Interest in HDTV is declining in the US.

[DereX888]

2009 means absolutely nothing as edDv pointed out. 2009 does not mean a switch over to HDTV. It means a switch to a digital signal! The signal is still in standard definition. You're TV will still work in 2009. You will just need to purchase a digital tuner for your tv if you do not have cable or satellite.

I think the survey is spot on as Lord Smurf pointed out. People could give a rats ass about HD content, nor do they want to plunk down $2 grand on an HD set. Yes standard def looks like crap on HDTVs and you need to spend $$$ to get a decent LCD or plasma HD that will show a good SD picture.

Complain all you want but we are a long way off from HD. Ten years is about right. By 2017 - 2020 I can see most people having HDTVs. Though don't be fooled. 2017 - 2020 will have been about 20+ years for adoption of HD. HD has been talking about since the '90s.

It takes Americans time to cotton to new technology :P

Yup, 2020 is more-less about right IMHO too.

But how can you guys say "people don't give rat's ass about DH"?
I am sure almost everyone prefers to have HD TV than SD TV, including you, LS, and everyone else, don't we all?
(yes the cost of having it now is ridiculusly high and beyond the reach of Joe Average, but thats not the point)
Thats why I call a LIE on this survey.
People in majority can't afford HD TV, but certainly people in majority DO want it
Survey is supposedly about "interest in HDTV", not about "ability to buy a complete set today". Its a big difference.

[TBoneit]

It really comes down to a Show me a real benefit for spending all that money for a HDTV and programming for it attitude.

My own brother is quite happy with his 19" SD set and I know he isn't the only one.

When I look at the 27" Sony in the living room the picture is good enough.

I'm the one that had to have a HDTV and use it for TV and Computer display. I've got people in the house using a computer since the 200Mhz days and still can not get them on the Internet. Explosives would be needed to move such types to watch HD.

I myself made a concious decision to not look at HDTVs even on display until I knew I could afford them.

[edDV]

There are options for each type of consumer.

- Analog OTA is not an option after Feb, 2009. Get your cheap ATSC tuner and you are back on the couch.

- Cable/Sat customers will wonder what all the noise is about.

- Cable analog only customers will be pushed to a cable box which may be free. If you don't want the cable box you may find yourself kicked out of the bar. They have higher paying customers waiting to take your table.

- HDTV owners will see everything get better from all sources except Hollywood. They will try to make life miserable by enforcing HDCP for HD resolutions. For many HD early adopters this will force purchase of a new HDTV and a new Tivo/DVR and a new 6.1 theater sound system plus new charges from cable plus more calls to inept cable support. Hollywood will call in all their political debt to make this happen. Leonardo de caprio and all the rest will lecture you about your need to bend to their will even if they get their movies for free.

- Other options will surface that change all the rules.

[Midzuki]

Microsoft Vista is a robust platform that extends the consumer's multimedia experience

The author of

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

does not think so.

=====

[Rich86]

Im right, youre confused
All your examples regard High Def TELEVISION, not the two competing highdef disc formats. Both of them are able deliver exactly same quality picture, the difference between them is insignificant and transparent to the user. Alas they have nothing to do with HD TV.

Nope - you are missing my point - to the average, uninformed consumer - all things high def blend together into 1 competitive and confusing and expensive and complicated mess. For it to be accepted and embraced - it has to be standardized, impressive and absolutely simple to grasp and implement. Until that happens - it will remain on the fringes of the mainstream - mostly for those of us who simply must have the best.

[CrayonEater]

Here's my take as an average Joe, and it's pretty much consistent with a lot of people I've talked to:

As someone pointed out, a lot of people are being fooled into thinking that everything is going to go to HD. And, if the industry has it's way, it will, f--- the consumer.

I have no interest in HD. The cost is way too much, and then there's the various, confusing formats (as someone else pointed out, 720, 1080, interlaced vs. progressive, etc.)

I'm sure a lot of people have gotten burned (or rather, burn-in) by troublesome sets too. You'd be pissed too if you laid down $2000-$4000 on a TV and it burned-in, or the picture quality wasn't as good as it was cracked up to be.

And then there's a lot of folks who have invested a lot of money in their DVD collections. Not only do they have no desire to start over with hi-def disc formats, but if their investment doesn't look appreciably better on an HDTV than it did on a regular TV, then they're going to be turned off to the whole HDTV thing.

