Talk:SCART: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:47, 22 May 2009

Japanese SCART

is the Japanese SCART wiring standard mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.187.133 (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This standard is known as EIA-J TTC-003. Besides sharing the same physical plug, the pin out is very different. The pinout is here: [1] NJRoadfan (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations about SCART introduction reasons

There's a whole section of speculations and claims about French legislation that are not supported by any references, which would normally be quite easy (legislation and regulations are indexed). David.Monniaux 08:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Strangely, There is much truth in this (I note the reference has been removed). France has always had a particularly repressive government - extremely socialist verging on communist. The original French TV standard (the 819 line system) was introduced for two reasons. First: to prevent French citizens from watching unsuitable television broadcasts (i.e. anything not originating from the heavily government controlled French station). Second, to protect French television manufacturers from foreign competition as the 819 line system was a patented proprietary system.

When France moved to colour, it had to abandon the 819 line system as the bandwidth requirements were unacceptable. It was long speculated that the French SECAM colour system was to similarly discourage viewing of 'unsuitable material', but in fact the SECAM colour system was developed before the PAL system, used by the rest of Europe - and France hoped to sell it to the remainder of Europe. (Interestingly, the USSR adopted SECAM for precisely this reason.) France adopted the now European standard 625 line system, but adopted an inverted form of the system to prevent French televisions from receiving 'unsuitable broadcasts'. France used a system of positive video modulation, whereas the rest of the world had adopted negative modulation which was far less prone to breakup due to interference.

Hey! How do you know this is not just coffee machine ranting? Adam Mirowski 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is. There was never anything to stop Belgium, Luxembourg or Monaco making "unsuitable broadcasts" on 819 lines. And there were times when they did just that ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.129.129 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French analogue satellite broadcasts used a system called DMAC2 for much the same reason (though DMAC was actually a British development). With the introduction of Video Recording, the French developed the SCART interface and legislated that all French Televisions and Video recorders had to be fitted with the connector. The idea was to once again protect the French television and video industry from foreign competition as the connector was proprietary. Unfortunately for the French, the idea of having a single connector and cable to connect all the audio and video signals for recording and playback in one go was such a good one (even if the connector itself left a lot to be desired), that it was rapidly copied throughout Europe. So much so that the French were unable to launch patent infingement suits on the required scale.

Conspiracy theories forever! Adam Mirowski 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even today, the French are having to live with a digital TV system that is incompatible with the rest of Europe. The internet itself caused much panic in Paris, when the government heavily tried to discourage its use, and tried to pursuade French citizens to use the obsolete (but government controlled) Minitel system instead. I B Wright 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! You almost looked serious when I started reading this. Adam Mirowski 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is component video, really?

"RGB signals, which were SCART's strong point for many years, are getting less useful today, after the (arguably) superior component video signal format was introduced", I thought RGB was a type of component video ?

There are differing definitions of "component video". Some use it to mean "S-Video", i.e. luma and chroma separately, while others use a wider definition that includes RGB. I can't think of any reason for claiming that S-Video is "superior" to RGB, though. -- Heron 19:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I have just done some reading, and I have found that another, and perhaps the correct, definition of "component video" is Y-Cb-Cr video (i.e. luma and the two quadrature components of chroma). This explains the statement "SCART cannot carry component video" in our article. I don't think this format is superior to RGB in terms of pure quality, but it makes more efficient use of bandwidth and is probably more than good enough for TV viewing. -- Heron (again)

YCbCr is not superior in any way. For all practical purposes, the two can be considered identical. The signal on a DVD or transmitted by digital television is YCrCb. The signal required by the display device, be it a CRT; Plasma or LCD display is RGB. The former has to be converted to the latter at some point in the chain and it does not matter whether this occurs in the DVD player or the digital TV set top box, or in the television set itself. To be really accurate, YCbCr has problems if it is to be carried over very long distances, because the CbCr components have a much narrower bandwidth than the Y component. Differing propagation coefficients of the signals will cause the colour information to arrive ahead of the luminance information. However, it does require a very long distance to make this effect noticeable. I B Wright 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would think the skew corrections for RGB would be a bit easier than for YCbCr - all you need are alternating black & white lines and to tweak the delays so they don't have colour fringes. Having to alter where two different less obvious colour components lie either side of a luminance change would be more complex... 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Component video" by definition refers to any method of transmitting video signals in components, as opposed to composite video where it is all in the one line. Therefore, "component video" refers to either RGB, any forms of colour difference component (YUV, YPbPr, YCbCr, etc.) or S-Video. Saying it only refers to one of the above is incorrect, and just bad English. --Zilog Jones 18:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are correct, S-Video is not considered a component video system, because the chrominance wire does not carry a component, but rather the 2 colour difference signals quadrature modulated onto the suppressed colour sub-carrier just like CVBS (composite video). I B Wright 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCART should be innovated

