved anywhere near being over.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

nooneuknow said:


> <edit to insert> HarperVision beat me to the point/post, where he believes his projector menu readout vindicates his position </end edit>





nooneuknow said:


> As much as I hate to step into this (whatever), I think he's pointing out that the source input is "HMDI1" (implies a digital-only cable/interface), but the signal is identified as being "component" (which I don't even want to say what I think that implies, or speculate what he thinks that implies).


It it doesn't "imply" anything, it states emphatically and categorically that the signal is coming from the HDMI1 input and the signal type is digital component YCbCr video. Are you even being serious now? Do people here actually believe and not know the basics that the video they are receiving from HDMI (DVD, Blu Ray, HDTV STBs, TiVo, et al) is a digitized version of component video (YCbCr 4:2:2, 4:2:0, etc.)??? 

I'm amazed at all the people talking here about not wanting to go to cloud based DVRs and streaming so that THEY have control over THEIR programming and what and when and how THEY can watch, yet HDMI is basically doing the same thing to them. They can't control recording and copying of analog component video, so they are trying to close the analog loophole with HDMI, HDCP copy protection, etc.



nooneuknow said:


> I'm no expert in the matter.....


No argument here. 



nooneuknow said:


> .....But, the picture seems to imply component video being sent via HDMI cable, which I recall a great many articles stating only transports digital signals, leading to the part where said articles state HDMI cables either work, or don't, with no shades of gray in-between, thus making claims of one cable giving a better PQ, over another, null, void, and deceptive marketing practices.


It IS component video over HDMI....DIGITAL component! See above comments.

Cables CAN make a difference due to things like jitter, noise (reaching the error correction cliff), etc.



nooneuknow said:


> I think that there's zero possibility of HDMI carrying analog signals, or the move to eliminate the analog hole, by removing component jacks, would make no sense, and active HDMI to component converters would need not exist, as simple passive adapters would work.


True. The active converters are basically Digital Component to Analog Component converters.



nooneuknow said:


> I think he sees this as proof that component can be digitally transmitted, and redeeming his arguments. I think it looks like a projector improperly identifying the signal, or using the wrong terminology.


Well what you think is wrong, plain and simple and it certainly is proof. It's not like "I" made this standard up, so getting mad at me for pointing out the truth in all this is fruitless and moot.

My projector is 100% correct in what it states. It is you and all the others who are "improperly identifying the signal," and "using the wrong terminology".



nooneuknow said:


> DVI and VGA interfaces/cables can carry analog. But, at least one DVI interface leaves out the four pins that would carry it, just as DVI<->HDMI passive adapters lack those four pins on the DVI side, but DVI<->VGA passive adapters have to have those analog pins, or they'd be pointless. Neither of the two passives convert the signals, and both take measures to prevent being plugged into the wrong type of DVI signal source, by using a widened blade-type pin, that differs in width.


FINALLY, some truth!



nooneuknow said:


> Regardless of what I say or think, I'm sure the debate will rage on...


It's not a debate anymore, it is the HDMI STANDARD!!!



nooneuknow said:


> Please just try not to drag me through the (expletive), as I have no interest in being part of the argument, which I doubt has moved anywhere near being over.


The only reason this isn't over is because everyone here is not getting the FACT that component video can be and is both analog AND digital.....PERIOD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI:



> _"HDMI permits sRGB 4:4:4 chroma subsampling (8-16 bits per component), xvYCC 4:4:4 chroma subsampling (8-16 bits per component), YCbCr 4:4:4 chroma subsampling (8-16 bits per component), or YCbCr 4:2:2 chroma subsampling (8-12 bits per component).[44][45] The color spaces that can be used by HDMI are ITU-R BT.601, ITU-R BT.709-5 and IEC 61966-2-4.[44]"_


YCbCr is *DIGITAL COMPONENT* video!!!

Perhaps you'd like to take this weak argument you all are having with me over to the AVS Forums and see what comes of it? I'm game. It'll be funny seeing how hilarious your stances will be seen by the experts in the field. Or maybe you'd care to discuss this with Joe Kane, Joel Silver, Stacey Spears, et al.?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

I'll leave you all with this:


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Hmmmm, so HDMI and DVI are pro formats now. Interesting.


What? I didn't realize you'd figure out how to split the split hairs any more!



HarperVision said:


> It it doesn't "imply" anything, it states emphatically and categorically that the signal is coming from the HDMI1 input and the signal type is digital component YCbCr video. Are you even being serious now? Do people here actually believe and not know the basics that the video they are receiving from HDMI (DVD, Blu Ray, HDTV STBs, TiVo, et al) is a digitized version of component video (YCbCr 4:2:2, 4:2:0, etc.)???


