Social Feed

Why use RCA outputs? I've come to realize that my hobby - taping things - isn't the same as most FTA hobbiests, who apparently prefer to watch things ;-) And yes I'm aware you can make recordings to a hard disk (which almost works some of the time, and produces a file which may be compatible with DVD standards, but probably isn't).But I figured if 100 people had bought an AZbox, 10 of them might use hard disk/DVD recorders like I do, or some other type of external recorder. Perhaps not; perhaps there's only one other person who does this (the person who told me he wasn't getting stereo).However, there's another issue - mixing NBC's audio. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no output or feature on the AZbox which allows mixing the L,C, & R channels into stereo, and the HDMI doesn't magically turn NBC's 6 discreet channels into 5.1 Dolby Digital. The only way to do this is to have functional RCA outputs. (Although you could use the AZbox for the center channel, and another brand of receiver for L&R - if they synced perfectly).So I really don't think my request for the RCA outputs to work correctly is unreasonable!And BTW, for those who haven't tried it, old-fashion analog Dolby Stereo (ie, Dolby Pro Logic) really does work and the surround sound is great! After all, it was good enough for movie theatres for 20+ years. And I'm very happy with the video quality of HD>anamorphic DVD recordings, even at SuperLP speed (2Mb/sec). Recording the original data steam, even if it was easy to manipulate, takes A LOT more space than that.Sorry if I'm ranting ... ;-)--Gary

gdavisloop said:

Why use RCA outputs? I've come to realize that my hobby - taping things - isn't the same as most FTA hobbiests, who apparently prefer to watch things ;-)

Click to expand...

I wasn't questioning why anyone would use RCA outputs, it is more a question of if you're limited to using RCA outputs, then why spend the money on an Azbox. I used to use RCA outputs, but then needed to hear AC3 audio, so I switched to using SPDIF coaxial, or optical and then switched to HDMI. You're really missing a LOT if you can't do AC3. Most people who have invested in an Azbox, are people who want a receiver that will do everything, and without the digital audio, I'm confused as to why spend the money on an Azbox.
Re "taping" things vs watching, I almost NEVER watch LIVE on satellite, except for Saturday afternoon PBS. Probably 95% of what I watch has been recorded, not on tape, but on computer. The "taping" issue brings up a question though, and that is if you're taping via RCA outputs, does that mean that you have a way of taping HD? If yes, I'm curious how you do that? If no, then again, the Azbox seems a bit of overkill for the job if you're just doing SD.

gdavisloop said:

And yes I'm aware you can make recordings to a hard disk (which almost works some of the time, and produces a file which may be compatible with DVD standards, but probably isn't).

Click to expand...

No, not comparable to DVD standards. It's better than DVD standards (in my opinion), since 95% of what I record is medium to high bitrate HD. However if I was to record SD, I don't see where DVD standards are an issue, because if you're recording analog output, then you're taking the digital signal and going through a D-A conversion, and then probably going through another A-D conversion in your TV. This can't be better than just viewing the original digital. And if your recording is a recording of the original digital, then I would suggest that it is exactly the same as what we record on computer hard disks. So I just don't understand the comment which seems to suggest that recording to hard disk might be somehow losing quality.

gdavisloop said:

But I figured if 100 people had bought an AZbox, 10 of them might use hard disk/DVD recorders like I do, or some other type of external recorder. Perhaps not; perhaps there's only one other person who does this (the person who told me he wasn't getting stereo).

Click to expand...

Again, lots of people record, but if you're making DVDs, then that implies (to me at least) that you're doing SD, so why spend the money on an HD Azbox? And again, most of all, why convert to analog before recording, instead of just recording the source and getting an exact copy of the signal? I can understand recording the way you do, if that's all you have to record, but you can do that with receivers that cost a lot less than an Azbox. I just don't understand.

gdavisloop said:

However, there's another issue - mixing NBC's audio. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no output or feature on the AZbox which allows mixing the L,C, & R channels into stereo, and the HDMI doesn't magically turn NBC's 6 discreet channels into 5.1 Dolby Digital. The only way to do this is to have functional RCA outputs.