SCART is a very good type of multipurpose audio/video cable but it has become rather large. Why don't they change the connector to something with smaller pins, closer to each other (ie the DVI pin layout). In addition with the new connector more pins could be added to carry more signals/cables. An adapter could also be created to still be able to plug the cable into a normal SCART connector. my 2 cents, Stef Nighthawk.

I've knocked off 'So it is difficult to argue with the no-import rationale above' from the end of the speculations bit because it's irrational. It essentially presents the second suggestion as a straw man.

Personally, I think that whole section is silly.

The pins are further apart to prevent cross-talk, and therefore increase picture quality. DVI/HDMI Cables have the pins closer together because Digital Cables are less prone to cross-talk and so picture quality does not suffer.

MORE: Quite a few set-top box manufacturers have elected to use smaller connectors, particularly on the back of digital STBs, where the mini-DIN has been used. This of-course requires a special lead to connect to the TV's standard SCART socket. Manufacturers I can think of who have gone for this approach include Amino Communications and Video Networks' HomeChoice boxes. A disadvantage of this aproach is that the thick cables needed for good-quality video and audio can put a lot of strain on such small connectors. I believe they have chosen different pin-outs, too. — Kim SJ 12:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This, unfortunately, isn't a new obsession though; I have 1980's home entertainment gear that uses mini-DIN's which could either be used direct to connect to other gear by the same maker, or through nastily huge adapters for RCA or SCART. None of them seem to let you output RGB over them either. --Kiand 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this crosstalk thing ? The VGA cnnector used by most analouge computer monitors uses a far narrower pin spacing and Im not aware of any crossralk issues (no sound though).

1. "Become" rather large? It was ALWAYS this size. Everything else has just got smaller. Whether it got better - or at least, whether it would be better at carrying the exact same signals - is another thing entirely.

2. On multi-way mini-DIN things ... I think you may find on closer inspection they only carry Composite, S-Video, and stereo sound. Unless they have a hueg number of pins or offer a pretty clever switching arrangement (and no seperate grounds for each of the colours), there's no RGB or component there. I've only, personally, ever seen those implemented as SCART, multi-phono, full DIN (with lots of pins) or DB-15HD (ie VGA), sometimes with converters between them - e.g. to pipe a SCART RGB or YCrCb signal down a VGA + 3.5mm audio minijack into a data-projector.

3. VGA crosstalks and degrades like a motherf****r at noticably lower distances than SCART - though admittedly it does also tend to operate at much higher resolutions and scan rates, and again often uses cheaper cable (ever notice that you get "thin" and "thick" VGA cables? Tip: don't use LONG "thin" cables... again it comes down to the in-cable shielding levels). It's not really meant for that kind of thing, 6 to 12ft is your practical maximum before suffering slight degradation. Beyond that, it's a better idea to split it to multiple seperate-phono or BNC (allowing seperate shielding) for each of the major signals (RGBHV) and use converters at one/both ends as necessary. Or CAT5 with devices to allow you to connect for differences in run length for really long cables.... and to do similar for SCART or even S-Video if you want to go great distances. There's a good reason composite was used for broadcast rather than putting components on different frequencies :) 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"VGA crosstalks and degrades like a motherf****r at noticably lower distances than SCART": I don't think VGA crosstalk issues have anything to do with the connector. If they did they would be an issue even on short cables. You do need a good quality impedance controlled cable to run VGA a long distance with decent quality but that would apply regardless of the connector.

"There's a good reason composite was used for broadcast rather than putting components on different frequencies :)" yeah, they wanted to cram a color picture into the frequency space intended for black and white TV. Plugwash (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true

The article states that "In general, 5.1 sound is new to European TV, it only started to appear in 2004, on selected satellite channels."