OH. MY. GOD. I should have realized you could keep slitting and splitting and splitting those hairs.

Component video in consumer electronics is widely understood to be the analog Red, Green, and Blue RCA connectors. HDMI is not component, DVI is not component, nothing else is component. Period.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

HarperVision said:


> <Offensive flaming heap of (expletive) removed>


I fail to see any involvement on my part, prior to the post you just quoted, that supports your false accusations made against me, or that justifies your attack on me. Until that last post, I only politely pointed out a case of pot calling kettle black, made a prediction things would get ugly, had stayed on the sidelines, knowing I'd be right about the ugly, and the prophecy fulfilled itself.

You just aimed your flamethrower at the least involved person to say anything at all. If you can realize that, and pull the unwarranted vitriol, I'll leave you to fight with those who you were actually arguing with. I only said what I thought, as being what I thought, not as absolutes, or right versus wrong.

You not only want to fight, but dare me to come fight with you an another forum, too? I'm surprised you aren't on a mandatory TCF vacation, with an attitude like that, and the way you choose to express it. I'm no saint. But, if you think I have sinned so badly, you need to take a look in the mirror.

Analog is converted to digital all the time. But, that doesn't make the digitized version equal to something that started digital and stayed digital. I think that might be what many think of, when they hear "digital component video". I think a more proper way to say it would be "digitized component video". Digitizing an analog signal can allow it to run a distance over cables without suffering (further) analog degradation, but doesn't equate to the same as digital source to digital destination, with no analog conversions along the way.

I'm sure you'll find some way to argue about something in that paragraph, or claim it has no relevance. Go ahead, if you are sure you don't have any aneurysms waiting to burst, or don't care how high you pump your blood pressure. Sometimes people just inject a few thoughts into a thread, without actually trying to throw gas on a fire.

I see you did finally say "digitized" instead of "digital", which if you had went with in the first place, rather than arguing over "digital component video", you might have avoided the clusterfrack.

ETA: Either fix your unprovoked disregard for the forum rules (fix what this post started off about), or I will make use of the "report post" button.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> .......Component video in consumer electronics is widely understood to be the analog Red, Green, and Blue RCA connectors.


 Agreed, "understood" but not "by definition". I never contented that.


Bigg said:


> HDMI is not component,


 Yes it is.


Bigg said:


> DVI is not component,


 It can be, usually from a PC Video Graphics card.


Bigg said:


> nothing else is component. Period.


 Yes it is, see above.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

nooneuknow said:


> I fail to see any involvement on my part, prior to the post you just quoted, that supports your *false accusations made against me, or that justifies your attack on me.* Until that last post, I only politely pointed out a case of pot calling kettle black, made a prediction things would get ugly, had stayed on the sidelines, knowing I'd be right about the ugly, and the prophecy fulfilled itself. You just aimed your flamethrower at the least involved person to say anything at all. If you can realize that, and pull the unwarranted vitriol, I'll leave you to fight with those who you were actually arguing with. I only said what I thought, as being what I thought, not as absolutes, or right versus wrong.


I just re-read what I wrote. Not sure I see any false accusations or "attacks" on you?  Maybe the "blubbering" part? If so, I apologize and I'll remove that.



nooneuknow said:


> You not only want to fight, but dare me to come fight with you an another forum, too? I'm surprised you aren't on a mandatory TCF vacation, with an attitude like that, and the way you choose to express it. I'm no saint. But, if you think I have sinned so badly, you need to take a look in the mirror.


I was just suggesting to everyone involved, not just you, to bring it to a more appropriate forum for such discussions since this thread is derailed enough by stubbornness to just accept what is truth and admit they're wrong on what component video is and is not "an analog by definition".



nooneuknow said:


> Analog is converted to digital all the time. But, that doesn't make the digitized version equal to something that started digital and stayed digital. I think that might be what many think of, when they hear "digital component video". I think a more proper way to say it would be "digitized component video". Digitizing an analog signal can allow it to run a distance over cables without suffering (further) analog degradation, but doesn't equate to the same as digital source to digital destination, with no analog conversions along the way. I'm sure you'll find some way to argue about something in that paragraph, or claim it has no relevance. Go ahead, if you are sure you don't have any aneurysms waiting to burst, or don't care how high you pump your blood pressure. Sometimes people just inject a few thoughts into a thread, without actually trying to throw gas on a fire. I see you did finally say "digitized" instead of "digital", which if you had went with in the first place, rather than arguing over "digital component video", you might have avoided the clusterfrack.