And, ultimately, it's an expensive endeavor. Not just the cost of the TV, but the cost of other things to accessorize your HD experience. HD service is expensive, HD players are insane, and HD discs are out of this world. And if you're like many people and are fooled into believing you need an AV receiver, surround-sound, etc. then that only runs the cost (be it real or perceived) higher. And, on top of that, HD infers that you need to do away with your DVD investment in order to enjoy HD. (And before any of the nit-pickers jump on me saying "nobody said you can't keep your DVDs", I never said that. But the perception by many is that, if you want to enjoy hi-def, and if you want to get any real benefit, then you need to "upgrade" everything. That's the message that the average consumer like me is getting!)

[Marvingj]

These newer rivals for cable have always been digital, transmitting all their programming in bits and bytes, so neither of them has to worry about serving "satellite-ready" or "phone-ready" TV sets. Their customers are used to needing a box or receiver to convert the signals into the images ; on the analog sets that still dominate living rooms, bedrooms and kitchens.

More important, being all-digital makes more efficient use of their capacity: About 10 standard digital channels fit into the bandwidth required for one analog channel.

By contrast, cable's roots are analog, and they typically still offer analog transmissions of 70 or more of the most popular channels that the majority of their customers watch on "cable-ready" analog TV sets — without a box. Providing those analog signals eats up about two-thirds of a typical system's bandwidth, even after the industry spent $100 billion over a decade to string fatter lines to handle interactive services.

Thanks to that analog legacy, most cable operators have room to add only about a dozen HD channels — roughly half what DirecTV and EchoStar already offer.

[edDV]

...

Thanks to that analog legacy, most cable operators have room to add only about a dozen HD channels — roughly half what DirecTV and EchoStar already offer.

But if they limit analog channels to about 20 (basic service) they can add about 100 MPeg2 HD channels. Statistical multiplexing has made MPeg2 digital bandwidth much more efficient.

That is cable's delima.

BTW: Cable here has 19 HD channels and more are planned for the fall. Plus they have dozens of on demand and pay HD programs available. More will require pushing out analog. Comcast has put more priority on foreign language and SD sport packages. That indicates where the revenue priority exists today.

[valvehead]

Microsoft Vista is a robust platform that extends the consumer's multimedia experience

The author of

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

does not think so.

=====

I got about halfway through that article before I started having very disturbing thoughts about M$ and the MPAA. But then I thought: this DRM crap will be hacked; it's just a matter of when. In the mean time I will just continue to avoid Vista and reduce my boiling blood to a simmer.

[yoda313]

I guess I want to know if the US market is "losing interest" in hdtv than how come the prices for hdtv's are droping all the time? That is driven by market demand and I would say that is pretty strong.

I think it is just like the hd format war deal - once prices drop to a certain level a true winner will emerge. Once hdtvs in the smaller range cost the same as the equivalent sd models they will start to take over. And now that more and more are including hd tuners that can only increase penetration.

[Nilfennasion]

That is driven by market demand and I would say that is pretty strong.

Not quite.

Plasma TV prices are falling to the point where it is no longer profitable to the manufacturer to sell them. That is not because they are in more or less demand than was the case 24 months ago, or because they are cheaper to produce. The real reason is that LG Electronics' plant in South East Asia produced a few too many. Okay, a lot too many. A whole &%#@load too many, in fact. So many that they had to let the things go at fire sale prices, and the mean price for the units fell accordingly.

A good (note I did not say "best") Plasma can now be had for as little as 1800 dollars in Australia. If you told a person as little as five years ago that this would happen, they would think you were on drugs.

People fail to understand that what we are seeing now is not really any different from what we saw in the 1950s, when television sets first became available. People paid exorbitant sums for sets that were barely two feet from corner to corner, and their performance was often at a level nobody would tolerate from consumer electronics items nowadays. But one market segment just harrumphed and said that we can see better in the theatres (sound familiar?) while another said it was the way of the future.

The only difference now is that consumer electronics devices have evolved to the stage where we often have days in which we will use them for an entire waking day. We are more jaded. Hell, being a reviewer for what used to be one country's premier source for home video news, even I never imagined how HD would rock my socks off. But with a HD camera and enough time, I can put the 720P capability of my set to great use. Maybe one day when I am richer, I will even go 1080P.

