Ok, I'm desprate..

  • Thread starter Thread starter auburndmbfan
  • Start date Start date
A

auburndmbfan

Typically I can figure out things myslf, but I am stuck here.

so I had an original audigy (with the removable bay piece with the
volume knobs, mic in, s/pdif in/out, etc.) - ot was one of the first
audigies, and I loved it! Unfortunately, when I moved it to my new PC
(which was also amidst a relocation cross-country, I lost the
functionality of the expansion card (which I really needed because of
the Toslink I/O connections - it wasn't getting power, so I gave up and
ordered a Turtle Bay Montego DDL

Now, in hopes that Vista comes out on time and all works, I'd like that
to be my entertainment 'center' paired with a good receiver/tuner. I
also included an ATI AIW PCIe 2006 model video card. I play few games,
but lots more on TV and the games I've played don't seem to suffer too
much,

so my setup is this - cable to cable box (from cable company), cable
out of box to AIW card.

TV works great, sound only gets me MONO. I've tried lots of things -
like buying that new sound card with S/PDIF in so I could plug my cable
box into the sound card and listen to that throuh the sound card and
watch TV through the AIW card.

However, no matter what configuration I try, even using ALL of the
cables that came with the vid card, I just can't get enything beyond
mono sound. I'd like to have video come in to my HD from cable box to
the AIW card via coax, and audio come in from the HD cable box optical
linc to my new Sound Card., and at the end of all of that I want to
listen to it on my 5.1 speakers at my desk.

Is there something glaringly wrong with my setup that I'm just missing?
If I plug in the Toslink cable from my cable box and point it at the
connection on the sound card, I see the red light, so I know it's
producing a signal.

Thanks for any help, my email is auburndmbfanATgmailDOTcom

Cheers.

Clint
 
Try Turtle Beach or general sound card support forums on the web. There's a
possibility the optical port on your sound card is designed for output only
(to a decoder/receiver).

If you pipe over the audio from the cable box using RCA jacks, do you get
stereo sound?
 
First of One said:
Try Turtle Beach or general sound card support forums on the web. There's a
possibility the optical port on your sound card is designed for output only
(to a decoder/receiver).

If you pipe over the audio from the cable box using RCA jacks, do you get
stereo sound?
Click to expand...
The audio that comes out of the co-ax from my cable box is mono only. Using
the RCA cables, through the computer, for sound gets me analog Surround
Sound to either my Pioneer receiver or Logitech 5.1 speakers.
Recent versions of MMC have had a problem with the stereo.mono setting
getting reset to mono. Right click on the TV window/full screen and
check/set it to Stereo and if its analog Surround Sound you should be able
to set that as well. Haven't really been too impressed with the DD Surround
Sound over analog anyway. YMMV
 
Thanks T Shadow and First of One - I'm planning on calling Turtle Beach
support as well as ATI support tomorrow - but since it was a holiday I
was kind of stuck.

I've discovered that if I use the coax (digital) out from my cable box,
it's mono (good call Shadow) - I can achieve stereo using RCA direct
from the cable box to the sound card, as well as from the cable box to
the AIW card. As for the TosLink, I know it's an input because there
are two optical connections on the card - one in and one out - however,
even with the fiber plugged into the S/PDIF IN, the card isn't
recognizing it at all - even in the Sound Card control panel it is
greyed out if I select S/PDIF IN... However, one obvious issue I
realized with going straight from cable box to sound card for the audio
is that pausing the video doesn't pause the audio... Duh.

So for now I'm using RCA - just sure wish I could get the full 5.1
audio from my cable through my AIW card.. maybe ATI support has a
solution.

Also, I did notice the sound 'sticking' on mono and having to switch it
in the MMC - you'd think as long as that software has been out they'd
have the basics like stereo sound pretty well nailed down..

Thanks again for the responses.
 
auburndmbfan said:
Thanks T Shadow and First of One - I'm planning on calling Turtle Beach
support as well as ATI support tomorrow - but since it was a holiday I
was kind of stuck.

I've discovered that if I use the coax (digital) out from my cable box,
it's mono (good call Shadow) - I can achieve stereo using RCA direct
from the cable box to the sound card, as well as from the cable box to
the AIW card. As for the TosLink, I know it's an input because there
are two optical connections on the card - one in and one out - however,
even with the fiber plugged into the S/PDIF IN, the card isn't
recognizing it at all - even in the Sound Card control panel it is
greyed out if I select S/PDIF IN... However, one obvious issue I
realized with going straight from cable box to sound card for the audio
is that pausing the video doesn't pause the audio... Duh.