I am in no way talking about analog component video converted to digital component video. I am talking about the signal being mastered from camera (if a digital one, or if on film then the telecine process) or source as digital component video from the start, then being transmitted over the airwaves, through satellites, recorded on media, etc. as component digital video.



nooneuknow said:


> ETA: Either fix your unprovoked disregard for the forum rules (fix what this post started off about), or I will make use of the "report post" button.


Disregard for forum rules? All I did was counter the misinformation you're all passing on. Please point out any forum rules that were broken. I'm serious.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Agreed, "understood" but not "by definition".


Why are you so focused on my choice of words?!?! Component, in the context of the post I quoted, is analog. Period. You're so hell bent on proving me wrong, for whatever reason, that you've locked in on my choice of phrasing rather then the intent of the message.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> No, look closer please. It is the HDMI input receiving the digital component 1080p signal.


 I completely missed that when looking at the picture. What kind of device is sending this?


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

@HarperVision: Please, just stop "scattergunning" your pent-up aggro-posts at individual members, like they are part of some collective group, conspiring against you. You said/did nothing to indicate that your response was for anybody, but me, until after after I responded. You seem to be falling into a habit of doing that.

That's my opinion, from my vantage point. If you have to ask on the other parts, it's not my place to give specifics, nor should I have to.

Give the word and we can mutually ignore-list each other. It may be for the best, since you seem to encourage battles between others, that haven't even started yet, but don't seem to like it when the tables are turned. Example: Me saying that chaos would ensue, and things would get ugly, were a page out of your own playbook. If that doesn't turn on a lightbulb, then I'm afraid this was a waste of a post, and the time it took me to carefully (diplomatically) word it.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Why are you so focused on my choice of words?!?! Component, in the context of the post I quoted, is analog. Period. You're so hell bent on proving me wrong, for whatever reason, that you've locked in on my choice of phrasing rather then the intent of the message.


I have no beef with you Dan, at all. I stopped posting about it once you said this:



Dan203 said:


> So you're issue was that I used the phrase "by definition". Poor choice of words on my part, I'll give you that, but hardly worth derailing the entire thread over. This is basically the same as correcting my grammar.  My point was that component video, as referenced in context to this thread, is always analog. wkearney99 implied that it could be digital, that's incorrect.


It's the people AFTER that, that kept trying to prove me wrong in that component was analog only whom I have been conversing with since.

Even you agreed it was a poor choice of words and component is digital and analog. If anyone's been argumentative and confrontational here, it's been them trying to carry on the incorrect, misinformed torch.

I completely agree that it has become commonplace to refer to component as being just the 3 color analog RGB connections. I even said as much when I made the band aid and Kleenex reference.

I was ONLY trying to EVER point out that "by definition" component video can be analog or digital. If people would've just replied with "oh really, I didn't know that" and then stated the proper context they were using it in this all would've been avoided. Instead it was being turned around and distorted into trying to make untruths into truths, just to be against me and argumentative for some ungodly reason.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> I completely missed that when looking at the picture. What kind of device is sending this?


That's the entire point I've been trying to make. That just comes from my TiVo's HDMI output. It's nothing magic or mysterious, it's just HDMI and it's standard!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

nooneuknow said:


> @HarperVision: Please, just stop "scattergunning" your pent-up aggro-posts at individual members, like they are part of some collective group, conspiring against you. *You said/did nothing to indicate that your response was for anybody, but me, until after after I responded.* You seem to be falling into a habit of doing that. That's my opinion, from my vantage point. If you have to ask on the other parts, it's not my place to give specifics, nor should I have to. Give the word and we can mutually ignore-list each other. It may be for the best, since you seem to encourage battles between others, that haven't even started yet, but don't seem to like it when the tables are turned. Example: Me saying that chaos would ensue, and things would get ugly, were a page out of your own playbook. If that doesn't turn on a lightbulb, then I'm afraid this was a waste of a post, and the time it took me to carefully (diplomatically) word it.


Are you actually still being serious, because this is starting to seem like a joke or I'm being punked?



HarperVision said:


> ......It is you *and all the others* who are "improperly identifying the signal," and "using the wrong terminology".....





HarperVision said:


> ......The only reason this isn't over is because *everyone here* is not getting the FACT that component video can be and is both analog AND digital.....PERIOD!