This is not true, as for example some German TV Stations, ProSieben for example, started broadcasting Dolby Digital via Satellite, and I think Digital Cable (sic, satellite AND cable - another correction to the article), at least around 2002, maybe even earlier. thanks, --Abdull 20:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And what about DVDs and LaserDiscs, which have had surround sound for many years? Things that aren't broadcasted can use SCART cables too! --193.1.100.105 10:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed that, as it was both incorrect and irrelevant - whether 5.1 is new or not, the lack of it is still a drawback. TerokNor 16:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would guess the person that wrote that was British, as 5.1 has only been available on TV in the UK since 2004 unless you were getting foreign satellite channels... *hugs his Comag*. --Kiand 21:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO there's a problem with the related drawback "SCART is limited to two audio channels - meaning it cannot deliver true surround sound", AFAIK it can deliver surround sound in matrixed forms (ie. ProLogic), which from my standpoint is as true as any other form. I believe true should be changed to discrete, but correct me if I'm wrong. --Outlyer 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair point - but it's still not "5.1" as originally stated, is it. That term implies discrete 6-channel audio, distinct from, say, a 2.0 channel Dolby Prologic signal (that becomes 3.0 or 4.0 post-decoding dependent on version) which offers pseudo-surround sound in much the same way that an "full colour" anaglyphic (red & green glasses, but with weaker tints in this case) movie offers 3D images. 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New pinout table

I propose a proper pinout table is added to this page. The list now is a bit hard to read, and confusing, as certain pins have different assignments whether the signal being transmitted is RGB, composite or s-video. Also, signal levels and impedance should be listed too. I suggest using this from pinouts.ru as a template for this - they don't seem to mention anything about copyrights or licenses, so I assume it's free imformation.

I have to find out how to do tables properly first, but I was thinking along the lines of this for the rows:

And another table for voltages/impedance for each pin. This is an important issue, especially with RGB as some devices output 1V RGB and others output .7V. --Zilog Jones 15:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

D²B (Digital Data Bus) -- Possibly incorrectly named.

I couldn't find Digital Data Bus on the IEC website, but I could find domestic digital bus (D2B)

The standards are:

IEC 60933-4 
IEC 61030
IEC 61030-am1

Could someone confirm if this is correct.

Further research suggest that the bus may now be called "Av.Link". "Av.Link" Is defined by the following standard:

EN 50157

The "Av.Link" info was gleaned from the following sources:

http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/pdf_documents/publications/SCART_report_issue.pdf
http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/Docs/publications/files/111_heerink.pdf
http://www.dtg.org.uk/publications/books/connectivity_guidelines.pdf

Also, the IEC link brings up too many hits. (The correct one being "International Electrotechnical Commission") --Redrob 23:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Specifications, and names.

The SCART connector is formally called the "peritelivision connector"

I Believe the standard defining the scart is:

IEC 60807-9 (Rectangular connectors for frequencies below 3 MHz - Part 9: Detail specification for a range of peritelevision connectors)

And also the following British & European standards:

EN 50049-1
BS EN 50049-1
BS EN 50157-1

The source for this info (and an interesting document in it's own right) is this pdf file:

http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/pdf_documents/publications/SCART_report_issue.pdf

--Redrob 23:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right... and it copies entire sentences from our Wikipedia SCART article. I know it copies because I wrote them originally. But it does improve the content.

Remember the rules kids - once something is cited in an official or third party printed document or online PDF, it's officially true. Even if it came from Wikipedia in the first place because the author was feeling lazy. Therefore we can now quote the original text back into the article as cited material instead. Logical and ontological paradoxes? Hah! We spit at them. 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation section

The speculation section at the end of the article does not conform to NPOV or standard formating for Wikipedia articles. The italicized comments at the beginning are NPOV. Arguments for and against this speculation can be presented but should be sourced. Evidence said to discount this speculation can be presented but only in a NPOV manor in which the article does not appear to take sides. --Cab88

I'd remove that section ASAP, its a real mess and adds nothing to the article! EAi 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKED USER: {dark radar} 25 monkies aside --- the error felt like a scart connection, then on research introspection, i noticed the 'locking' capability this had given itself to (lindy) in my introversion i have found scart to be Ulysees-Invention as much as he is can become a 'loch pirate' as-well, scarts were invented as a compromise/comprisory because of the same jaen misfunction of INRI - those that know SPQR at this symbol mysogeny,, scart laymen see loch-like translation, dimmer switch intervention, [o reader grappling],, computers - though do not like locking devices, including lock-break-switiching-circuits, which the internet is going through right now, they tend to like IO definite things, so scarts as they do 'crack',, it is the joystick i can say at this point of intervention that holds the key of a certain resonant symbology to iron out these ruffians... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.28.29 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify direction of input and output

