stereo audio on cable channels: why NOT include it?

[Taurus]

I was wondering if anyone could shed any light on this. Several stations on our cable system (once Time-Warner but they just recently got bought out by Comcast), particularly the Sci-Fi Channel seem to randomly change from mono to stereo and back again during the year.

Well maybe not a year exactly but rather over the yearS. For example Sci-Fi used to be mono for the longest time which bothered me since so many sci-fi programs have interesting Dolby Surround soundtracks which my receiver can decode. Then I guess around 2002 without warning they started transmitting in stereo - cool! That's also the first time I heard Mystery Science Theater's surround effects, which I had no idea they had (just during the scenes on the SOL though and I think a few of the newer movies they riffed on).

Then in 2006 they turned off the stereo signal. And I think Comedy Central used to be in stereo but it's not now.

Dolby Surround, being a matrixed format is obviously not as discrete as Dolby Digital, IMO can still provide some convincing & entertaining effects. While selling HT in the early/mid 90s we used our Hi-Fi VCR to show The Abyss, one of the Trek movies (the one where the Klingon moon Praxis explodes) and Terminator 2 all the time for our multichannel demo sessions with impressive results & with lots of "wows" from the gathered customers.

Why can't a station keep the stereo audio going? :( Royalty rates or something? Bandwidth maybe?

Thanks.

[MMM]

Have you called the cable company's service department?

[Taurus]

Nah I just figured they didn't care.....or this was a subtle way of convincing people that digital cable is better.

[HGN2001]

I would suspect bandwidth.

With all of todays digital hoo-hah, they probably needed to eek out a bit more room, so they naturally pick on the SciFi people.

Nobody really watches that channel anyway, right?

Harry

[larryk]

Several years ago, our cable company (Comcast) begin dropping the stereo audio from all of the analog channels except the local stations. Over a period of weeks I contacted the local chief engineer about the problem. He tried to be helpful and was receptive but had no clear answer, until he apparently discovered some hardware had been installed that was not compatible with the system (not sure of the technical aspects) and it was summing the stereo channels to mono (a friend mentioned to me that the surround went away as well).

Shortly after I subscribed to Dish network, although I keep basic cable to save $$ on my cable internet.

Given the emphasis on digital cable, I would imagine that the cable companies are forcing subscribers to move to the digital tier, necessitating the use of the utility's set top boxes.

[Doug Sclar]

There is no techincal reason to not provide stereo out of a cable headend. All it takes it to replace the mono modulators with stereo MTS modulators. All they basically do is provide an additional difference signal which when combined with the L+R signals in a matrix decodes the two stereo signals.

Granted the modulators are a bit more expensive, but they don't really take more bandwidth than mono modulators. They just have an additional carrier present located high in the allocated 6mz channel bandwidth.

This said, I have no idea why KABC Los Angeles took 5 years to broadcast in stereo over the air back in the 80's. KNBC and KTLA started in 1984 and KABC didn't start until many years later. Granted the broadcast gear was more expensive than a standard modulator, but this is the second largest market in the country. I'll never figure out why they waited so long.

I think the sentiment that the cable companies want to push their digital offerings is the culprit here. Most of us know that being digital had no bearing on the quality of the signal. It could be better, but it is often worse. That said, it would seem that by sacraficing quality or features from the analog realm, they would have a better chance of getting customers to switch to digital, which is obviously more profitable for the cable operators.

[Taurus]

I would suspect bandwidth.

With all of todays digital hoo-hah, they probably needed to eek out a bit more room, so they naturally pick on the SciFi people.Sounds good - maybe I'll try to think positive about the company and assume this is the reason.

Nobody really watches that channel anyway, right?I wish I didn't have to.

Unfortunately I love sci-fi movies and books & have little choice but to patiently wait for some real sci-fi on that channel. Except for the two Stargate series, Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica*, unfortunately all they have 99.9% of the time is watered down pablum to keep from scaring away casual fans, in the form of (for movies) a group of 20 somethings with some hot chicks facing a some vaguely science-fiction-ey situation almsot always including a giant alligator/wasp/snake...LOTS of snakes plots :rolleyes:/scorpion/etc or other unimaginative story line. I can't recall the last time I saw a movie that took place in the future and that DIDN'T involve a giant mutated thingmabob.

And what the hell is pro wrestling doing on there?! Maybe I'm biased because I wrestled in college i.e. real wrestling, but still!

Before Sci-Fi was sucked up by USA Networks, it wasn't perfect but at least it had personality and had a true to science-fiction vibe to it for us geeks out here....but now it's just another channel with people doing something vaguely interesting i.e. another victim of focus groups and market "research" so the advertisers aren't offended. :mad:


* which I am watching much less nowadays, mostly because of all the whiney characters w/their boring soap opera-like stories, but also its lack of action (too much "deep thinking" and personal introspection, which I normally like) and overload of depressing situations they get into.

[Grant]

Got stereo on Cox cable here...