HarperVision said:


> ...Perhaps you'd like to take this weak argument *you all are having with me* over to the AVS Forums and see what comes of it? I'm game. It'll be funny seeing how hilarious your stances will be seen by the experts in the field. Or maybe you'd care to discuss this with Joe Kane, Joel Silver, Stacey Spears, et al.?....





HarperVision said:


> .......Disregard for forum rules? All I did was counter the misinformation *you're all passing on*. Please point out any forum rules that were broken. I'm serious.


Hmmmmm....doesn't really sound like what I said was only directed at you, but maybe my English language skills are just as poor as the comprehension skills around here?


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

HarperVision has been punked.

Mønti Pythøn ik den Hølie Gräilen Røtern nik Akten Di Wik Alsø wik Alsø alsø wik Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër? See the løveli lakes The wøndërful telephøne system And mäni interesting furry animals The characters and incidents portrayed and the names used are fictitious and any similarity to the names, characters, or history of any person is entirely accidental and unintentional. Signed RICHARD M. NIXON Including the majestik møøse A Møøse once bit my sister... No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"... We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked. Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti... We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. Møøse trained by YUTTE HERMSGERVØRDENBRØTBØRDA Special Møøse Effects OLAF PROT Møøse Costumes SIGGI CHURCHILLMøøse Choreographed by HORST PROT III Miss Taylor's Møøses by HENGST DOUGLAS-HOME Møøse trained to mix concrete and sign complicated insurance forms by JURGEN WIGG Møøses' noses wiped by BJØRN IRKESTØM-SLATER WALKER Large møøse on the left hand side of the screen in the third scene from the end, given a thorough grounding in Latin, French and "O" Level Geography by BO BENN Suggestive poses for the Møøse suggested by VIC ROTTER Antler-care by LIV THATCHER The directors of the firm hired to continue the credits after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked. The credits have been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute. Executive Producer JOHN GOLDSTONE & "RALPH" The Wonder Llama Producer MARK FORSTATER Assisted By EARL J. LLAMA MIKE Q. LLAMA III SY LLAMA MERLE Z. LLAMA IX Directed By 40 SPECIALLY TRAINED ECUADORIAN MOUNTAIN LLAMAS 6 VENEZUELAN RED LLAMAS 142 MEXICAN WHOOPING LLAMAS 14 NORTH CHILEAN GUANACOS (CLOSELY RELATED TO THE LLAMA) REG LLAMA OF BRIXTON 76000 BATTERY LLAMAS FROM "LLAMA-FRESH" FARMS LTD. NEAR PARAGUAY and TERRY GILLIAM & TERRY JONES

Due to poor ratings, this thread has been cancelled.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

ej42137 said:


> <snip>I know this is not as fun as purposefully misinterpreting the sense of one's use of the term "component video" as others have done in other threads, but I was curious as to whether I had somehow missed the point you were trying to make. If it turns out I am just picking nits, please accept my apology for contributing to the background noise.


We apologize for the person responsible for transplanting this quote. They left before they could be sacked.

We apologize for the fault in the cancellation of this thread. Those responsible have been banned.﻿


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Yes it is, see above.


And the hair-splitting is endless!!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> And the hair-splitting is endless!!


And the arrogance is non-stop.

Rule #1, Bigg is never wrong.
Rule #2, if Bigg is ever wrong, see rule #1.



wkearney99 said:


> Component DOES NOT have to mean analog. Likewise I mentioned my preference to avoid complicating the remote and switching situation. ...reading comprehension seems a lost art sometimes...


Thanks wkearney99, I fell on my sword for you and you ran off the battlefield, leaving me to be slaughtered by the barbarian hoard! 

I reiterate:


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Thanks wkearney99, I fell on my sword for you and you ran off the battlefield, leaving me to be slaughtered by the barbarian hoard!


That's because what he posted, in context, was wrong.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> That's because what he posted, in context, was wrong.


Oh, so not "by definition" then?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> And the arrogance is non-stop.
> 
> Rule #1, Bigg is never wrong.
> Rule #2, if Bigg is ever wrong, see rule #1.


I'm not the one endlessly splitting hairs!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I'm not the one endlessly splitting hairs!


I fail to see how correcting an incorrect statement regarding the standards of a worldwide audio video interface can be seen as "splitting hairs", but OK Bigg (add appropriate noun here), you win, you're right, as always in your mind. Enjoy.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> I fail to see how correcting an incorrect statement regarding the standards of a worldwide audio video interface can be seen as "splitting hairs", but OK Bigg (add appropriate noun here), you win, you're right, as always in your mind. Enjoy.


