HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Predict the Northwest

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-26-2010, 11:50 AM
  #51
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Actually that has changed, 45 CAN do HD now, and they did like 4-5 games last season in HD.

Though most of their HD is only available over the air. No satellite provider carries their HD broadcasts. Not sure about cable.
So is 45 in HD basically SD on any other channel?

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 06:34 PM
  #52
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
So is 45 in HD basically SD on any other channel?
Uhh... 45 is 45 how could it be on any other channel?

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 07:08 PM
  #53
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,775
vCash: 500
Once again: 45's HD feed is comparable to other channels broadcasting in SD.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 07:43 PM
  #54
R0bert0 Lu0ng0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 500
Canucks (2nd)
Colorado (7th)
Minnesota (8th)
Calgary (11th)
Edmonton (15th)

R0bert0 Lu0ng0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 07:44 PM
  #55
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,264
vCash: 50
that might have something to do with comcast (or your cable provider) squeezing their bandwidth. I read that certain "HD" channels were afforded open pipelines while some (SyFy for one) shared theirs with other "HD" channels.

i don't know all the tech. jargon--apologies if my use of bandwidth and pipeline are incorrect.

tl;dr all HD is not the same, and it isn't necessarily because the broadcast equipment is inferior.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 09:45 PM
  #56
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
Once again: 45's HD feed is comparable to other channels broadcasting in SD.
Actually, having seen their OTA HD, it was pretty damn good. I won't knock their HD like I do their SD. If they'd only USE it more!

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 09:46 PM
  #57
Vashanesh
My best outfit
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
that might have something to do with comcast (or your cable provider) squeezing their bandwidth. I read that certain "HD" channels were afforded open pipelines while some (SyFy for one) shared theirs with other "HD" channels.

i don't know all the tech. jargon--apologies if my use of bandwidth and pipeline are incorrect.

tl;dr all HD is not the same, and it isn't necessarily because the broadcast equipment is inferior.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the recent switch to all digital was supposed to fix that. With the ridiculous amount of bandwidth the analog channels took up (I've heard upwards of 4:1 digital:analog), they shouldn't have any excuses for shorting bandwidth. The only reason they might still do that is if a given channel is opting to only pay for partial HD. Even that shouldn't last too long, though.

Even the crappy local channels shouldn't have an excuse in a few months to not offer 24/7 HD.

As an example of how flooded Comcast is with broadcast bandwidth, there are roughly 55 channels that have duplicate HD numbers. Double bandwidth for the exact same thing, while Comcast does some backend work to get them all migrated up into the 800-900 range.

Vashanesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 09:49 PM
  #58
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashanesh View Post
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the recent switch to all digital was supposed to fix that. With the ridiculous amount of bandwidth the analog channels took up (I've heard upwards of 4:1 digital:analog), they shouldn't have any excuses for shorting bandwidth. The only reason they might still do that is if a given channel is opting to only pay for partial HD. Even that shouldn't last too long, though.

Even the crappy local channels shouldn't have an excuse in a few months to not offer 24/7 HD.

As an example of how flooded Comcast is with broadcast bandwidth, there are roughly 55 channels that have duplicate HD numbers. Double bandwidth for the exact same thing, while Comcast does some backend work to get them all migrated up into the 800-900 range.
You are incorrect. All channels on Satellite were always all digital and they still had to downgrade/compress some signals to preserve bandwidth. Digital takes less bandwidth for sure, but the key that allows for cable, is the ability to add more channels in HD, something satellite already had the benefit of since they converted everything to digital before sending it out in the first place.

A digital HD signal still takes more bandwidth than an analog SD signal due to the sheer amout of data.

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 10:06 PM
  #59
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
Nolan was great two years ago but he was pretty invisible most of last year. He's lost a step for sure. He still has great hands, but he couldn't keep up with this offense.

We didn't replace Nolan with Cullen, we replaced Ebbett with Cullen. Bouchard's probably going to take Nolan's spot on the 3rd line.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 11:17 PM
  #60
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashanesh View Post
As an example of how flooded Comcast is with broadcast bandwidth, there are roughly 55 channels that have duplicate HD numbers. Double bandwidth for the exact same thing, while Comcast does some backend work to get them all migrated up into the 800-900 range.
Also incorrect BTW - those are not duplicated bandwidth. When you have all your channels in digital, you have the luxry of coding some channels to show up at another number even though the bandwidth is not taken up at that location. All you are seeing is the same channel listed twice. It appears as though it's duplicated since they have two different channel designators, but both designators get the channel from the same digital feed, the only thing that is really changed is the label.