So for now I'm using RCA - just sure wish I could get the full 5.1
audio from my cable through my AIW card.. maybe ATI support has a
solution.

Also, I did notice the sound 'sticking' on mono and having to switch it
in the MMC - you'd think as long as that software has been out they'd
have the basics like stereo sound pretty well nailed down..

Thanks again for the responses.
Click to expand...
Spent the better part of a weeks worth of spare time figuring out the cable
box was only mono.Kept thinking it was the @#$%& computer.

No hardware support for inputting DD.Only reason I can think of for the
output is DVD playing.

Don't think ATI has put enough support into MMC for the last couple of
years. In their defense though they did add the digital sound so it would be
compatible with MCE and starting with MMC9.13 added Multview support for the
HDTV Wonder(&probably others). That had to cause changes with the sound.
Shouldn't take >3 revisions to fix it though.
 
Spent the better part of a weeks worth of spare time figuring out the
cable
box was only mono.Kept thinking it was the @#$%& computer.
Click to expand...

The reason that your cable box does not have stereo audio out on the RF feed
is because Dolbe Digital owns the patents on the stereo encoder technology
used in the RF converters. They require a royalty to be paid to use their
technology. Most manufactures simply DO NOT OFFER STEREO AUDIO on their RF
output. This includes all low-end to medium-end VHS VCR's, DVD players,
cable boxes, and just about any other equipment with RF converters built
into them. (Cameras, video routers, and whatever has RF output on them.)

Their are a few RF converter with stereo sound, but you will pay a price to
get them. It's been that way since the advent of stereo TV sound back in
the 80's. Any why you have component Audio/Video output on all cable boxes,
DVD's, VHS units, and anything else not too cheep to bother.

William
 
William said:
The reason that your cable box does not have stereo audio out on the RF
feed is because Dolbe Digital owns the patents on the stereo encoder
technology used in the RF converters. They require a royalty to be paid
to use their technology. Most manufactures simply DO NOT OFFER STEREO
AUDIO on their RF output. This includes all low-end to medium-end VHS
VCR's, DVD players, cable boxes, and just about any other equipment with
RF converters built into them. (Cameras, video routers, and whatever has
RF output on them.)

Their are a few RF converter with stereo sound, but you will pay a price
to get them. It's been that way since the advent of stereo TV sound back
in the 80's. Any why you have component Audio/Video output on all cable
boxes, DVD's, VHS units, and anything else not too cheep to bother.

William
Click to expand...

Sigh, where do I start to clean up this stream of misinformation.

1) Dolbe (sic) does not own the patents on the broadcast stereo sound
system. It uses DBX compression on the difference channel. DBX is a separate
company.

2) Until very recently, there were allot of parts as well as an expensive
filter required to construct a stereo encoder. Decoder chips have been
available for quite awhile and quite inexpensive. A moderately priced
encoder IC has been recently introduced. The royalty to DBX is quite small
and far less then the mpeg decoder royalty paid on every DVD player.

3) May I suggest you invest in a spelling and grammar checker.

David
 
David said:
Sigh, where do I start to clean up this stream of misinformation.

1) Dolbe (sic) does not own the patents on the broadcast stereo sound
system. It uses DBX compression on the difference channel. DBX is a
separate company.

2) Until very recently, there were allot of parts as well as an
expensive filter required to construct a stereo encoder. Decoder chips
have been available for quite awhile and quite inexpensive. A moderately
priced encoder IC has been recently introduced. The royalty to DBX is
quite small and far less then the mpeg decoder royalty paid on every DVD
player.

3) May I suggest you invest in a spelling and grammar checker.

David
Click to expand...

May I infer irony in your use of "allot" and "quite awhile?"
 
David said:
Sigh, where do I start to clean up this stream of misinformation.

1) Dolbe (sic) does not own the patents on the broadcast stereo sound
system. It uses DBX compression on the difference channel. DBX is a
separate company.

2) Until very recently, there were allot of parts as well as an expensive
filter required to construct a stereo encoder. Decoder chips have been
available for quite awhile and quite inexpensive. A moderately priced
encoder IC has been recently introduced. The royalty to DBX is quite small
and far less then the mpeg decoder royalty paid on every DVD player.

3) May I suggest you invest in a spelling and grammar checker.

David
Click to expand...

David:

Your use of Ad hominem attack methods are not new to me, and only tell me of
your character and not the validity of my comments. Your rush to add your
two-cents has only shown your shallowness and need to belittle others. Save
it for some one less educated than myself. And yes, I do use a spelling
checker. What a cheep shot.