Click to expand...

No, there is no magical way to do the audio from that one NBC HD mux, but I'm fairly confident in saying that there is NO consumer receiver that is capable of doing that. And I really don't see why having functional RCA outputs gives you any more than what you can already do with the Azbox. Unless I'm mistaken, about the only way to handle that audio is to have multiple receivers, and feed the various audio channels into some kind of external mixer which is messy, and it wouldn't matter in the least whether the various channels you were feeding to the mixer came from a digital or analog source. So again, I'm really confused as to the issue here.

gdavisloop said:

(Although you could use the AZbox for the center channel, and another brand of receiver for L&R - if they synced perfectly).So I really don't think my request for the RCA outputs to work correctly is unreasonable!

Click to expand...

If you are still talking about the NBC stuff, I really think that there is some miscommunication here relative to how having functional RCA outputs could possibly help at all here, and also some miscommunication relative to what an RCA output would be doing if it was working correctly. Any receiver, Azbox included can do L&R, and any receiver can do the center, and any receiver can do the other various channels they have on that mux, but there is NO receiver, at least no consumer receiver, that can play more than one of the channels at the same time. My guess is that you're thinking that the Azbox should have some kind of stereo down-mix, such as what is used to create L/R stereo out of 5 channel audio, but that can only be done if all those channels exist in the same stream, and they don't. You really need a separate receiver for each of the various audio channels in that NBC mux, whether you're talking RCA outputs or digital outputs.

gdavisloop said:

.... And I'm very happy with the video quality of HD>anamorphic DVD recordings, even at SuperLP speed (2Mb/sec). Recording the original data steam, even if it was easy to manipulate, takes A LOT more space than that.Sorry if I'm ranting ... ;-)--Gary

Click to expand...

This relates to my question above, ie are you recording HD? Again, I'm curious about this HD> anamorphic DVD thing you refer to. I never heard of that. Are you talking about taking the component HD output of the Azbox, and feeding that into some box that converts it to high quality SD? Or are you just talking about recording the composite output and using the TV to do the scaling to the proper aspect ratio? Anyway, just curious.

I'm sorry if my response here sounds like I'm being critical of your viewing habits or hardware. That's not my intent at all. My main point here is two things, first I think you're asking the Azbox to do things that no consumer receiver can do, and secondly I think that from what I can understand about what you're doing, I think that unless the CBS 4.2.2 HD is important, then the Azbox is probably not the cheapest way to accomplish much of what you want. Sort of like buying a fancy sports car, and then being unhappy because it can't carry a cord of firewood, when perhaps a pickup might have been more appropriate.

BJ
When I record HD stuff from an azbox to a hard drive/DVD recorder it downconverts it to 480i

Some programs dont have a SD feed out there (example is NCAA college hockey from ESPNU) so the only option is a HD feed.
I see you mention "why have an azbox for SD"...well 4:2:2 feeds play real nice on the azbox

Hi BJ,
First off, please don't knock the quality of RCA outputs to a 42 or 50" plasma TV and a good surround-sound receiver, unless you've tried it! Of course it's not "HD" but it's a very good way for me to store thousands of hours of video/audio on hard-disk/DVD recorders.

Second, you keep saying the AZbox is expensive. Actually, it's the cheapest of the "respected" DVB-S2 receivers: Pansat 9200 was about $600 with the -S2 board, Dreambox is $500, but AZboxes start at $295.

As far as "overkill", if you want to watch DVB-S2, you'll need one of these receivers whether watching HD or not. If you want to watch/record HD channels, you need an HD receiver whether you're watching them in HD or not.

To explain again: I record HD as "anamorphic" (squeezed) SD, and the quality is more than adequate for my needs. (I should point out that I'm not watching sports ;-)

As to the NBC mixing, it is not that hard to do with the right equipment. I've been doing it since last December using two Pansat 9200s at a Behringer Eurorack Pro mixer ($99), although you could do it with a handful or resistors and no fancy mixer.