Dish Network does this with every single HD channel they have. HD channels are the highest on the channel list, and are in no particular order... but due to the magic of digital labeling, they also show up lower on the channel list with the identical channel label as the SD channel is also labeled with.

(Channel numbers not exact since I'm at work, the point remains)
ie SD HBO is 350
HD HBO is also listed as 350 - right after the SD HBO on the complete channel list
Further down the channel list HD HBO shows up as 4592

both the HD HBO 350 and 4592 are the exact same feed of the exact same channel. Only 4592 takes up any bandwidth, the 350 is just a convenient label for the consumer to watch channel 4592 with, grouped with the other like channels on the list.

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2010, 11:26 PM
  #61
Vashanesh
My best outfit
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
You are incorrect. All channels on Satellite were always all digital and they still had to downgrade/compress some signals to preserve bandwidth. Digital takes less bandwidth for sure, but the key that allows for cable, is the ability to add more channels in HD, something satellite already had the benefit of since they converted everything to digital before sending it out in the first place.

A digital HD signal still takes more bandwidth than an analog SD signal due to the sheer amout of data.
First off, I was speaking solely of cable. I don't know d!ck about satellite, other than the talking points.

Secondly a "digital" HD channel doesn't quite make sense, it's redundant, there's no other way to transmit cable OR satellite signals, HD or not.

Digital channels are not just as simple as 1's and 0's for cable, though. It's more to do with what the channel can be sent through. The old analog channels couldn't go through the trunk fiber that Comcast has the Metro wired with, it HAD to go through old-ass glorified Cat-5. That put a bigger strain on local hubs (mini head-ends) who were trying to do digital cable, digital internet and more recently, digital phone, all on top of keeping the pre-existing crappy analog signal boosted.

Given that the old analog channels are now entirely gone, the extra strain on hub's is gone, so they can do a ridiculous amount of extra work, that they couldn't before. Yes, HD channels take up more bandwidth than the old analog channels did, but now that Comcast can use their entire trunk line network, the strain is substantially less.

I worked for 'em for 3 years... I just don't keep up one all the details of what they do now. I hear about most of it second hand though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Also incorrect BTW - those are not duplicated bandwidth. When you have all your channels in digital, you have the luxry of coding some channels to show up at another number even though the bandwidth is not taken up at that location. All you are seeing is the same channel listed twice. It appears as though it's duplicated since they have two different channel designators, but both designators get the channel from the same digital feed, the only thing that is really changed is the label.

Dish Network does this with every single HD channel they have. HD channels are the highest on the channel list, and are in no particular order... but due to the magic of digital labeling, they also show up lower on the channel list with the identical channel label as the SD channel is also labeled with.

(Channel numbers not exact since I'm at work, the point remains)
ie SD HBO is 350
HD HBO is also listed as 350 - right after the SD HBO on the complete channel list
Further down the channel list HD HBO shows up as 4592

both the HD HBO 350 and 4592 are the exact same feed of the exact same channel. Only 4592 takes up any bandwidth, the 350 is just a convenient label for the consumer to watch channel 4592 with, grouped with the other like channels on the list.
While that may be the case for satellite (I don't know any better, so I'll take your word for it), by my understanding, it's not for cable. They aren't exactly identical, you know? From what I've heard, they actually doubled up the channels for the short-term, solely because they didn't want to (or couldn't, legally - local franchise authorities are a b!tch and a half) deal with the overload of people flipping out because the numbers changed. So they're setting their system to give their users the ability to "Watch This In HD", while sending them to the 800-900's instead of the previous channels. While leaving those channels in place, until they can just plain ditch the old channels.

On top of all that, I've noticed different time delay's from one HD channel to it's 800-900 counterpart. Anecdotal, but it's something I've seen myself.

/off topic nerding off

*cough*


Last edited by Vashanesh: 08-26-2010 at 11:33 PM.
Vashanesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 12:23 AM
  #62
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashanesh View Post
First off, I was speaking solely of cable. I don't know d!ck about satellite, other than the talking points.

