Talk:Comparison of CECB units/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Analog passthrough

What does this term refer to, exactly? Djiann (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It means being able to pass the antenna signal through the box to a TV or VCR for NTSC tuning. The alternative to this is to split the incoming antenna cable to go to the CECB and an NTSC tuner but that introduces more signal loss than a properly constructed passthrough. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see.... clearly this is only relevant for another 351 days or so. But why would one want to do this? What's the benefit of getting a direct analog signal rather than a converted one? Maybe to receive stations that are not transmitting in digital yet? Djiann (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There are low power analog stations which aren't required to do the 02/09 digital switch, and as you said for now reception of full power analog is also still relevant. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Microprose

So we've got a Microprose user here. Maybe he or she can tell us why features which they had announced via their webpage keep disappearing? You know how to make a pretty box but don't know how to give it useful features or something? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: MPI-500 Manufacturer

Sorry, I didn't know a Microprose rep added that info. I thought someone mistakenly typed that in the wrong column as I did indeed try to verify it, but came up dry. --Tobey (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just a guess that the user Microprose is actually a representative of that company. Anybody can choose a username like that :-) Djiann (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We should only list boxes eligible for the $40 coupon

In my humble opinion. I wouldn't want people wasting time on boxes that they can not use their $40 card to buy. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, all boxes in this table are NTIA certified, or are awaiting NTIA certification. And if they are awaiting certification, it is noted at the bottom of the page. --Tobey (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales Links

It doesn't make sense for this page to have links to sales sites, the point of the table is to compare features not drive sales to any particular retailer. Theaveng repeatedly adds in a site primarily for sales, this must stop. Wikipedia isn't Pricewatch. The SolidSignal link is pretty iffy as well. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the sales site has reviews it is not relavant to this table, since reviews are very opinionated. In this table we want discrete data, data that is irrefutable.134.121.247.59 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

EPG

First off, I think we have to define what is a Full EPG is, does Full=7 day? Secondly, those boxes that have an EPG that only shows the current and next show, shouldn't those be green/Yes2, rather than red/No2?134.121.247.59 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I've learned "Full" for the EPG means either 7 whole days or as much as is available in the PSIP data, whichever is greater. All NTIA boxes have to have an EPG so yes/no is appropriate, but the head for that column should read "Full EPG" with a sup3 explanation at the bottom of the table. MHO. :) --97.114.21.39 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
"Full" is a full-featured EPG similar to what you would find on a cable box or sat receiver. "Now/Next" is merely a banner at the top or bottom of the screen which shows what's on now, and what's coming up next. "7-day" is similar to "Now/Next" except you can go up to 7 days into the future. But I'm thinking changing it to "Now/7-Day" might be a little more self-explanatory... And I only used the yes2/no2 tags for their colors, as sort of a visual queue to show that now/next is inferior to a full EPG. --Tobey (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
"to show that now/next is inferior to a full EPG" I would agree with that. I don't think there's any good reason not to have a full guide since the data is (almost always) available and volatile RAM to store it in the box is really cheap. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I'd change the "now/next" to "1 hour" because that's what it is - a view 1 hour into the future. And it provides consistency with the "7 day" tag. Just curious - Where does the EPG data come from? The local station the box is connected to? ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not 1 hour though, it's the current program plus the next. If it's two movies then it's four hours. Now/Next is the most appropriate. edit Program data comes from PSIP, most stations send out several days in advance but that isn't a requirement. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
True. Now/next is more descriptive. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Store Brand?