The information I have given is correct in the time table given, and does in
fact influence the decisions manufacturers use when they produce stereo
encoders. I have followed this market for a very long time and have read
the discussions over the years. All you have done is to expand upon the
information given and proven my point even further. You have not
contradicted anything.

If you have trouble expressing yourself without attacking someone else in
order to make yourself feel superior, I suggest you find yourself a good
psychologist and vent your frustrations out on them.

Do not play games with me. Save your insults for someone else, they only
tell me of your character and nothing about the subject being discussed. I
don't know what it is about the Internet, but it brings out the worst in
character.

Be careful what you say, I have had the displeasure of taking on a few
NewYorkers in my days, they are experts in shredding people apart like you.

William
 
**>>> Their are a few RF converter with stereo sound, but you will pay a
price**>>> in the 80's. Any why you have component Audio/Video output on all
cable
**>>> boxes, DVD's, VHS units, and anything else not too cheep to bother.
David:
Click to expand...
**> Your use of Ad hominem attack methods are not new to me, and only tell
me of
your character and not the validity of my comments. Your rush to add your
two-cents has only shown your shallowness and need to belittle others.
Save it for some one less educated than myself. And yes, I do use a
spelling
Click to expand...
**> checker. What a cheep shot.**> The information I have given is correct in the time table given, and
does in
fact influence the decisions manufacturers use when they produce stereo
encoders. I have followed this market for a very long time and have read
the discussions over the years. All you have done is to expand upon the
information given and proven my point even further. You have not
contradicted anything.

If you have trouble expressing yourself without attacking someone else in
order to make yourself feel superior, I suggest you find yourself a good
psychologist and vent your frustrations out on them.

Do not play games with me. Save your insults for someone else, they only
tell me of your character and nothing about the subject being discussed.
I don't know what it is about the Internet, but it brings out the worst in
character.

Be careful what you say, I have had the displeasure of taking on a few
NewYorkers in my days, they are experts in shredding people apart like
you.

William
Click to expand...
This is certainly not worth a flame war, but let me point out a few things I
have marked above with ** by the line:

-Dolbe is Dolby.
-Their is not the correct usage. You want There in that position.
-cheep is what baby chickens do. You want cheap in that position.
-Look up 'Ad hominem'. This was a critique of the information in your
posting, not you.
-cheep again
-any why ??
-I repeat, it is not a Dolby licensing issue. This was erroneous
information.

This is my last post on this topic here.

David
 
David said:
**>>> Their are a few RF converter with stereo sound, but you will pay a
price
**>>> in the 80's. Any why you have component Audio/Video output on all
cable
**>>> boxes, DVD's, VHS units, and anything else not too cheep to bother.
**> Your use of Ad hominem attack methods are not new to me, and only tell
me of
**> checker. What a cheep shot.
**> The information I have given is correct in the time table given, and
does in
This is certainly not worth a flame war, but let me point out a few things
I have marked above with ** by the line:

-Dolbe is Dolby.
-Their is not the correct usage. You want There in that position.
-cheep is what baby chickens do. You want cheap in that position.
-Look up 'Ad hominem'. This was a critique of the information in your
posting, not you.
-cheep again
-any why ??
-I repeat, it is not a Dolby licensing issue. This was erroneous
information.

This is my last post on this topic here.

David
Click to expand...

David:

Much better. Thank you

William
 
David said:
RF
**>>> feed is because Dolbe Digital owns the patents on the stereo encoder
**>>> Their are a few RF converter with stereo sound, but you will pay a
price
**>>> in the 80's. Any why you have component Audio/Video output on all
cable
**>>> boxes, DVD's, VHS units, and anything else not too cheep to bother.
**> Your use of Ad hominem attack methods are not new to me, and only tell
me of
**> checker. What a cheep shot.
**> The information I have given is correct in the time table given, and
does in
This is certainly not worth a flame war, but let me point out a few things I
have marked above with ** by the line:

-Dolbe is Dolby.
-Their is not the correct usage. You want There in that position.
-cheep is what baby chickens do. You want cheap in that position.
-Look up 'Ad hominem'. This was a critique of the information in your
posting, not you.
-cheep again
-any why ??
-I repeat, it is not a Dolby licensing issue. This was erroneous
information.

This is my last post on this topic here.

David
Click to expand...
Agreed. Dolby has patent on surround sound which is used through stereo but
to my knowledge they don't own the patent on TV stereo. Would need to see
links to beleive this. Even if they had a patent on it, it should have run
out before this box was made.

I've seen very inexpensive stereo RF modulators long before this box. It
could still be money though. Seemed likely to me it was a way to keep from
having multiple fully functioning outlets but wouldn't argue the point.
 