Secondly a "digital" HD channel doesn't quite make sense, it's redundant, there's no other way to transmit cable OR satellite signals, HD or not.
Again, not true. HD can be broadcast over analog if the broadcasters wanted to spend the enormous amount of money to put out the power to do so. HD and digital are two completely and unrelated things. Digital is encoding of the video, HD the the resolution of the video no matter how it's sent out.

The only reason NOW there is no analog is due to federal mandate. Cable was primarily analog based for most of it's history. Satellite TV from it's inception was completely digital. This was due to the providers converting the analog signal to digital prior to sending the signal to their satellites. That's why they had the space for more HD channels vs Cable since day 1 and Cable has been trying to play catch-up ever since.

Quote:
Digital channels are not just as simple as 1's and 0's for cable, though. It's more to do with what the channel can be sent through. The old analog channels couldn't go through the trunk fiber that Comcast has the Metro wired with, it HAD to go through old-ass glorified Cat-5. That put a bigger strain on local hubs (mini head-ends) who were trying to do digital cable, digital internet and more recently, digital phone, all on top of keeping the pre-existing crappy analog signal boosted.

Given that the old analog channels are now entirely gone, the extra strain on hub's is gone, so they can do a ridiculous amount of extra work, that they couldn't before. Yes, HD channels take up more bandwidth than the old analog channels did, but now that Comcast can use their entire trunk line network, the strain is substantially less.

I worked for 'em for 3 years... I just don't keep up one all the details of what they do now. I hear about most of it second hand though.
Which is true, but my point is, they are not overlaoded with extra bandwidth, they have now obtained bandwidth to try to catch up with HD offerings that they had no room for previously.

Quote:
While that may be the case for satellite (I don't know any better, so I'll take your word for it), by my understanding, it's not for cable. They aren't exactly identical, you know? From what I've heard, they actually doubled up the channels for the short-term, solely because they didn't want to (or couldn't, legally - local franchise authorities are a b!tch and a half) deal with the overload of people flipping out because the numbers changed. So they're setting their system to give their users the ability to "Watch This In HD", while sending them to the 800-900's instead of the previous channels. While leaving those channels in place, until they can just plain ditch the old channels.

On top of all that, I've noticed different time delay's from one HD channel to it's 800-900 counterpart. Anecdotal, but it's something I've seen myself.

/off topic nerding off

*cough*
There may be isolated cases of channel duplication, but I can tell you even in the cable world it is extremely rare. The digital labeling I mentioned IS used by all providers... and even OTA broadcasters utilize it. Did you know channel 4 is actually channel 32.1? Yet for everyone, it shows up as channel 4.

Again, not saying that duplication can't happen, just that 90% of it is not duplication, just labeling.

Remember, even in channel migration from one area of the guide to another, it's easier and cheaper to up/down map with a label than it is to duplicate the entire signal multiple times. Companies usually go the cheaper route.


Last edited by TaLoN: 08-27-2010 at 12:42 AM.
TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 01:00 AM
  #63
Vashanesh
My best outfit
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Again, not true. HD can be broadcast over analog if the broadcasters wanted to spend the enormous amount of money to put out the power to do so. HD and digital are two completely and unrelated things. Digital is encoding of the video, HD the the resolution of the video no matter how it's sent out.

The only reason NOW there is no analog is due to federal mandate. Cable was primarily analog based for most of it's history. Satellite TV from it's inception was completely digital. This was due to the providers converting the analog signal to digital prior to sending the signal to their satellites. That's why they had the space for more HD channels vs Cable since day 1 and Cable has been trying to play catch-up ever since. Like I said, there's no other way to broadcast HD signals on cable or satellite systems, anymore. They don't have the ability to do it any other way than digital. Whatever the reason, saying "digital HD" is redundant. And yes, it's nitpicking, I'm well aware.


Which is true, but my point is, they are not overlaoded with extra bandwidth, they have now obtained bandwidth to try to catch up with HD offerings that they had no room for previously. I guess that depends on more nitpicking, like your definition of "overloaded". From everything I've been reading and hearing, they have more than they can use, which is why we've seen the upgrade to the base speeds on internet, and the new offerings of their top-end tiers (50 down 5 up).


