[Coco] S-video Prospects...
jdaggett at gate.net
jdaggett at gate.net
Thu Jan 5 09:44:10 EST 2006
As far as I am concerned this subject is dead for me.
I don't need to be insulted in an open forum like this. I think your comments
and assumptions are unfounded and not conducive to any further discssion
from my part.
On 5 Jan 2006 at 4:57, Stephen H. Fischer wrote:
From: "Stephen H. Fischer" <SFischer1 at MindSpring.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Subject: Re: [Coco] S-video Prospects...
Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 04:57:16 -0800
Organization: A. Nani Mouse Inx.
Send reply to: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
<mailto:coco-request at maltedmedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
<mailto:coco-request at maltedmedia.com?subject=subscribe>
> In the first attack I had great difficulty in understanding how the wrong
> statements could have been made, it took a long time to finally understand.
> It has been many decades since I had a course in Analog Computing and then
> at the start of the IC digital age there was not too much time spent even
> then on Analog. I did well in almost all EE areas and understood Analog
> computing just fine.
> One of the lab experiments was to show that an IC could perform a "AND"
> function, that being the state of the art at the time. They spent a lot of
> time on tubes.
> As the Digital world has grown to such size today, I suspect that Analog
> Computing is still taking a back seat, perhaps not even a required part of
> current EE studies.
> The first incorrect statement had to been made by trying to understand how
> the analog circuit works by applying the more well known digital processing
> Analog computing is different from digital computing and has it's
> limitations in different areas. The first attack stated a possible problem
> that a purely digital solution might have a problem with.
> The Analog AD 72x IC's are using analog processing even though parts of it
> appear to be doing things using digital methods.
> I must admit that the details of how the chips operates are more than I can
> understand today as I am not following that area of electronics.
> Never the less, I recognized an analog process in the description even
> though my mind slipped into the digital world at first in trying to
> understand what was being done. I then built an analog understanding. I was
> able at that point to understand how someone with lots of digital knowledge
> but not as good understanding of analog computing might not take the step to
> an analog understanding and think that the analog AD72x had a digital
> problem which it of course does not.
> That attack posting was the only one made to the list and may have well shut
> off postings by others.
> A very glowing post was made to B.L.CoCo, one that if made to the list may
> have started some of the positive discussion that are occurring now.
> That's why I said that the interest in CoCo 3 to S-Video was ZERO, basing
> that on the attack posting being the only comment made.
> If you still believe that you are proving correct information, I am sorry
> for your lack of understanding of electronics.
> The CoCo is in the NTSC world as so much of electronics today are. That
> world is very well understood and few if any EE's are allowed to make any
> mistake at all because any errors can be recognized very early due to the
> widespread knowledge of NTSC.
> The AD72x was designed to accept input from the very well known NTSC world.
> The CoCo is a correct member of that world.
> There just cannot be any problem in connecting the two together.
> Yes perhaps I have the only currently CoCo 3 operational version. I would
> have to plug the wires back into the quick bread boarding block as the AD723
> is in use every day converting the picture from my HTPC to my S-Video
> television. Perhaps I would make a cable with the three 100 Ohm resistors
> and eliminate the breadboard.
> Yes I am waiting for someone to duplicate the circuit and announce that it
> works just fine for them also. As there are no adjustments at all and
> assuming that the circuit is built correctly I am sure that the same great
> results will be obtained.
> The AD73x was designed to perform a specific function, the exact same one
> that I am using it for in both the HTPC and the CoCo 3 applications. The
> exact function that it is being sold in large quantities to perform in a
> very wide list of projects. As several versions have already been produced
> and sold it appears to be a very profitable item.
> We should be supporting any and all CoCo projects and not trying to kill
> them which seems to be the motivation for these absurd attacks.
> None of your comments have been useful except perhaps to continue the
> negative tone that this list takes on too much of the time.
> We need to spend more time helping people produce successful projects
> instead of pointing out each and every possible problem.
> Please be more careful showing your lack of understanding.
> As to the cost, any price can be obtained, with my well stocked parts bin
> and several electronic sources still open I think it is reasonable.
> If you are trying to get a cost estimate by buying one of each quantity at a
> store with high markups, then you will come up with a total that is very
> high. We each have different resources.
> Some of the prices quoted elsewhere appear to be high and some too low. As
> to producing a product with SM parts made in China with a quantity of less
> than ten I expect the $95 board to be cheaper. Quantity counts.
> jdaggett at gate.net wrote:
> > Well excuse me for pissing you off!
> > While your little experiment seems to work on a vast sample of "ONE", I
> > am not convince
> > that your simple circuit is robust to work on many. Secondly I have
> > stated two issues that
> > are not false information. So if you think that they trivial then that is
> > your choice. Granted I have not tried the AD725 in any circuit form so I
> > cannot verify your claims. IF this is an anoyance to you then so be it. I
> > will then be anoying. I have just issued some concerns from the
> > specifications of both the AD725 and the Color Computer itself.
> > Besides I think you far under estimate the material costs. The chip alone
> > is $9 and a 16 pin surfboard is in the $6 range. Two items and you are
> > already at $15. Now if one has a very
> > well stocked parts bin then maybe $15 is realistic. I seriously doubt
> > that the average person out there can do it for that cost.
> > james
> > On 4 Jan 2006 at 18:22, Stephen H. Fischer wrote:
> > From: "Stephen H. Fischer" <SFischer1 at MindSpring.com>
> > To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts"
> > <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Coco] S-video Prospects...
> > Date sent: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:22:57 -0800
> > Organization: A. Nani Mouse Inx.
> > Send reply to: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts
> > <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> > <mailto:coco-request at maltedmedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> > <mailto:coco-request at maltedmedia.com?subject=subscribe>
> >> Hi,
> >> What!!! Another stupid reply. I am getting tired of these.
> >> Most people on this list know that statement is wrong.
> >> The CoCo 3 produces *exactually* what the AD72x chips are designed to
> >> convert to NTSC S-Video.
> >> First is it was too fast or slow I forget, now this totally wrong
> >> statement.
> >> Go stand in the corner for 3 hours with a dunce hat!
> >> Stephen H. Fischer
> >> jdaggett at gate.net wrote:
> >>> Stephen
> >>> One major problem with the AD72x series of chips is that they require
> >>> RGB interlace signal. The Coco 3 is non-interlace RGB.
> >>> james
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
More information about the Coco