An anonymous contributor has added (14:08, 14 April 2006) that "Input and output are defined with respect to the TV set". I believe that the directions stated in the article apply to ALL sockets and that the SCART cable will "cross over" the connections. -- Nick 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience at least, 'standard' (fully-wired or composite+audio only) SCART cables swap pins 19 and 20, ie composite input and composite output are swapped. If you are constructing a SCART-enabled device you have to use pin 20 to output composite video (or the composite sync if you're using RGB) and the cable then ensures that it is correctly fed into the 'composite input' pin when you connect it to a television. So yes, you're right, it's defined with respect to all sockets. Knowing this would have saved me much confusion when my picture wouldn't hold sync! [with apologies for anonymity]

re: "RGB connections are not bidirectional. Bidirectional S-Video was added in an extension, although few devices support this, so downstream connections are almost always composite.". Shouldn't this say "upstream"? Blue Basin 49 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

drawbacks

seems this unsourced anti-Péritel section is a bit too much. was it done by an english or a republican or some? :) "the connector is too bulky compared to the american VGA?" WTF? why not stating "the RCA connector is cute compared to the Péritel?!"... to say the SCART doesn't allow dolby digital EX ouput is just as stupid as to compare the old Péritel with the VGA scart. are you stupid? these stuff came 20 years later, you cannot compare obsolete technologies with the current standard and call them drawbacks, it doesn't make sense. by the way the shitty RCA cannot be compared with the latest optical TOSLINK for DTS neither, nor the VGA technology. i remember the british (and possibly the aussies too) had a state of the art "RF unit" to connect their pal sega game console through the antenna roof connector :D when we had a secam model with Péritel RVB (RGB SCART) in the 80/90s. it is unfair to compare PERITEL with other stuff than original RCA and Mini-DIN (ushiden). same thing for the cable, you can note many drawbacks with the RCA cable, cheap, thin, too long, fragile, etc. Péritel is a good technology it's just greedy people tend to buy 1€ cheap 5-meter coax cables from china and use these long cables instead of the short (lighter) models. Personally i like the Péritel because i did not had that much drawbacks. the only pin that broke up happened with a 10-pin connector from china or japan. french 21-pin (the original french was 21 not 10) connectors are more expensive but more solid. anyway cheap RCA connectors have drawbacks too, i've experienced plugging a male video RCA connector in a female socket and the whole female socket came with the male (she must be in love or some) when i've unplugged the cable, so what? is it worthy to make a section about this stuff? drawbacks can happen with cheap cables but it's up to the chinese maker (non-standard quality) not to the original design or standard models. how many people with a 10-pin SCART cable or adaptator know they will never reach RGB but will get a shitty CVBS picture instead. these people would cry EUROSCART are shit but this has nothing to do with the genuine Péritel! even the article's top picture is a cheap connector, "Champion" what's that? the musketeers of the distribution... Paris By Night 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little bit loony, but on the whole I agree. Particularly the late point about how "Cinch" sockets seem to bond more tightly with the plugs that go into them than their own motherboards. SCART may be weak against heavy cables or other angular pressure / stretching / etc, but at least when it does pop out of the socket under this strain it doesn't destroy your TV and prevent you plugging it back in... it merely makes you think a little more about how you arrange your cables in order to prevent it (e.g. maybe cable-tying them to one of the convenient loops that get provided on the back of TV sets?). Which is something I HAVE seen more than once, including on expensive and often uneconomic-to-repair video projectors ... which I think tend to omit SCART plugs almost out of spite - or, to sell expensive VGA/component converters and because they know the other connectors are more vulnerable to the type of abuse these devices will often suffer, and how much their own service departments charge to repair them. Argh. 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert tagging

section title abbreviated from: Who's so expert so as to decide that "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject"? // FrankB 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously those who added to the article's contents possess considerable expertise. The article is well written and informative. What was the intention of whoever attached such a tag? To make Wikipedia a treatise on Electronics, among about other sciences? Preposterous! --AVM 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm expert enough to figure out you have a good point... alas, tis just 'yet another' cleanup tag sans date thereafter ignored by the editor who should have been monitoring it's progress in the nearly a year since. As such, I'm removing that. // FrankB 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCART name as link

re: SCART (from [[Syndicat des Constructeurs d'Appareils Radiorécepteurs et Téléviseurs]] )