There may be isolated cases of channel duplication, but I can tell you even in the cable world it is extremely rare. The digital labeling I mentioned IS used by all providers... and even OTA broadcasters utilize it. Did you know channel 4 is actually channel 32.1? Yet for everyone, it shows up as channel 4. I'm well aware of the frequencies oddities, or at least that they're goofy. I used to know the digital channel to check to see if your internet was out on Comcast, or if it was your equipment. But with the addition of all their HD channels, it's changed. Again, I'm just restating what I'm hearing from friends who work as either lead tech's or headend tech's.

Again, not saying that duplication can't happen, just that 90% of it is not duplication, just labeling.

Remember, even in channel migration from one area of the guide to another, it's easier and cheaper to up/down map with a label than it is to duplicate the entire signal multiple times. Companies usually go the cheaper route.While I agree with you in principle... Comcast all but NEVER takes the easier (easy usually equaling cheap) route to do AAAAANYTHING. They seemingly pride themselves on making bad decisions and hemorrhaging money, just so they can avoid actually resolving issues. It all comes down to getting the wrong person mad, and getting franchise authorities involved. They'll waste millions to avoid being fined millions. The satellite systems don't have anywhere NEAR the level of regulation (local all the way up to federal) that every cable company in the country does, and some of those rules are staggering...
Like I said, I'm not going to pretend I know the ins and outs of satellite. But the stuff I'm relaying is firsthand from what I dealt with in my time there, and people who do this work themselves.

Vashanesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 01:16 AM
  #64
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,283
vCash: 500
how the hell did this end up a HD thread?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 02:44 AM
  #65
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashanesh View Post
Like I said, there's no other way to broadcast HD signals on cable or satellite systems, anymore. They don't have the ability to do it any other way than digital. Whatever the reason, saying "digital HD" is redundant. And yes, it's nitpicking, I'm well aware.
The funny thing is though, you are nitpicking about digital/analog when we were talking about the conversion from analog to digital in the first place.

My point to begin with, was that going from analog to digital allows cable to offer more in HD to catch up with Satellite providers.

Thus pointing out in terms of bandwidth that an analog SD signal being replaced by a digital HD signal still uses more bandwidth than they started with, and thus do not have tons of "spare" bandwidth as a result in the end. Not saying they are "overlaoded" at all, just saying that they don't suddenly have more than they did previously.


Last edited by TaLoN: 08-27-2010 at 02:49 AM.
TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 02:50 AM
  #66
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
Canucks fan here. Not trolling.

I hope you guys do well this year, and I say this whenever the opportunity arises. Minny has great fans and deserves a contender. Any fan-base that can sellout their arena on a consistent basis through years of Lemaire-coached hockey are die-hard hockey fans. Good luck this year.
This. If there's one team i'd love to pull a "Phoenix" this season it's Minnesota. Fantastic fans out that way.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 03:38 AM
  #67
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
This. If there's one team i'd love to pull a "Phoenix" this season it's Minnesota. Fantastic fans out that way.
I really hope this doesn't entail going bankrupt and almost moving to Winnipeg.

llamapalooza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 10:02 AM
  #68
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,775
vCash: 500
Well that did happen with the Moose...

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2010, 10:18 AM
  #69
notloilersfan
I'm here, I'm bored
 
notloilersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,451
vCash: 500
1. Vancouver

No contest there sadly. The sedins are in their prime with a steady top 6 around them, they have a solid back end and a GOOD (not amazing) goaltender.

2. Colorado

The main thing that can't be overlooked with this team is that they are so well coached. The kids thrived last season because they were given a good system, and were able to stick with it. I see Duchene moving up.

3. Edmonton *

With a healthy top line of Penner/Gagner/Hemsky, the kids will have room to grow. The team got rid of all it's dead weight, there is stronger goaltending depth, and much more size and grit. *Injuries will be the big factor. Very few could see the team fly this season, too many could see them have another lottery pick.

4. Minnesota

A very hard working team, that I love to watch play.... that will simply be outmatched by skill too often. For this team to make the playoffs, Havlat needs a rebound year, and goaltending has to be the talk of the league. (Like Miller last year)

5. Calgary

The top line will find it's spark early, but the team, with its age and problems, will wear down. That 'R' word that was recently mentioned 3 hours north of the highway will be coming up.

notloilersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.