Talk:SCART/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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...

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)

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)

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)

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Should a 'Superseded by HDMI' thingie like Peripheral Component Interconnect has?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)

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)

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)

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 legislate 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)

The biggest issue I have with SCART is less the size of the connecting lead as the way the lead connects to the plug - on the side. A lead that connects to the back does not then have to contend with where designers of devices put the sockets, including the distance between sockets on a device. It is simply badly designed for use and often badly implemented. I have also had too many plugs not sit in the sockets properly (because of that lead position again) so falling out. It seems that the socket can be as much to blame as the lead for this prevalent problem. I find myself losing colour or sound - or getting interference in them because of connection problems. In addition, I have had plugs break when connected so I have to remove the remains of the plug from the socket. That is a result of the heaviness of the lead. The ubiquity of this poorly designed standard is probably to do with cost rather than usability. Some of the issues could be resolved by moving the lead and providing screws such as is commonly used with VGA. I cannot be the only person who will welcome its demise in favour of something better. The technology is old and is ripe for replacement. (Johnwander (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

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)

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)

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

Heh... I've just found a SCART/Composite + SVideo converter block where it looks like someone's actually tried this, but they've got the pin at the mirror end instead and ruined it. Explains what they were thinking I suppose :D - be careful and study the pinouts (and any printed numbers on the plug) properly! 193.63.174.10 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As in "3x Coax plus TP"? (Can't remember whether I saw that on a SCART or a VGA high-end, long-run cable description, but it's probably just as applicable to both - individually screened mini-coax cables for the RGB lines, and all other paired lines (IE signal + return) twisted around each other for a vague stab at the benefits differential signalling brings) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maplin (a major electronics retailer in the UK) sell two types of cut cable for making "universal" scart leads.

The short run cable is just a 20 way overall screened cable.

The long run cable has six individually screened cores (composite video both ways, RGB one way and blanking signals) 1x four core screened (audio) four single wires (communication data, communication data ground, function switching not sure why there is one more than there needs to be) and then an overall screen (overall ground). edit: forgot the communication data ground

-- Plugwash (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

The most official free documentation I found is [1] and the document "Connectivity Guidelines" on [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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: [3] NJRoadfan (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per the preceding discussion, I have replaced:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Sooooooo when a computer with an RGB monitor output but no composite provision on it's 6- or 7-pin DIN port is connected up via SCART, then what? I've previously been told it carries sync on green as well... any truth in that? (Seems maybe a bit much to take "composite sync" - which is something possible even with VGA - as meaning it comes from the possibly-missing composite line, if that's what you've done) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You send your sync signal to the video input pin on the SCART input. It doesn't have to be a full video signal in RGB mode, just a composite sync (combined V+H-sync). If you have sync-on-green you could in theory connect the green output both to green input and video input but in practise that would load your green source with 37½ ohm while red and blue is correctly loaded with 75 ohm giving a magentacolored picture if the signal is strong enough for the TV to sync correctly.

Example: Connecting an Amiga computers 23-pin d-sub video output to a SCART input is done by straight wires for the RGB signals, _CSYNC is connected with a resistor in series to the video input pin (and +5V in series with a resistor is connected to pin 16 and +12V is connected to pin 8 to make sure the TV switch to SCART input with RGB activated - on some TV's you need a switch in series with +12V and especially +5V/blanking to be able to watch TV while the computer is switched on).

(To clarify - or perhaps qualify my question further ... say you throw component YCrCb over it, which when used in it's native form is a 3x coaxial connection standard... "Where is your sync now?") 193.63.174.10 (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Component over SCART is non-standard.

Poor Introduction and explanantion

The introduction explaining SCART and it's origins compared to HDMI are mis-leading and innaccurate. It attemps to compare and justify two technologies which were designed with different goals in mind. One for high-quality Analogue TV, and one for Digital TV

For example: 1. "SCART is fast becoming obsolete with the development of newer standards for digital and high-definition television such as HDMI."

