Audio playing in PCM mode not Dolby DIgital

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The fact remains, that the industry has decided that if you are going to use surround sound, then all component switching will be done at the receiver, and the TV itself will be nothing more than a display device. This is evident in how the HDMI-CEC system is setup, as well as the improvements in HDMI 1.4 (Audio return channel, for instance). In the manufacturers opinion, there would only be a single HDMI cable connected to the TV.

The only reason they see you having more than one input to the TV, is in, say, a bedroom scenario, where the IS no receiver. In which case, yes, the TV is the switching device... but it is also the audio device, so there is no reason to feed the surround sound to anywhere.

While I agree you seem to fail to recognize that not everyone has money to go out and buy new tech at the drop of a hat. I already had a component video capable surround sound receiver and a collection of HDMI capable devices when I acquired my HDTV. I wanted to be able to use HDMI while still using my quite capable surround sound receiver for audio. The HDTV was pure providence. I couldn't afford a new HDMI capable receiver then and I can't afford one now but I can still take advantage of HDMI while using my current surround sound equipment. How difficult is that to see?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

Government regulation doesn't have much to do with DRM?
In Canada, for example, you can legally copy material as the cost is figured into the blank recording materials (or so it was the last time I checked).
Here, isn't copying illegal?

As far as my soapbox goes, well, I'm not sure what you're angry about, but after watching how long and how bungled was the process to go from 4x3 SD to 16x9 HDTV in North America (how many standards were there again...18?),
I'll just say again that there are some things that could have been made faster and better with a unified body in control, and the implementation of HDTV was one of them. It took far too long (hell, my buddy in England had 16x9 CRT in 1993) to implement, we're still haggling over 720p, 1080p or 1080i, DRM, HDCP . . . etc. Heck, even in these forums, there are disagreements on if the HD-PVR crashes when fed 1080p as opposed to 720p.
I don't care, I just want it all to work.

If the FCC would lay down some regulations for how standards and formats are implemented, the testing would be done before market, and there would be no surprises for the buyer, as opposed to using the customers to test 'after the sale'.

Seriously, walk into a Best Buy and ask every sales person which TV passes DTS and DD through the SPDIF jack.
Bet you don't get an answer that's correct.

You'll have to figure that out at home, after delivery, after installation.
Often, that info doesn't even appear in the manuals.
That's just stupid.

To be more specific your example of Canada's CD tax actually has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. There's nothing restricting you to the content you put on those CD's. It's simply an added cost associated with the CD's to remunurate the music companies for supposed losses to piracy. DRM is a technical limitation such as the restrictions placed on some purchased iTunes content.

And in reality the government, at least the US government, has no control over that. There is no governmental body demanding DRM or even pushing DRM. All the push for DRM comes from individual corporations or groups of corporations that form a coilition such as CSS in the case of DVD. What the US government does do is make rules to make it illegal to circumvent that technology. Even the DRM behind HDMI and CableCard were not formed by any governmental agency. They were formed by their respective coilitions of corporations. Sure, the FCC approved CableCard for implementation but they didn't design it and don't really regulate it other than make specific rules for how the overall tech is supposed to be used (e.g. removable protection).

If you knew anything about the US you would know that our government generally regulates as little as possible. It leaves most economic decisions to the market, which it should. Not saying this is a perfect system but IMHO better than the over regulation of other governments. IMHO, it makes for over complicated rules that lead to an environment where it may be difficult not to break them.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

To be more specific your example of Canada's CD tax actually has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. There's nothing restricting you to the content you put on those CD's. It's simply an added cost associated with the CD's to remunurate the music companies for supposed losses to piracy. DRM is a technical limitation such as the restrictions placed on some purchased iTunes content.