All I see in threads like these are complaints about the teething pains. Complaints I have been overhearing since before I could walk (I started school around the time of the great video game crash for those who want a perspective).

[Dv8ted2]

Microsoft Vista is a robust platform that extends the consumer's multimedia experience

The author of

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

does not think so.

=====

I got about halfway through that article before I started having very disturbing thoughts about M$ and the MPAA. But then I thought: this DRM crap will be hacked; it's just a matter of when. In the mean time I will just continue to avoid Vista and reduce my boiling blood to a simmer.

Vista is catching unnecessary bad press. I use it at work and have it on a laptop at home. It runs like clock work.

Back to the topic at hand, I think HDTV is overrated. The dvd movies that I have look just fine on my three regular tv's.

[yoda313]

I think HDTV is overrated. The dvd movies that I have look just fine on my three regular tv's

That's not a true test. If you can catch a properly tuned hdtv and catch your favorite sports in a hd broadcast you'd be amazed. Though I don't use it often becuase its not practical HDTV on my computer is quite amazing. The clarity is great. Colors pop right out at you. And the bonus of 5.1 on some movie broadcasts and tv shows is just the start.

Now that sets are coming down around 500 for decent sizes I am tempted. But it will be awhile before I commit. Also I'm sure high def dvds be it bluray or hddvd blow the socks off dvds on hdtvs - just the same way dvds look so much better than vhs.

[Nilfennasion]

For once, I agree with something said in this thread.

Yoda is right. "The SD-DVDs I have look just fine on my three regular TVs" is in fact one *@!& of a long way from a true test. Because believe you me, when you blow a 576I signal up to 106cm (or 42" for you Americans), every hint of the mosquito noise in the background, every hint of the aliasing that the so-called progressive scan mode on your player does not filter out, every nick and scratch on the interpositive, is impossible to ignore. It makes me really feel sorry for the guys who reviewed SD-DVDs on 254cm (100") projection screens.

Aliasing practically disappears at 1080I. I still notice it from time to time, but that is because the sector of my brain that processes the impulses I get from my optic nerves is more "developed" than a lot of other sections. My old man might not notice the aliasing I notice at 1080I, but I can tell you this much. He notices how much less aliasing 1080I has compared to 576I, especially when that 576I is not 16:9 Enhanced (or encoded by an idiot like George Lucas).

Now, as visually hypersensitive as I am, I can say this much: if you think HDTV is overrated, you clearly have not watched a full program in it on a properly set-up system.

[TBoneit]

Well I lesve true 4:3 Content alone and watch it as 4:3. OTOH I prefer to zoom 16:9 letterboxed content on a SD channel so it fills the screen. If you prefer watching it with black bars on all four sides, freedom of choice.

Zooming is OK if you like it (I don't, but that's just me), but I deliberately don't mention it as it just confuses the newbies who are convinced that "all SD sux on HDTV". Most people just stretch everything, not zoom but stretch, to 16:9 and all SD looks like crap that way.

Well I only zoom the SD channel that has 16:9 letterboxed. It fills the screen and looks OK. At first when just going from a true 16:9 HD channel it isn't that good looking but a few minutes and the mind adjusts and I just enjoy the show. Channels like IFC, TCM, BBC America and so on.

Can you imagine how small a 2:35 WS movie look like when it is letterboxed on a SD channel? It is much more enjoyable to me when it fills the screen side to side in the proper AR.

I use the zoom in my HD DVR.

Moving on:
I find the DVDs look much better on a HDTV where the full resolution is displayed than on a SD TV. Are they HD? No. But good enough I wouldn't run out and replace them either. I find that keeping to 2 hours max per disc on a Pioneer 531 from a HD channel looks pretty good. If I record via S-Video to the 531h and don't hit zoom then the 16:9 content is squeezed by the DVR to fit a 4:3 window. I can then hit fill on the TV set remote and it stretches it back out to fill the screen side to side and now it is in the proper AR and looks good to my eyes. Part of that look could be the HQ HD source. This is with Component feeding the TV set. My only HDMI is used for the feed from the HD DVR. The DVD player and recorder are both set to progressive.

