Video Asylum

Posted by CraigVC on November 01, 2003 at 16:59:05

In Reply to: Re: Recomendation for HDTV recievers ?? posted by AbeCollins on November 01, 2003 at 13:51:55:

Good question. To be fair, I'm not 100% sure of my conclusions, but here the evidence that led me to a reasonably confident belief that the Samsung unit I purchased is to blame, not the broadcasts themselves (and possibly not even Samsung units in general; maybe I just got "lucky" twice and got another defective individual unit!):

SUMMARY:

The characteristics of the "bugs & defects" changed within the 6 hour window of time it took me to unhook and box up the old SIR-T151 unit, drive to the store to return it, go across the street to buy a new SIR-T351 unit, return home and hook the new SIR-T351 up. Furthermore, the "bugs & defects" that were characteristic of the old SIR-T151 have not exhibited themselves in the new SIR-T351 unit. It's possible that, during that same 6 hour window of time, Portland's HDTV broadcasters (specifically both the ABC and CBS affiliates) altered their broadcasts somehow. But obviously that's a stretch and it's more likely the units I installed are to blame.

DETAILS:

The Samsung SIR-T151 unit exhibited the following "bugs & defects" characteristics:
1. Watching HDTV programming that includes Dolby Digital 5.1* sound, I noticed that every 20-30 minutes the SIR-T151 unit would become silent and would remain so indefinitely. My troubleshooting efforts sought to systematically isolate the source of this periodic silence. I replaced the new digital optical cable I was using with a known good one. This did not make a difference. I tested the original digital optical cable with my DVD player's digital output to verify that it's a good cable. It is. I tried switching my receiver's audio inputs, in an effort to "re-train" the DD 5.1 signal coming from the Samsung unit into the receiver. No good; I still heard only silence, even after turning the receiver off and back on again! This indicated to me that it was not a problem with my receiver (which has *never* had even the slightest hiccup with any digital or analog audio inputs!). So, having ruled out the cables and the receiver, I turned my attention to troubleshooting the Samsung unit itself. Bingo! I found that I could consistently "re-train" the DD 5.1 signal by momentarily changing channels from ABC's DD 5.1 broadcast to any other HDTV channel, then immediately switching it back. Without exception (I tried this at least 20 times because it happened so frequently during Monday Night Football's DD 5.1 broadcasts), the DD 5.1 sound would immediately be restored after this momentary channel-change action. Of course, 20-30 minutes later the sound would go silent again, but at least knew how to manipulate the defective Samsung unit to restore sound at this point.
(*DD 5.1 is included mainly in ABC's programming in my experience; other networks seem primarily to transmit a two-channel digital signal that's compatible with Dolby Pro-Logic, but not true DD 5.1.)
2. This DD 5.1 silence problem was the only defect I noticed in the Samsung SIR-T151 unit that I had. Maybe I was being "greedy," but I didn't like the hassle of implementing my DD 5.1 defect workaround every Monday night during the football game. Plus, I figured as more programming switched to true DD 5.1 sound, I would experience more and more manifestations of this defect. So I decided to return the unit and "upgrade" to the SIR-T351, which was selling for the same $399 price across the street from Good Guys (at Circuit City).
3. As a reference note, I should add here that the Samsung SIR-T151 unit I had could receive the local CBS HDTV broadcasts with a strong signal and no audio or video problems at all. This is an important note compared to the SIR-T351's defects, described below.

The Samsung SIR-T351 unit exhibited the following "bugs & defects" characteristics:
1. The DD 5.1 defect exhibited in the SIR-T151 unit (see above) did *not* reappear in the newer SIR-T351 unit. However, a new problem occurs instead: while the digital optical audio output is set to "Dolby Digital" in the preferences, I am now experiencing brief (1-2 seconds at the most) audio dropouts on *every* channel. These audio dropouts are different than those exhibited on the SIR-T151 unit in three ways: (1) they happen on all channels and during all programming, not just true DD 5.1 programming; (2) they only last a couple of seconds, compared to indefinitely as on the SIR-T151; and (3) they "correct" themselves, so momentarily switching channels manually is no longer required for correction. This time, I skipped troubleshooting the cables and the receiver, assuming that those components were still okay based on troubleshooting the SIR-T151's defects. Instead, I concentrated on the SIR-T351, and I discovered that I could get rid of almost all audio dropouts by switching the SIR-T351 unit's preferences from "Dolby Digital" to "PCM." Now I can enjoy continuous sound without dropouts, but I can no longer enjoy the enhanced clarity and discrete surround sound characteristics of Dolby Digital 5.1. So again, this workaround is not acceptable to me; it deprives me of the DD 5.1 audio advantages of HDTV, compared to "regular" TV.
2. Not only do I feel like I evenly traded one type of audio defect in the SIR-T151 for a different but equally annoying defect in the SIR-T351, but I was in for a second rude surprise when I tried to watch CBS HDTV. The problem is that I no longer can view CBS HDTV with the SIR-T351! I have not moved my antenna from the location that provided a strong CBS signal in the SIR-T151, so I know that's not the problem. Furthermore, I can go into the SIR-T351's preferences and verify that I'm receiving the CBS HDTV signal as strong. However, there is no picture or sound, only a graphic that says "No Signal," directly contradicting the signal strength meter in the SIR-T351's preferences.

In my opinion, I am worse off with the SIR-T351 than I was with the SIR-T151, because now I have to deal with two major defects, rather than one.

Finally, for the sake of completeness, I will list a couple of things I do like better about the SIR-T351 compared to the SIR-T151 (not nearly enough to make up for the defects, though):
1. The graphics and organization on the preferences menus are improved.
2. The SIR-T351 picks up two more local HDTV broadcast channels than the SIR-T151 could (using the exact same antenna, positioning, etc.). However, those two extra channels are the local WB and UPN affiliates, two networks that show absolutely nothing I'm interested in watching. The plus side, though, is that apparently they have improved the quality of the tuner in the SIR-T351, compared to the earlier SIR-T151 unit.

There's always the chance, in writing these online reviews, that one person's findings are the result of an exceptionally defective unit. I realize this may be the case with my situation (twice!). However, at the least my experiences may indicate that Samsung's engineering and/or quality control is not as good as it should be, so I still think it's valuable for me to document my experiences publicly.

I am still trying to decide whether I should return this (apparently) defective SIR-T351 for another unit of the same brand/model.

Other than the defects, I'm happy with the way the unit functions in general. Until my experiences with these two Samsung's HDTV receivers, I was a HUGE fan of the company's products going all the way back to a nifty little 13" color TV from Samsung that I used to own back in the mid-1980s! So I assure you that I have no personal vendetta against Samsung; I'm sincerely disappointed that I'm having these troubles with a Samsung product.

That's probably the only reason I'm considering giving a third Samsung HDTV receiver a chance. Whether I get another Samsung, or decide to go for the Zenith instead, I will try to post an updated report to this forum.

I'm happy for those of you who are reporting no (or minor) problems with your Samsung HDTV receivers. I wouldn't wish my problems on anyone, and hopefully I can join your satisfied ranks eventually.

Craig.