There was an edit of the Insignia entry to identify it as a Best Buy store brand box. Is this information something we should be keeping track of here? I can see how it could fit but at the same time it doesn't seem to fit in with the purpose of the article. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it to be somewhat relavant, but it would be better to make this distinction in an Insignia or Zenith article rather than here. I don't feel opposed to keeping the distinction listed on the chart, but I don't know whether it should be listed either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.59 (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Putting that information on a brand-name article or the store chain article itself is a better idea. I'm going to remove it from the CECB list because of that and because it adds clutter. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be more appropriate to just link Insignia to Best Buy#Private label brands? I wasn't sure how to disclaim where the brand came from and that's why I listed it as "BB store brand"; I don't like making one item stand out from the rest of course like I had to with a two-column entry. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It fits in with other links to actual manufacturers to point the users to who makes/markets the box. As you indicated doing so wouldn't bloat the table either, bonus. :) --97.114.21.39 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Availability

When it's known, is there any chance of adding what (physical) store chains carry each model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.197.227 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=997980 --97.114.21.39 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The following URL about current retailers of the CECBs appears more frequently updated:
http://www.ezdigitaltv.com/Converter_Box_Retailers.html Dmulvany (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Dmulvany (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

MaxMedia MMDTVB03

As requested e-mail correspondance:

Query: I wondering if your Model:MMDTVB03 has an analog passtrough cabability, NTSC signal can be recieved through the box?

Reply from James Bobik <Jamesb@maxgroup.com>: Yes our Box does support analog passthru

134.121.247.59 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that the MaxMedia company has not provided any information on its own web page about analog pass-through or digital closed captions for its CECB. (The company had emailed me on March 4th that digital closed captions would be provided after I pointed out that their web page at http://www.convertmy.tv/productInformation.html was unclear about what kind of closed captioning was being provided.) Why would a company not make valuable information about analog pass-through and digital closed captioning public on its own web site to drive up even more business? The possibility exists, I'm afraid, that the email responses may not be accurate. In other words, we don't truly know that the MaxMedia MMDTVB03 will provide analog pass-through or digital closed captions.
Does the following document about the MaxMedia MMDTVB03 say anything about analog pass-through? http://www.convertmy.tv/MaxMedia_new.pdf
Perhaps there should be a disclaimer that the features reported for the CECBs should be doublechecked before people buy anything online, and that they should print out a copy of the features from the reseller's web page before making their purchase. Also, should there be way of indicating what features have been claimed but not yet verified? (An online user manual or pictures might constitute proof.)Dmulvany (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia came with a disclaimer automatically. You can't cite it for school papers for instance because it's notoriously unreliable.
I've been thinking on how to rework that "This page contains general information about the Coupon-Eligible Converter Box units in table form." in the article to be more robust anyway so if I do it before someone else I'll be sure to add in a buyer beware note. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The merging of "Brand" and "Model" columns

These columns were recently merged into one by Theaveng so the table would “fit a 1024x800 screen". I undid this edit untill further discussion, because I believe it is completely absurd to destroy the ability to sort by model so the table will look slightly better on monitors of those using this resolution. --Tobey (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_CECB_units#Other_Features_Sub-Table --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do you want to sort by model number while ignoring the brand? —Random832 14:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're told to "check out the DTA-900" but don't know who makes it for example. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Image

I don't feel like making an account. Here is an image of the Zenith DTT900, a promo picture: http://i30.tinypic.com/e8wkk6.jpg If someone could upload it and stick a reduced size version of it up top on the article that would be great. Thanks. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, a frequent participant like you, 97.114.21.39, should provide an honorable reason for not wanting to sign in under a registered account here. You undid what I had written, however, which speaks volumes about your character and is also a violation of Wikipedia policy. The thing is, more and more people are going to realize they shouldn't give a lot of weight to the opinion of someone who refuses to sign in and is clearly avoiding something.Dmulvany (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not having an account is a violation of Wikipedia policy? Knock it off kid, it's getting old. I don't have an account. Because you're pestering me about it I WON'T make one. Get over it. Deal with it. Move on. Leave this unproductive complaint of yours alone. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not having an account was not the policy violation he accused you of. [1] is not appropriate, see WP:TPG. —Random832 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think this article needs a picture, but why add a picture of the Zenith DTT900 rather than another box?71.120.244.132 (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The Zenith was the first decent one I came across. Any CECB image would do I'd think, I just didn't happen to locate one from another brand. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
A promo picture would not be appropriate for this article due to the non-free content guidelines. —Random832 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Column vs. Other Feature