I've never seen a consumer-level mixer with digital audio inputs. I suppose you could convert the digital audio output of the AZbox back to analog with a suitable device.

If the AZbox analog audio outputs worked, it would be very easy to use two AZboxes - which is still less expensive than a single Pansat 9200+board, GI 4DTV, or QualiTV - to receive and mix NBC audio. But, if the AZbox analog stereo output doesn't work, you'd need a different brand of receiver for the L&R (aaa) audio channels. This could work as long as the sync was perfect between different brands, but that's a big "IF".

The stereo audio issue strikes me as an inexcusable flaw from a company (AZbox) which otherwise seems interested in fixing problems. I've heard there are problems with the RCA video output as well, but for these, there are work-arounds. There's no easy work-around for needing analog stereo outputs, if the analog outputs are mono'ed.

--Gary

(BTW, when I Googled "SPDIF Mixer," I got a nice primer on why designing such a thing is very difficult, but it turns out Roland did make one called the M1000 for $700 -- but now that it's discontinued, you can get it for $300 You can also get HDMI to RCA converters for just under $300 -- but you wouldn't need these things if the "box" worked!)

Clarifying a few points...

>Any receiver, Azbox included can do L&R

Actually, the AZbox CAN'T. That's my point. The analog outputs appear limited to mono. You can do LEFT+RIGHT, but not Left & Right as separate channels.

>it wouldn't matter in the least whether the various channels you were feeding to the mixer came from a digital or analog source.

It matters plenty if the mixer only has analog inputs!!

>I'm curious about this HD> anamorphic DVD thing you refer to.

It's really pretty straight-forward. If you record a "squeezed" picture on a DVD recorder (or even VHS), when you play it back on a widescreen TV, it will automatically be expanded back to 16:9. It's the same as what they call "Enhanced for Widescreen" on commercially-produced DVDs.

Some DVD recorders can "flag" the recording as 16:9, but even without the flag, these recordings will play back correctly on widescreen TVs. (The flag is actually to correct the shape to either letterbox or pan/scan when playing the DVD on a standard TV).

If you record to DVD in "SP" speed, you get essentially the same quality as commercially-made widescreen DVDs. I record widescreen talkshows at "LP" (4 hour per disc) speed, and the quality is still quite adequate.

You can do the same thing, BTW, with DirecTV, Dish, and OTA-HD, but not, generally, with cable, because most cable boxes won't output squeezed video.

--Gary

gdavisloop said:

Hi BJ,
First off, please don't knock the quality of RCA outputs to a 42 or 50" plasma TV and a good surround-sound receiver, unless you've tried it!

Click to expand...

Well, I have tried that, at least for short periods of time, just out of curiosity (generally after having the Azbox come up in some video format that doesn't display through the HDMI, to help me get back quicker). It probably IS better than what I used to do before I got my HDTV though. I still do a LOT of SD, and record both on my computer HDD and also on my TIVOs.

Before I got my HDTV though, I used to play HD channels on my computer, using a program that cut the HD screen dimensions in half, effectively turning it into SD format, and then ran the screen output to my TV via an SVID output of the computer's graphics card. I could record this on my TIVO in SD format, or on my computer in HD. I can understand the desire to save disk space by saving in SD format, as I have a stack of HDDs which are full of HD content. Doesn't take much to fill them up. But I guess once I got my HDTV, I got spoiled, and if the source is HD, I prefer to watch and or record in HD, despite the file size. But that's just me.

gdavisloop said:

Second, you keep saying the AZbox is expensive. Actually, it's the cheapest of the "respected" DVB-S2 receivers: Pansat 9200 was about $600 with the -S2 board, Dreambox is $500, but AZboxes start at $295.
As far as "overkill", if you want to watch DVB-S2, you'll need one of these receivers whether watching HD or not. If you want to watch/record HD channels, you need an HD receiver whether you're watching them in HD or not.