This had been represented in the redlink above by a prior editor... which I'd made into a softredirect page to the French wikipedia...
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.but! this is not even a article on the French wiki, so am removing as a link reference. I'd even had a French capable editor look for alternative spellings, etc. and it fails that the same, so am {db-authoring} the linkpage. Submit restoring same would be ill advised. // FrankB 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21st Pin

The pin-out diagram used on the page almost makes the slot for the 21st connection look like it accepts a pin the same as the other 20, whereas in fact it accepts the sheath which surrounds all of the pins. Should the diagram be amended to reflect this? LaFoiblesse 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCART diagrams are usually like that, and if you look inside a typical SCART plug you will see a pin (sometimes soldered on) in that place which connects the shielding of the cable. --Zilog Jones 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HDMI

Should a 'Superseded by HDMI' thingie like Peripheral Component Interconnect has? And also, was there any kind of AV combined connector before or was SCART the first? --AnY FOUR! 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern comparison

In Criticisms:

SCART connectors are large and cumbersome compared to most modern connectors (such as HDMI) and the cabling is often bulky and heavy.

Comparing an older standard with a modern one is absurd, no? --AnY FOUR! 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does suggest a lack of foresight on the part of the original designers. Coupled with criticisim of continued use of the standard and the (French and EU) legislation mandating same. 213.40.112.230 (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they have needed "foresight" into our thin-ness obsessed and largely digital, less crosstalk-prone world? It was a perfectly fine and even a revolutionary type of connector at the time. Remember that this was concocted THIRTY YEARS AGO - few things stand that kind of test of time. Particularly as most other contemporary cable types were just as bulky if not worse - DIN plugs, multiple phono plugs, etc, and didn't offer anything like the same potential picture quality or functionality (and it's arguable that some of the modern alternatives lose some function/quality... particularly HDMI if you have an early HDTV without the correct anti-copy stuff in it).

An exception to this could be the DIN plug that was at the other end of my Atari's SCART monitor cable, that was barely larger than a standard 5-pin Hi-Fi / MIDI plug (probably about the same time as a balanced mic / amp plug)... but that "only" had 13 pins in it. And it was an absolute pain in the backside to solder, in fact I completely ruined the first replacement one I tried to make, as the pins were too densely packed, in a truly shortsighted part-concentric circle, part multi-row-matrix arrangement. By comparison fabricating the SCART end was a breeze. You have to consider manufacture as well as use! I guess it's less problematic for HMDI and DVI, respectively tiny and similarly complex, as their production will be far more automated with much more precise equipment.

The bulkiness of the connector was not a problem considering the massive volume and weight of even a 14" screen at the time, and so long as you insert it firmly and don't disturb it much, it actually tends to stay in place quite nicely. A bit iffy to legistlate in favour of a certain connection standard, but I wonder if it would otherwise actually have gained much ground amongst manufacturers often concerned more with cost than quality or ease of use? I find it hard to state how appreciative I sometimes am of being able to reconfigure my home AV setup (where there just isn't enough inputs / outputs on some of the things to support every direction that I want to send signals without a periodic reshuffle) by simply and easily shifting one multi-way connector from a certain socket on receiver "A", to another on receiver "B", or between the TV's third SCART and the single one on the VCR (to preview then record an on-demand cable programme)... rather than struggling with multiple, physically identical, multicoloured but difficult-to-see (inside a cabinet), tightly attached and/or more fiddly and delicate Phono & S-Video connectors (which instead stay permanently attached between the devices that either require or can "get away with" using them, and the TV's auxiliary non-SCART inputs) and their more easily damaged cables.