We should decide on what qualifies something to have its own column rather than be listed as an other feature. This is my opinion, columns should contain information that is available on a substantial amount of boxes. Any information that cannot be answered with a yes or no question should not be listed as an other feature. If the feature will be used by a majority of people who have that feature available then it should be listed as a column. So, I think universal remote should have it own column. The only thing that is unclear is what defines "substantial".71.120.244.132 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more user-friendly just to use columns for features that are present in at least a significant number of CECBs, perhaps in the neighborhood of seven to ten. Relatively uncommon features should be put into the "Other features" since infrequent features don't need a separate column. However, every column should be as narrow as possible, using strategies such as creating recognizable abbreviations for the headings, which should be explained in more detail anyway at the bottom of the grid. (Most abbreviations should be as recognizable as possible; many of the current "codes" aren't.) Also, all the columns related to features should be grouped together separately from the non-feature columns. For example, the "Other Feature" column shouldn't be at the far right separated from the other features. Additionally, for maximum value, some columns should be listed near each other if they interact with each other in some way. For example, S-video will have a significant positive impact on the appearance of digital closed captions. There may be other interactions for other features as well.Dmulvany (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
"Most abbreviations should be as recognizable as possible; many of the current "codes" aren't." I notice in the history you tried to adjust the codes. Then forgot to adjust them across the board and undid the change. Don't whine about something you're capable of changing but didn't. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Table Styling

Not so much a discussion about the content. I thought this might come in handy for others who haven't seen it yet: Table Cell Styling. Since I saw someone didn't like my "they changed their mind" but found that no2 thing useful there's the rest. :) --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That was me... Sorry, no offense man, it just didn't look very professional in the table. But thanks for the no2 thing... ;) --Tobey (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm not really complaining about that. I expected it to get edited sooner or later even if the shot at them is a bit deserved. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been suggested that the information about the MPEG2 decoder, demodulation, and chip be moved into one column to save space. For all the CECBs from the same manufacturer that have exactly the same components, there could be a single cell used and the information could be put on 3 different lines. (That's not the case for all CECBs from a given manufacturer; the RCA CECBs have different chips.) Otherwise, the highly technical information about MPEG2 decoders and demodulators is of no value to most consumers, and should be considered for elimination. This grid should be used to indicate the different features of the boxes as much as possible, keeping in mind the features are going to be what's most important to the Wikipedia audience.

There also needs to be explanations of the different headings and why they might be useful. (I don't understand why it's useful to indicate which CECBs have external power supplies, for example.) There could be links from the headers to the explanation of that specific header below the grid.