T Shadow said:
Agreed. Dolby has patent on surround sound which is used through stereo
but
to my knowledge they don't own the patent on TV stereo. Would need to see
links to beleive this. Even if they had a patent on it, it should have run
out before this box was made.

I've seen very inexpensive stereo RF modulators long before this box. It
could still be money though. Seemed likely to me it was a way to keep from
having multiple fully functioning outlets but wouldn't argue the point.
Click to expand...

T:

Manufactures go --out of their way-- to cut out one 1/8 wt resistor off of
their design. We are not talking about the cost of one IC here, we are
talking about an assembly production line of oh, say 500,000 units. Maybe 2
million units times whatever that single IC, or royalty costs. Then
consider a full 'year line' of multiple types of VCR's, DVD's, or Cable
boxes for a given manufacturer, such as Sony, or Panasonic, or Hitachi, or
whatever. You could be talking 50 to 80 million units or more. You think
they don't consider the cost of a few cents important?

I worked in this market when Stereo TV came out. I saw what happened. It's
not about the NAME of the manufacturer who has the patent, it's the cost.
PERIOD. The name argument forwarded here is a "straw-man argument", nothing
more.

Just how long do you think patents are good for. Ever heard of
two-key-rollover? What about GIF file format? Care to think of
intellectual ideas? (Just how long has the mouse for Disney been prohibited
from general use? )

I highly recommend classes in Interpersonal Communications, Logic,
Psychology, User Profiling, Group Dynamics, and a few more for those who
wish to improve their communications skills.

William
 
William said:
T:

Manufactures go --out of their way-- to cut out one 1/8 wt resistor off of
their design. We are not talking about the cost of one IC here, we are
talking about an assembly production line of oh, say 500,000 units. Maybe 2
million units times whatever that single IC, or royalty costs. Then
consider a full 'year line' of multiple types of VCR's, DVD's, or Cable
boxes for a given manufacturer, such as Sony, or Panasonic, or Hitachi, or
whatever. You could be talking 50 to 80 million units or more. You think
they don't consider the cost of a few cents important?

I worked in this market when Stereo TV came out. I saw what happened. It's
not about the NAME of the manufacturer who has the patent, it's the cost.
PERIOD. The name argument forwarded here is a "straw-man argument", nothing
more.

Just how long do you think patents are good for. Ever heard of
two-key-rollover? What about GIF file format? Care to think of
intellectual ideas? (Just how long has the mouse for Disney been prohibited
from general use? )

I highly recommend classes in Interpersonal Communications, Logic,
Psychology, User Profiling, Group Dynamics, and a few more for those who
wish to improve their communications skills.

William
Click to expand...
I recommend supplying a link.
 
I recommend supplying a link.
Click to expand...

To what?

I hope your original query has been answered to your satisfaction as to why
your cable box has no stereo out on its RF cable output. I was only trying
to explain the conditions in the market why it does not. I have answered
this question hundreds of times over the years and know the validity of it.

Sorry you had to witness that drive-by-shooting that went on between David
and myself.

Have a good day.

William
 
-
David Stood up at show and tell, in
[email protected], and said:
Sigh, where do I start to clean up this stream of misinformation.

1) Dolbe (sic) does not own the patents on the broadcast stereo sound
system. It uses DBX compression on the difference channel. DBX is a
separate company.

2) Until very recently, there were allot of parts as well as an
expensive filter required to construct a stereo encoder. Decoder
chips have been available for quite awhile and quite inexpensive. A
moderately priced encoder IC has been recently introduced. The
royalty to DBX is quite small and far less then the mpeg decoder
royalty paid on every DVD player.

3) May I suggest you invest in a spelling and grammar checker.
Click to expand...

For someone that doesn't seem to know how to spell 'alot' or (more
grammatically correct) 'a lot', your #3 statement seems a bit 'ironic'.
BTW, 'alot' is a verb.
 
Strontium said:
For someone that doesn't seem to know how to spell 'alot' or (more
grammatically correct) 'a lot', your #3 statement seems a bit 'ironic'.
BTW, 'alot' is a verb.
Click to expand...

No. "Allot" is a verb that means "to parcel out." "Alot" isn't a word
at all, though it seems to be used as one a lot on Usenet.
 
-
Bill Anderson Stood up at show and tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
Strontium said:
For someone that doesn't seem to know how to spell (more
grammatically correct) 'a lot', your #3 statement seems a bit
'ironic'. BTW, 'al[l]ot' is a verb.
Click to expand...

No. "Allot" is a verb that means "to parcel out." "Alot" isn't a
word at all, though it seems to be used as one a lot on Usenet.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
Back
Top