Why people gotta hate on something so useful just because it's a bit bigger than another thing in a contest size ultimately doesn't actually matter? (Anything that's "too small" to have a SCART on it, isn't big enough to display a picture that will benefit from the improved quality anyway). Hate on it for not carrying HD signals or 5.1, or being poorly keyed for obvious insertion in a fiddly and low-light environment, fine. But not because it's a bit larger than what you're used to and you think its - 'high' voltage analogue signal carrying - pins should be as small as those for a TTL digital connector. 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crosstalk

To whoever wrote the part about removing pin 19 to prevent crosstalk, THANK YOU! Ever since I bought a DVD Recorder, I've had ghost images on the screen. Turns out the recorder is outpouting comp video on both SCART sockets. So it's sending the cable tv signal BACK to the cable box on the same SCART cable as it recieves it. I removed pin 19 at the recorder end of the cable, and the ghosts are gone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.141.107 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will reitterate this. I've been wondering how to get rid of ghosting for years! 194.9.188.21 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to try that when I get home! 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How 2

I notice the tag on the section about giving practical advice. I don't think the content of the section is giving much advice, most of it is simply factual information. Maybe simply renaming the section would be a good idea? 194.9.188.21 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flat SCART cables?

in Critisicms:

"...Attempts at thinner or flat cables are more susceptible to cross-talk..."

Correct me if wrong, but I thought flat SCART leads were supposed to reduce crosstalk compared to round ones? This site says:

"...Flat cable leads tend to offer higher levels of screening as the conductors are spaced further apart, reducing crosstalk..."

...kind of akin to why some people advise against round PATA IDE leads, compared to flat ones?

This issue has thoroughly confused me. I assume it all hinges on the configuration of the shielding in the cable?

Cheers. 87.194.223.183 (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be that cheaper flat cables cut down on the amount of shielding, similar to premium ones using coaxial audio/visual carriers vs budget ones that run plain parallel (or TP) wires... Coax or TP would be probably difficult to implement with a flat ribbon cable, unless you go down the ATA-66 route of padding it out 50% with ground wires. 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comment about flat from the article, I have no doubt that a wide flat cable can be just as good as a conventional round cable. A thin cable on the other hand is probablly going to have to sacrifice something though (whether that is complete wiring, seperate screening or just general construction quality)

If you are doing long runs or you are a videophile you should check carefully before you buy regardless of the shape of the cable. Afaict basic round scart cables are generally made out of multiway overall screened cable which is cheap but obviously prone to crosstalk. Better quality scart cables are made with the high speed signals individully screened. Plugwash (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At what level of penetration does common knowledge stop needing citations?

Re: "In Europe, SCART is the most common method of connecting audio-visual equipment together, and has become a standard connector for such devices (even more so than the phono plug),[citation needed] however it is far less common elsewhere in the world.[citation needed]"

OK, I know officially speaking these things need to be referenced, but where the hell are we supposed to get information like that? It's just a known thing. AV equipment in Europe tends to be SCARTed together, most major items of TV/Video equipment come with the sockets as standard main and sometimes even their only non-RF connectors, and the shelves are full of the cables, to the extent that it can be difficult to get an affordable RCA or S-Vid cable (much under £10/€12.50 for S-Vid) unless you go online or use a specialist supplier, but a very basic RF or a SCART can cost £2 / €2.50 or less in common supermarkets. Outside of Europe, the emphasis is on Composite/Component RCA and mini-DIN S-Video, and if you want a SCART lead you may well have to deliberately import it.

It's just a thing, one that's obvious if you spend any time living in either place, going to their electronics stores, or talking to anyone from the respective areas about connecting up equipment. How do you cite something that's an everyday experience? It's like citing that British and Japanese cars are driven on the left side of the road and have their controls on the right side, and that Britain and the USA use miles & MPH as distance and speed measurements on said roads, but most other countries do it differently (drive on the right and/or use metric). It's just a widely but not universally known thing, that's worthy of inclusion for completeness, context, and informing the few people who weren't already aware, but isn't a scientifically proven fact. Something that if you had actually made up false details for would cause you to be readily shot down by a great many people who know otherwise because they've actually had direct experience of the things.

Come on, give it up, citation obsessives. Cite for it's date of introduction and who was behind it, that's fair enough... 193.63.174.210 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pin 18 - blanking ground or composite ground?