I am really, really concerned that a lot of low-income people are going to blow their $40 coupon on CECBs that don't meet their needs because they don't understand that the CECB they've selected doesn't have a feature they expected it to have. Once they use their $40 coupon, they can't get it refunded. A lot of people may turn to Wikipedia for information about features because there's no other place they know of to find out about all the features the CECBs have. Please, let's try to make this grid much more useful to the average consumer by describing ALL of the key features that the CECB has (like the ability to decode digital closed captions) even if all those features aren't "important" to every person on this page.Dmulvany (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavily in favor of the explanations of the different headings and why they might be useful, such as each chip (if still there), Smart Antenna, EPG, S-Video, & Analog Passthrough...similar to the table of other features, except a little more detailed for main features like those. 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"the highly technical information about MPEG2 decoders and demodulators is of no value to most consumers" As per the example I gave elsewhere on this page the highly technical mathematical equations used on math-related articles are of no value to the "average" reader. Why not go delete them? Because that would be silly. This article is intended to provide hard data about the boxes, that is hard data. Mashing it together would in several cases bloat the table vertically whereas now it's fairly nicely laid out and readable. Also the "external PS" went in to "Other features" just like digital CC should. They are "other" features that are perks. You're really getting religious with this digital CC business, can't you just be happy that all are in agreement that it does belong on the table in "Other features" and let it alone? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
To the nameless IP user, 97.114.21.39, above: Three registered people have written in favor of a separate column for digital closed captions (myself, Rvickery and Djann), and that's the majority of registered Wikipedia members so far. All three of us are also saying the use of space on the grid needs to be organized better. So the majority are in favor of a separate column for digital closed captions, but the grid needs to use space more efficiently to try to accommodate everyone's needs. Note that this page is called "Comparision of CECBs" and is NOT titled as a technical reference for geeks. If you want a grid full of technical data for technical folks, then create one under a different title that makes that purpose clear. This page should be meeting the needs of the general public by describing the different features in an user-friendly manner; it shouldn't have obscure technical data crowding out more useful information. Maybe you don't care at all that the uneducated, confused public is much more in need of a grid of practical information about features than technical people are, and maybe you'll continue to insist on keeping information in this grid that only a few highly technical people can fully appreciate (even though they certainly have the skills to find this information elsewhere). You have a duty, however, to think about how well you're serving the public with this grid, not just yourself and your peers.Dmulvany (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Then let's just trash the whole damned thing and make a table with pink fluffy bunnies (with closed captions) instead. The table is meant for everyone and if you thought about it for a minute you'd understand that my correlation to the math articles was intended to point out that this is meant for everyone to read, not just Joe Idiot User. I may be a "nameless IP user" as compared to your elite registered status (even though registering is free you seem to think it makes your opinion more important) but you can bet that if you try to make the table dumber I'll fight it. We've all been working toward the goal of making this thing complete and comprehensive, why you'd want to hamstring it is beyond me. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It takes just a couple of minutes to set up an account. The fact you're not willing to set up an account or to sign in with any existing account, despite participating so often here, suggests you're trying to avoid something associated with being a regular member of Wikipedia, like accountability. Perhaps you've already been subjected to some kind of disciplinary process via Wikipedia, for example, for your unnecessarily hostile behavior, and you're using a nameless IP address to escape the consequences of past behavior. (I can't think of an honorable reason for you to insist on remaining nameless; if you can, by all means share what it is and why you purposefully make it so difficult for everyone else to refer to you.) Squeezing a whole lot of letters about FEATURES into one box at the far right, separating it from the other FEATURES on the left hand side, and insisting on using more than a third of the screen real estate for obscure technical data useless to most readers, is simply not user-friendly design. Rather, the voluminous, obscure and incomplete technical data could be handled more efficiently so that it doesn't hog so much space, and all information could still be provided via one grid. But you appear so insistent on having your own way, and you're being so unnecessarily hostile, that I expect you will fight any attempt to make this grid more user-friendly.Dmulvany (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"trying to avoid something associated with being a regular member of Wikipedia, like accountability" My IP has remained the same. My edits can be easily tracked as can my discussion comments. I simply don't feel like making a Wikipedia account and I'm beginning to feel like you're engaging in a little bit of argumentum ad antiquitatem here, which isn't doing anything to further the goal of improving this article. Get over the fact that I don't have an account, stop throwing it out as though it's a righteousness grenade, and let's get on to something useful eh? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty worthless table, if we don't know about Reception capability