And in reality the government, at least the US government, has no control over that. There is no governmental body demanding DRM or even pushing DRM. All the push for DRM comes from individual corporations or groups of corporations that form a coilition such as CSS in the case of DVD. What the US government does do is make rules to make it illegal to circumvent that technology. Even the DRM behind HDMI and CableCard were not formed by any governmental agency. They were formed by their respective coilitions of corporations. Sure, the FCC approved CableCard for implementation but they didn't design it and don't really regulate it other than make specific rules for how the overall tech is supposed to be used (e.g. removable protection).

If you knew anything about the US you would know that our government generally regulates as little as possible. It leaves most economic decisions to the market, which it should. Not saying this is a perfect system but IMHO better than the over regulation of other governments. IMHO, it makes for over complicated rules that lead to an environment where it may be difficult not to break them.

You may find this article interesting, especially the part about the iPod not existing if DRM had existed first, a "market" creation, so to speak.
Oh, I got an 'A' in U.S. Political Science AND U.S. history, which helped me quite a lot lately in a board game about the wine industry. Who knew that Thomas Jefferson was a French wine connoisseur. Oh, I did.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/201...rm-debate.html

With Netflix rise to stardom (stock up from $17 to $207, up $24 today alone!), and their LACK of 5.1 audio in their streams, it appears audio quality is getting worse as "the market" pans out. To me, as a consumer, that's not good. How is it possible they can fit HD video in a stream, but not audio, which consumes less bandwidth?

But I digress . . . I still think that all current standards should be able to pass through a TV, unincumbered by laws or lack thereof. You prefer the government stay out of TV, whereas I believe the public would be better served if they could rely on consistency when purchasing very expensive products, like automobiles, or televisions. The market, and it's involvment, is a political conversation for which we obviously disagree. I just want all the junk on my TV to work.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

While I agree you seem to fail to recognize that not everyone has money to go out and buy new tech at the drop of a hat. I already had a component video capable surround sound receiver and a collection of HDMI capable devices when I acquired my HDTV. I wanted to be able to use HDMI while still using my quite capable surround sound receiver for audio. The HDTV was pure providence. I couldn't afford a new HDMI capable receiver then and I can't afford one now but I can still take advantage of HDMI while using my current surround sound equipment. How difficult is that to see?

I'm not disagreeing with that fact. My point was that others are in that exact same scenario (as I was for years), and have chosen to go the other route (switching on the receiver), and have zero problems routing the surround sound - which seemed to be your complaint. There is really no perceptible difference in the HDMI video vs. the Component video, and you'd have everything you want (DTS included). In fact, the only reason i even GOT a new receiver was to get HD Audio capabilities. There has been no change in video quality moving to the new HDMI receiver over the previous component.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

There is really no perceptible difference in the HDMI video vs. the Component video

This is debatable. 1080p component video on my Insignia looks horrible with dog legs all over the place. 1080i is ok but I'd rather be at 1080p.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

This is debatable. 1080p component video on my Insignia looks horrible with dog legs all over the place. 1080i is ok but I'd rather be at 1080p.

Debatable? Of course, however, for the majority of users/equipment the difference will be imperceptible. The fact that it looks like crap on one TV is hardly an acceptable sample size. Just because you bought hardware that can't handle it (due to defective hardware or poor design) doesn't mean that the other millions of TVs out there can't.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Debatable? Of course, however, for the majority of users/equipment the difference will be imperceptible. The fact that it looks like crap on one TV is hardly an acceptable sample size. Just because you bought hardware that can't handle it (due to defective hardware or poor design) doesn't mean that the other millions of TVs out there can't.

Bought? You obviously haven't been following. It was a prize. I got it for free. I had no input into the make and model of the tv.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Bought? You obviously haven't been following. It was a prize. I got it for free. I had no input into the make and model of the tv.

I've been reading along and I missed that tidbit yesterday. Obviously it's not relevant info and wasn't something I checked into long term memory Even so, whether it was purchased or free the fact that 1080p looks like crap on 1 TV means nothing when discussing perceptible differences in component v HDMI.