Which is actually correct? Pinouts found on the Web seem to be almost evenly divided on this. -- 92.229.133.202 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most official free documentation I found is [2] and the document "Connectivity Guidelines" on [3]. Both show Pin 18 as composite up return. As this was written by people with access to the real standards, it's probably correct. -- 3247 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s-video indication

is there any mechanism to indicate to the TV that s-video is being transmitted or does the TV just have to guess from what signals are active? Plugwash (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed for "SCART makes it easy to connect AV equipment (including TVs, VCRs, DVD players and game consoles)"

I recognize that this sentence refers to the complicated nature of previous connection methods, however with the duration of time that has passed since the introduction of SCART, and the fact that the sentence suggests that SCART is easier than other methods (besides the methods predating SCART), I think the sentence needs clarification or rewording. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Can you propose an easier way of wiring a recording device to a television ? HDMI won't cut it for grandma. How - "SCART connectors and cables make it easier to connect audio-visual equipment like televisions and video-recorders, reducing the number of cable connections between each component to just one and reducing the scope for mis-connections". Megapixie (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using marketing-like language, i.e. "easy", I would prefer something along the lines of... "By having a single connector that attaches in only one direction, SCART allows for a reduced number of cable connections by design, and makes incorrect connections nearly impossible." ...only stated more gracefully. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you end up trying to say a lot in a single sentence by being specific, and as a result making it nearly incomprehensible. Another bash: "The SCART system was intended to simplify connecting audio-video equipment. To achieve this it gathered all of the analogue signal connections into a single cable with a unique connector that made incorrect connections nearly impossible.". It may be simpler to say - "Less f**cking around behind the telly" Megapixie (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "more gracefully" in my post. ;) The sentences you composed above are a significant improvement over where the article stands now, and I would support replacing the current sentence with yours. However, I would certainly prefer "Less f**cking around behind the telly" if Wikipedia were that sort of place. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why I like what you composed over the current state of things... Personally, I find the current sentence to read like a bias advertisement for SCART. Your sentence makes clear that the design was to rectify issues with previous connectors, without injecting opinion into the mix, and keeping the focus on the historical design of SCART. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the preceding discussion, I have replaced:

"SCART makes it easy to connect AV equipment (including TVs, VCRs, DVD players and game consoles).^{[clarification needed]} In essence, it gathers together various common analog signal types into a single connector. Previously, each of these would have had their own socket, requiring numerous separate connections and a "spaghetti" type mass of leads."

with

"The SCART system was intended to simplify connecting audio-video equipment (including TVs, VCRs, DVD players and game consoles). To achieve this it gathered all of the analogue signal connections into a single cable with a unique connector that made incorrect connections nearly impossible.

This change reflects the removal of informal, non-encyclopedic language, in favor of a more formal and clear statement. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EIA Multiport's relation to SCART?

Has it been confirmed that an EIA Multiport is indeed nothing more then a SCART standard connector with a different name? I have a manual from a circa 1989 RCA Colortrek 2000 TV that states it was a standard for connecting external cable descramblers. It specifically notes the connector does not support RGB. The manual does not state the pin-out however. Basically it needs to be confirmed that the pin-out is the same as SCART and that plugging in a SCART device will work without modification (a reference to the actual EIA standard governing this specific port would be best). Otherwise the EIA Multiport likely shouldn't be called an "NTSC" version of SCART and removed from this article. NJRoadfan (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galvanic Corrosion

There is a chunk of the article relating to galvanic corrosion that could use some work. I don't know much about the topic, so I'll refrain from making an attempt unless others fail to do so. Can somebody take a look at it? Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as could say the current text is correct regarding the galvanic corrosion. The reverted note was misleading and redundant. Gold and nickel creates a galvanic couple which causes nickel corrosion. See for example Galvanic corrosion#Galvanic series. --pabouk (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not well read on the subject, but that was my understanding as well, from dealing with a variety of connectors doing computer repairs. That said, the section isn't ideal. Actually, it doesn't belong in the article at all, because it is true of all connectors, not just scart connectors. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sync Pin?

So, when using RGB, which pin carries sync? This isn't mentioned in the pinout table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.66.167 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, it gets sync from the composite video signal. Davhorn (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it gets the composite sync from the composite video line.NJRoadfan (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 284: / Line 284: @@
 This isn't mentioned in the pinout table.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.132.66.167|86.132.66.167]] ([[User talk:86.132.66.167|talk]]) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :If I remember correctly, it gets sync from the composite video signal. [[User:Davhorn|Davhorn]] ([[User talk:Davhorn|talk]]) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
+::Correct, it gets the composite sync from the composite video line.[[User:NJRoadfan|NJRoadfan]] ([[User talk:NJRoadfan|talk]]) 03:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)