Click to expand...

I guess I am still surprised at the concept of having an HD feed, and choosing not to watch it in HD, but you're right about the Azbox being a good deal compared to other STBs. I think my thoughts when I called it expensive though were comparing it to a computer based receiver that you can get for a third the cost of a STB. I say that even though my current S2 PCI card (TT3200) isn't too reliable, but I've ordered a replacement. I guess it's a few extra steps, but to save space, you can reprocess the .mpg files and turn them into SD. I generally reprocess most of my recordings anyway, to trim the beginning/end.
Another thing I did, prior to getting my HDTV, was to get a ROKU HD1000. The ROKU has ethernet input from my computer cards, and has either component (HD) or SVID (SD) output to the TV. I could run the SVID output to my TIVO, or to a VCR or another recording device. It also has L/R RCA stereo audio, and the ROKU could do a stereo downmix of AC3 audio. After I got my HDTV though I switched everything over to the component output. The problem with the ROKU though was that it doesn't do MPEG4 or 4.2.2, so I got a PopCornHour, which does mpeg4 and at least SD 4.2.2. The PCH has both composite and component video output with R/L analog audio, as well as the HDMI digital output. I've never tried running it's R/L/V outputs to the TV. Of course, the combination of the cheap S2 card and the PCH is getting up in the range of the Azbox, price wise, but the extra capabilities make it well worth it. For playing back recordings, I use all three, ie the Azbox, the ROKU and the PCH. Each has it's good points and bad points.

gdavisloop said:

There's no easy work-around for needing analog stereo outputs, if the analog outputs are mono'ed.

Click to expand...

Well the famous Sonic Voom thing seems like a fairly cheap workaround, but yeah it would be easier if it worked out of the RCAs to begin with. I really wonder though, if it's a software flaw that can be fixed or a hardware issue that can't be fixed via a firmware update. Ie there are lots of devices out there that only do mono. Maybe they made a decision based on what they thought the consumer would want, but I guess that's unlikely.

You also mentioned SYNC relative to the different audio streams from different receivers. Sync has been my biggest issue, and the reason for my buying about half of my hardware, including the Azbox. Although MY sync issue is trying to get the video way OUT of sync. I like to watch one particular NFL team's games, however I HATE the network commentary, so I like to listen to the home team Sirius radio audio, turning off the network audio. Problem is, that the Sirius audio is delayed about 25 seconds. What I did, back when CBS had 4.2.0 video, was to stream the video from my computer to the ROKU, but hit pause on my ROKU for 20-25 seconds to sync the video with the Sirius audio. This worked perfectly. Once CBS switched to 4.2.2, however, I can no longer do that, since the ROKU doesn't do 4.2.2, and while my PCH does 4.2.2 for SD, it doesn't work on HD for some reason. So that's when the Azbox came in, ie it can play live HD 4.2.2, so I assumed that it would eventually be able to play HD 4.2.2 streamed from my computer. Unfortunately, after well over a year of waiting, and the Azbox still can't play high bitrate either from recordings or streamed. So I've been in a quandry over whether to watch HD from the Azbox, and have to put up with either network commentary or 25 second delayed audio, OR to watch a SD feed that I can easily delay via my TIVO. So far, I have usually chosen to watch SD/Sirius audio. However THIS thread has gotten me interested in the possibility that perhaps your method of using the composite video output, feeding that into my TIVO to delay it, then spread out the video on my TV might be higher quality than the DirecTV-SD-->TIVO that I've been doing. Of course, since I'm not using the network audio, the lack of stereo won't bother me at all.

BTW, delaying high bitrate HD for 20+ seconds requires quite a huge buffer on my computer. I think I set the buffer at something like 140 MB, and I'm still on the edge of things breaking down, but usually it works perfectly, at least on the non-4.2.2 feeds. Still works fine on ESPN signals.