Incorrect. ALL (European) A/V equipment still comes with SCART connectors.

2. "Modern digital televisions have built-in processors to convert the lossless digital signals provided over HDMI connections to the television screen"

Incorrect. No conversion occurs, but rather a decoding of the HDMI data. This line attempts to suggest that HDMI is somehow "better" and converting tv signals.

3. "SCART on the other hand introduces significant losses in picture quality through the earlier conversion to analogue and a relatively limited bandwidth this older standard is capable of providing."

Again, woefully incorrect and biased, written by someone who doesn't actually know what SCART is for. This line assumes that a digital picture is being used, then converted to analogue "for SCART" before being sent to a digital television. It completely misses/ignores the point that before Digitial TV's and HDMI, all picture sources (tv, vhs) were analogue sources!! SCART itself has not "introduced significant loss", but if a digital source has been converted to Analogue for transmission over a SCART cable, then that conversion process has introduced these losses, not the SCART connector

Indeed! It's just as good - or perhaps better depending on the wiring-up of the source and the TV's own electronics - as 3x RCA YPbPr component, particularly if it's a good quality shielded cable. Maybe not so good for high-def material, but then I don't recall SCART ever being used for anything except standard def, unlike component that gets (unsuitably?) pressed into action for HD. Now, you might get the wrong idea if you have a horrible cheap SCART (or switch-box) that only connects up the composite lines and doesn't have any shielding... but the standard itself is solid. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Up/Down current clarification attempt - erm?

Someone's tried to add detail to the matter with talk about set top boxes and how it can cause misunderstanding... with the net result that the section itself is now less clear. Is this really necessary? Particularly that I don't think I've ever SEEN an actual "Set Top Box" that lives up to its name anywhere around europe, apart from VERY occasional small decoder things in hotels (and largely those were BUILT IN to the top of the TV). Round these parts, our kit lives UNDER the television - even the miniature freeview decoders that seem indended to rest on top of it (quite how that's going to work with an early analogue-only LCD or Plasma is anyone's guess).

Not quite sure why it's the other way around in the USA (and japan?), or we've ended up inheriting the nomenclature. Possibly that our sets were always smaller, and less boxy with a nod towards potential portability - at least once we got into an era where VCRs became common. Certainly a typical 80s tape player (or laserdisc, or early satellite/cable receiver) would have been very precariously balanced on top of a 12 ~ 19" UK set, and made getting at the carry handle difficult where one was integrated. The TV however sat nicely atop the very solid VCR (possibly itself a reason that we largely didn't "get" top-loader decks)... Maybe in the states the sets were always bigger and boxier, and unlike the Simpsons didn't have aerials that poked up from or near the top surface, so the large equipment could sit on them more easily. And such informal standards then carry over to the furniture used to put TVs and their related devices into as we moved into an age where they were sold without legs, or their own bespoke cabinet... and off we go. The misnomer being absorbed into our language through the great prevalence of American television in the world.

Ahem. Anyway. This would be one reasoning for the FRENCH-originated standard being firm in having the TV as "up" and the VCR (and other kit, say an even chunkier Satellite/Cable/Laserdisc box) as "down". No need to further confuse the issue by bringing in unneccessary discussion of that loanword that has so curiously arisen in east-of-the-atlantic culture (heck, even I use it as shorthand for all those miscellaneous devices clustered in the Ikea cabinet our TV sits upon) - it's nothing to do with the SCART and its own definitions, particularly as the very idea of arranging your equipment that way unless you had the appropriate furniture to support it (not that likely) was absurd at the time the standard was drawn up. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In theese technical issues I think a complete explination of "how to do" and true advices are much more approtiate then only wrighting som short facts. Wikipedia is not like an encyklopedia in many other cases aswell. Such as theese improvements discussions f.i. And as Jimbo Wales say "There is enough space for all knowlidge in the world". In this example someone wants to erase knowlidge for no good reason. Let the explinations and instructions be. They have just helped me a lot. Reguards Pontus Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.38.247 (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)