In consumer electronics, "component video" means an *analog*, 3 RCA connection. Delving into how video is transmitted over DVI or HD-SDI or anything else is just hair splitting, plain and simple.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> In consumer electronics, "component video" means an analog, 3 RCA connection. Delving into how video is transmitted over DVI or HD-SDI or anything else is just hair splitting, plain and simple.


Oh ok, so like I said earlier, then HDMI (which is digital component video) isn't considered "consumer electronics" then?......gotcha. 

Look, this isn't nor ever was the issue. The issue was, when someone said component video is "analog by definition". It is NOT, so I pointed that out. Period. It is known as and "understood" to be the analog Green, Blue and Red connectors, (like Kleenex and band aids as I mentioned numerous times), but that is NOT "by definition"!!!

With your logic then ALL tissues are Kleenex and ALL adhesive bandages are Band Aids. Sheesh, even Dan, whom I corrected, has said as much. Why do you keep this bullheaded arrogant thing going???


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Look, this isn't nor ever was the issue. The issue was, when someone said component video is "analog by definition". It is NOT, so I pointed that out. Period. It is known as and "understood" to be the analog Green, Blue and Red connectors, (like Kleenex and band aids as I mentioned numerous times), but that is NOT "by definition"!!!


In the context of this thread component is in fact analog "by definition"! While there may be other definitions for the word component, in this thread we were talking about the Red/Blue/Green connectors. The word component is very generic and likely used in many other specs and contexts. But in this thread we were talking about a specific version of "component" which is analog. You've gotten so caught up in my use of the phrase "by definition" that you lost sight of the context of the thread.

The point of my post was that wkearney99's statement that "Component DOES NOT have to mean analog" was wrong in the context of this thread. If he was using semantics, like you are, then it went over my head. But in the context of this thread component = analog, period!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> In the context of this thread component is in fact analog "by definition"! While there may be other definitions for the word component, in this thread we were talking about the Red/Blue/Green connectors. The word component is very generic and likely used in many other specs and contexts. But in this thread we were talking about a specific version of "component" which is analog. You've gotten so caught up in my use of the phrase "by definition" that you lost sight of the context of the thread.
> 
> The point of my post was that wkearney99's statement that "Component DOES NOT have to mean analog" was wrong in the context of this thread. If he was using semantics, like you are, then it went over my head. But in the context of this thread component = analog, period!


THANK YOU! You saved me trying to explain that!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

spin doctor
noun
: a person (such as a political aide) whose job involves trying to control the way something (such as an important event) is described to the public in order to influence what people think about it

Full Definition
:a person (as a political aide) responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> spin doctor
> noun
> : a person (such as a political aide) whose job involves trying to control the way something (such as an important event) is described to the public in order to influence what people think about it
> 
> ...


context
noun
1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, *usually influencing its meaning* or effect:
You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> context noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually* influencing its meaning* or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context. 2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.


Yes, influencing the meaning in that particular context, but NOT changing its true definition.

If I happened to ask someone for a Kleenex and they happened to know that in the context of what I'm asking that a Kleenex means a tissue and he gave it to me that doesn't mean that in turn ALL tissues *by definition* are Kleenex. Just in that context, he knew that by saying "Kleenex", I meant I needed a tissue.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Yes, influencing the meaning in that particular context, but NOT changing its true definition.
> 
> If I happened to ask someone for a Kleenex and they happened to know that in the context of what I'm asking that a Kleenex means a tissue and he gave it to me that doesn't mean that in turn ALL tissues *by definition* are Kleenex. Just in that context, he knew that by saying "Kleenex", I meant I needed a tissue.


It's not the same thing. In this case there are multiple definitions of the word "component", and in context the word we were using is in fact analog "by definition". This isn't a branding issue, like Kleenex. This is a word with multiple definitions, and the definition of the one we were referring to, in context, is not the same as the definition you keep quoting.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I typed "component video definition" in to Google and this is what it returned...



> Component video
> Component video is an *analog* format that carries visual data only, meaning audio cables are still required.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Yes, influencing the meaning in that particular context, but NOT changing its true definition.


I believe that the fact that HarperVision has used such an absurd tautology in an attempt to support his argument tells us that further attempts to reason with him would be as futile as to administer medicine to the dead.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

ej42137 said:


> I believe that the fact that HarperVision has used such an absurd tautology in an attempt to support his argument tells us that further attempts to reason with him would be as futile as to administer medicine to the dead.


Baaaaaaaaaa!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> I typed "component video definition" in to Google and this is what it returned...


Oh the internet said it, therefore it's truth!


----------