Moving on Again:
One thing I suspect as the reason HDTV hasn't taken off better is too many choices. many people when they have to much choice sort of brain freeze and can't decide. I see this on computer when selling. Too many options on a custom build vs a Dell/HP/Gateway/Etc. so they sort of freeze and can not decide and say they'll be back. Then I suspect they either don't buy or go buy one with all the decisions made for them. So we keep some ready to go and do custom only when requested.

In the past on HD I seem to recall there was Component and DVI then HDCP came around and now the studios want HDMI for HD Content and DVI was doomed. This is based on recollection.

So we had DVI, Component and HDMI. Now all those that bought DVI or Component only equipped sets could end up loosing True HD for the new HD players and maybe cable or Satellite.

I seem to also remember Firewire?

Maybe we need a Sticky somewhere detailing suggested minimums for HD TV purchases? Or maybe a forum under hardware? As more and more people want to use their HDTV as a computer monitor. I am seeing a fair amount of questions about how to do so here on Videohelp.com

Cheers

Addendum, I get a small but steady stream of customers looking for ways to hook up their Computer to a new HDTV purchase.

[handyguy]

One must also figure in that finances are getting tight with that subprime loan situation.

[usually_quiet]

I may soon be in the psition of replacing a standard def TV from 1997. (Funny things are happening to the picture when I first turn it on.)

I know about the 2009 deadline, but I also know that the cable providers are not directly affected by it. They can do what they want WRT offering analog, Hi-def, or digital packages. I don't want to upgrade my cable service to a digital package -- they just want too much for that. Over-the-air reception is not great for two or three of the seven local stations, and I don't have a Hi-Def DVD player either, so for the forseeable future I have no assurance of being able to enjoy a Hi-Def TV if I buy one. That being the case, I am going to be looking at standard-def CRT televisons with both an analog and ATSC tuner as a replacement because that is my cheapest option.

[oldfart13]

At the end of the day whether it's 2007, 2009 or 2019, digital or analog, HD or SD we are still left with the same crappy programs, which is why (for me) the set stays OFF OFF OFF.....

[edDV]

...

So we had DVI, Component and HDMI. Now all those that bought DVI or Component only equipped sets could end up loosing True HD for the new HD players and maybe cable or Satellite.

I seem to also remember Firewire?

Maybe we need a Sticky somewhere detailing suggested minimums for HD TV purchases? Or maybe a forum under hardware? As more and more people want to use their HDTV as a computer monitor. I am seeing a fair amount of questions about how to do so here on Videohelp.com

Cheers

Addendum, I get a small but steady stream of customers looking for ways to hook up their Computer to a new HDTV purchase.

Firewire is no longer being used for monitor connection but makes a good tuner to computer interface.

Computer connection to HDTV is easier on the newer models. Easiest is to buy a model with a VGA "computer/game port" that is designed to accommodate a progressive settop game or computer display card. Supported resolutions vary but 1024x768, 1280x768 and 1366x768 are typical. See the HDTV manual.

Like an LCD computer monitor, a flat screen HDTV has a native display resolution and a scaler. Image clarity is usually best if you closely match the native display resolution and minimize scaling but there is the complicating issue of 4:3 vs. 16:9 aspect ratio. Most HDTV flat panels are 16:9 display aspect ratio.

LCD and Plasma-TV sets most often have a native resolution of 1024x768, 1366x768 or 1920x1080. Plasmas are mostly 1024x768 even though they call them "720p". 1024x768 uses 1.33:1 or 4:3 pixel aspect ratio to fill a 16:9 screen. So experiment with your display card settings and use text clarity as the standard.

A typical computer geek wants to go in through the component analog or DVI/HDMI ports but be aware of the overscan issue. TV sets usually overscan the video ports (not the computer port) which causes the loss of the outer 3-10% of your computer desktop.

Modern display cards have a zoom function to re-frame the edges but the double scaling often results in less text clarity at 1920x1080 than using 1366x768 over VGA. Experiment. Some of the newest Samsung LCD-TV sets are offering a no overscan option on their 1920x1024 HDMI/component ports.

Older HDTV ready sets, especially CRT and projection models are more difficult to interface and most have less than 1024x720 display resolution. It is possible to damage these sets with incorrect scan or refresh settings.

[TBoneit]

So my recollection of firewire for video was accurate then.