Most of the reviews I've read show that these boxes have POOR reception. Having tons of features mean nothing if you can't tune-in the station. I recommend adding a new column listing "sensitivity" of the tuner. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a good idea, as we have no standardized way of testing sensitivity. Every location is different, every antenna setup is different. Without someone buying all of them and testing them in an isolated environment, your reception ratings are useless and misleading. --Tobey (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I see he/she edited it in anyway. Why bother coming to the talk page if you're not looking for input from others (who probably know more about the subject)? I don't mean to insult I'm just curious, it seems an odd thing to do. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the subjective ratings need to be removed. As far as reception, all the CECBs have to meet certain specifications; however, that doesn't mean that they all have the same reception abilities. A reception column is unneed right now since there is no credible supporting data to fill it in with. 134.121.247.59 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then this table is worthless. How am I supposed to know which box to buy, if I don't know which one works well in poor conditions (like mountainous regions with weak signals)? Back at Christmastime I bought a Hisense tuner, and it has wonderful, wonderful features. 2 week EPG, automatic channel changer, HDMI and component video out, et cetera, et cetera.
So I hooked it up, and whereas my Analog reception was 21 channels, my digital reception was only 2 channels, because the sensitivity of the tuner is junk. (The second and third Hisense boxes I tried were no better.) A settop box having lots of features are worthless if you are staring at a blank screen. That's why I, personally, think the Reception column is THE most important column in the whole damn table. People don't want to buy boxes that barely receive anything.
Most manuals for these boxes list sensitivity. For example one of the RCA boxes says "downto -88 dB". Perhaps we could use that instead? ---- Theaveng (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Using bold at random times in your sentences does not make you right. Just an FYI. Also I've checked your user page (check the history for removed complaints against him), others have identified you as a troll. You might want to quit proving them right.
As was stated before reception is subjective in the extreme. If you've got a tree in front of your antenna or you're slightly lower than the surrounding elevation or your antenna is .5 degrees off you might not get any signals. Or you might get all of them using a coathanger for an antenna. For sensitivity if it is hard data, not some subjective "it worked for me" thing like reception, then it would belong in the table. Any antenna geeks care to chime in? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My usage of bold was not random. It used precisely once. And don't use personal insults. "You are a spammer" or "you as a troll" is not acceptable outside of your college playground. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I stated others had IDed you as a troll. Regardless this is not relevant to the CECB table and the conversation about you being a troll or otherwise ends now. I'm undoing your alterations until discussion about it concludes. Don't make me keep coming back to fix your vandalism. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The sensitivity data provided by Theaveng for the Thomson tuner does have merit to go onto the table, but only having data for one tuner makes it pointless at this point to add it to the table(there is nothing to compare it with).134.121.247.59 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am gathering more data on the other boxes. Give me some time. Be patient. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
When you've got it make your edit. Until then it's misleading. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No. No it's not misleading in any way to say "RCA tuner sensitivity is -83 dBm". That's a verifiable fact direct from the manual. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's misleading by itself. You've repeatedly been informed by way of this discussion page that you are the only one who wants it in right now. You were repeatedly informed by way of this discussion page that your "sensitivity" addition was worthless yet you kept re-adding that in spite of everything in front of your eyes. So now I'll just come right out and ask, are you trying to help this article or take it over? Are you interested in making it better or interested in getting your way? Because you sure aren't helping us out so far, you're only creating problems where none ought to exist! --97.114.21.39 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"I stated others had IDed you as a troll." ----- Show me where this happened. (Not that that excuses the insulting of other wiki members, but I'd like to see your citation for this ridiculous claim.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[| Maybe you didn't realize that removing them from visibility doesn't delete them?] Regardless I'm sick of you trying to derail the meat of this discussion with your dramatics. If anyone else is tired of it please say so so he quits doing it. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "troll" appears nowhere in the comments removed in that edit. —Random832 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Then keep looking in other edits. I don't have the time nor the inclination to become the Wikipedia Police. Regardless Theaveng has been behaving a bit better lately IMO, why drag this out to the forefront again? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

97.114.21.39: I'm confused that you want to add data about chips, that are only in a couple of the boxes (demodulator), but don't want to add relevant (also to me maybe the most relevant) data like dB (for signal strength - and yes, I know there are other factors like obstruction, etc). You say Theaveng was "warned repeatedly by way of this discussion", yet after he/she provided verifiable information (dB) from a manual, you were the only one calling it misleading, incorrectly saying he's using bold randomly, and accuse him of taking over the article (I'd bet you have the most posts on this discussion page by far). After that point, the only other user besides you to comment was saying it was good data, but just that it needed more.

Consider this another vote for that information, which seems more even more relevant than stuff like the demodulator. Heck, even having manufacturer seperate from brand seems less useful. 70.253.41.103 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)