I myself use 2 component for DVD Recorder and DVD player, HDMI for HD DVR, VGA for Computer, S-Video for older DVD Changer and Tivo and 7100 DVR. VCR is only through the DVD Recorder via TBC.

Only thing I wish I had now was another HDMI but when I bought a year ago it was a HD learning experience. Next time I would have a better knowledge of what I need. I thought I had all the bases covered, however reality intruded.

[edDV]

So my recollection of firewire for video was accurate then.

I myself use 2 component for DVD Recorder and DVD player, HDMI for HD DVR, VGA for Computer, S-Video for older DVD Changer and Tivo and 7100 DVR. VCR is only through the DVD Recorder via TBC.

Only thing I wish I had now was another HDMI but when I bought a year ago it was a HD learning experience. Next time I would have a better knowledge of what I need. I thought I had all the bases covered, however reality intruded.

Newest HDTVs have 3 HDMI inputs.

IEEE-1394 was the D-VHS model and is still available as an output from most HD cable/sat boxes. The standard is an MPeg2 transport stream similar to as broadcasted (i.e. 3-19Mb/s). This lost favor for TV interface because an MPeg2 decoder would be required in the TV and those add cost for hardware and royalty. DVI/HDMI are uncompressed (i.e ~7-15Gb/s or more).

[rumplestiltskin]

I guess I want to know if the US market is "losing interest" in hdtv than how come the prices for hdtv's are droping all the time? That is driven by market demand and I would say that is pretty strong. {snip}

That's exactly why the prices are dropping. If the demand was strong, prices would not be dropping. It's called the Law of Supply and Demand.

[edDV]

I guess I want to know if the US market is "losing interest" in hdtv than how come the prices for hdtv's are droping all the time? That is driven by market demand and I would say that is pretty strong. {snip}

That's exactly why the prices are dropping. If the demand was strong, prices would not be dropping. It's called the Law of Supply and Demand.

Costs are dropping rapidly as each new panel plant and chip generation comes online. In the past prices were held high because of high manufacturing cost. Now that costs are dropping the price is more in line with user demand and inventory planning. This is all economics 101. Flat panel TV sets will eventually get lower in total cost vs. CRT because they have low labor simple assembly, less weight and flat box shipping.

[DereX888]

Microsoft Vista is a robust platform that extends the consumer's multimedia experience

The author of

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

does not think so.

=====

I got about halfway through that article before I started having very disturbing thoughts about M$ and the MPAA. But then I thought: this DRM crap will be hacked; it's just a matter of when. In the mean time I will just continue to avoid Vista and reduce my boiling blood to a simmer.

Vista is catching unnecessary bad press. I use it at work and have it on a laptop at home. It runs like clock work.

Then why no one uses it to control nuclear power plants and such, if its soooo good?


Hell, I think even Microsoft would refuse it LOL
They use, or not long ago were still using unix or linux based servers for their own networks for crying out loud

[SmokieStover]

Prices are dropping hard on HD sets and it's a rare bird that hasn't noticed. Yet, interest in same is dropping even faster. What gives?

The cost is still higher than almost anyone is accustomed to paying for a TV. My best and most expensive set is a 4 year old 32" CRT that cost $450 at the time. The one I watch the most (a 9 year old 25" CRT cost less than $250). Our newest and cheapest CRT, a 2 year old 21" Sanyo, cost less than $150. I'm perfectly happy watching a VHS recording, VHS movie tape, Movie DVD or a DVD recording (made via PC PVR Cards), or live analog cable on either one of these sets.

The cost of HDTV doesn't end with the purchase of the the new set. You must purchase HD programming too. So for me that means add basic digital cable ($15) plus the basic HD package plus the HDDVR plus the premium HD package or packages of your choice. I'm at a $100 a month and still don't much like the content..........and so much of it is the same old crap........programming slipped in between all the advertizing.

But the cost aren't over. Need an HD Movie player too, or maybe two! The surround sound system on the 32" CRT doesnt have HDMI or on optical audio port. Oh well, spend some more money.

And now the fact that is denied no where except in cyberspace: No HDTV (except the older CRT's) play analog cable, digital cable, or SD Sat as good as a good CRT.

Never underestimate the importance of analog cable ready TV's and devices. It's the one thing that prevents many, many people from switching from cable to Sat ......they don't want a box at every dam TV and they DO USE those cable ready VCR's and PVR's.

The last figures I saw put US HDTV subscribers at about 13% of the total. In the largest US TV markets perhaps cable providers can sh@t on the $45/month analog subscriber. But here in most of Central Illinois, It's a sure way to send more of their business to DirectTV or Dish.

[DereX888]

Prices are dropping hard on HD sets and it's a rare bird that hasn't noticed. Yet, interest in same is dropping even faster. What gives?

The cost is still higher than almost anyone is accustomed to paying for a TV. My best and most expensive set is a 4 year old 32" CRT that cost $450 at the time. The one I watch the most (a 9 year old 25" CRT cost less than $250). Our newest and cheapest CRT, a 2 year old 21" Sanyo, cost less than $150. I'm perfectly happy watching a VHS recording, VHS movie tape, Movie DVD or a DVD recording (made via PC PVR Cards), or live analog cable on either one of these sets.

The cost of HDTV doesn't end with the purchase of the the new set. You must purchase HD programming too. So for me that means add basic digital cable ($15) plus the basic HD package plus the HDDVR plus the premium HD package or packages of your choice. I'm at a $100 a month and still don't much like the content..........and so much of it is the same old crap........programming slipped in between all the advertizing.

But the cost aren't over. Need an HD Movie player too, or maybe two! The surround sound system on the 32" CRT doesnt have HDMI or on optical audio port. Oh well, spend some more money.

And now the fact that is denied no where except in cyberspace: No HDTV (except the older CRT's) play analog cable, digital cable, or SD Sat as good as a good CRT.

Never underestimate the importance of analog cable ready TV's and devices. It's the one thing that prevents many, many people from switching from cable to Sat ......they don't want a box at every dam TV and they DO USE those cable ready VCR's and PVR's.

The last figures I saw put US HDTV subscribers at about 13% of the total. In the largest US TV markets perhaps cable providers can sh@t on the $45/month analog subscriber. But here in most of Central Illinois, It's a sure way to send more of their business to DirectTV or Dish.

Thats the whole point of not-so-enthusiastic HD welcome by the public:
The old SD is still "good enough" for many.
And that won't change anytime soon.

[Nilfennasion]

And now the fact that is denied no where except in cyberspace: No HDTV (except the older CRT's) play analog cable, digital cable, or SD Sat as good as a good CRT.

]
Codswallop.

"As good" does not mean what a lot of people think it means. When you increase the size of your display, as well as its sharpness or clarity as is often the case between a CRT and a Plasma, you magnify what is already in the image. A "good CRT" hides a lot of things that are actually already there in the source. Mosquito noise is my personal favourite example. The noise in the background of many SD signals is there because the people encoding the signal for cable or satellite thought nobody would watch it on anything bigger than an 80cm CRT. They were wrong.

Blaming a TV's larger size for the artefacts it shows when you feed it a bad signal is a lot like blaming your eyes for the coloured shadows you see around objects when you have taken acid.

Seriously, this is giving me bad acid-like flashbacks to 1999, when everyone was rabbiting on that DVD was never going to replace VHS.

[DereX888]

Seriously, this is giving me bad acid-like flashbacks to 1999, when everyone was rabbiting on that DVD was never going to replace VHS.

LOL I remember few of such discussions
I hope these people don't work as psychic readers or such

[edDV]

Blaming a TV's larger size for the artefacts it shows when you feed it a bad signal is a lot like blaming your eyes for the coloured shadows you see around objects when you have taken acid.

I agree except for one huge issue and that is progressive display. Deinterlace performance has been the main issue with LCD and Plasma displays even if only EDTV (720x480). The processing chips are much better in current sets. 1080i hides a lot of the moving edge artifacts but they stand out clearly with 480i input.

The digital conversion is separate from HD and progressive display enhancements. The average analog CRT user is going to see great improvement in picture quality from the digital signal. Multipath ghosting and luminance noise will be effectively removed. The downconverted HD programs will look like DVD on those older sets..

[SingSing]

Blaming a TV's larger size for the artefacts it shows when you feed it a bad signal is a lot like blaming your eyes for the coloured shadows you see around objects when you have taken acid.

Your lingo is too mild, get Lord Smurf to help you Juice it up.