Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In article , Marky P
scribeth thus
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:38:57 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:
I found Five quite patchy in Bedford. Where I lived, my neighbour had
an old 5 element group A (with rotting coax) that picked up Five
perfectly. My aerial was less than 10 yards from there's and Five was
very grainy (10 element group A). I changed to a 14 element wideband
and it vastly improved, but the neighbour's Five was still cleaner on
their battered old group A. It wasn't 'till I installed a Televes
DAT45 that Five was as clean as the other 4 analogue channels.
Amazingly, the DAT45 didn't cause overloading of the stronger
channels.

Marky P.

With the respective ERP differences and aerial patterns, it makes me
wonder why they bothered with it..
--
Tony Sayer

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In article , Bill
scribeth thus
In message , tony sayer
writes

CH-5 here in Cambridge from the heath is almost non existent.. We have
our very own analogue CH 5 'mitter from Madingley at 5 kW..

Makes me wonder Bill which you didn't introduce them to the delights of
a digital TV Boxen;?...


Hi Tony,
I think I understand what you said there.......

They had a digi box which after the new splitter was fitted worked fine

"Connected the set top digi box up and showed them what was available
and they are nearly tempted to go out and buy a new TV."

They are now looking at a new TV with integral freeview.
They are certainly not thick, as has been suggested here, they had
heard 5 was always poor and as for BBC1 they had grown used to it.



Noted:)..
--
Tony Sayer

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

Woody wrote:


I stayed (yes, I'll name it) at the Premier Inn Carlisle Central North
(phew!) just before Christmas. Presumably in preparation for Caldbeck
going digi sometime soon (?) they had new Philips hotel TV's with
built-in Freeview in every room.

Great! For the first time in many years in staying in a hotel I had a TV
with a good picture on all channels - NOT! Whoever installed them had
set them all to centre cut-out, so we had to endure newsreaders with
long thin faces and footballers that must have had Tutsi relatives! The
restricted remote would not, of course, permit this to be changed.

I asked at Reception if they had a full remote so that it could be
adjusted - to which the answer was no. All of the TVs were/are installed
and maintained by Comet.

Exactly the same at a PTL in Runcorn (don't ask) a couple of months ago.
I think it could well be the Philips TVs themselves. Why on earth would you
want the ability for a 4:3 IDTV (for that's what they are) set to display 16:9
without either 'scan crush', or 4:3 CCO ?




--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

"Woody" wrote in message
...
"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:15:23 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
pete wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:17:28 -0000, James R wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if
people
will put up with this?

Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is broken?
Why refuse to get something fixed.

It's not necessarily a case of being thick.

[Snip]

but this attitude has been around for years. Sometime in the early 80s I
had to go and see the chap in charge of Ceefax because since he
personally
couldn't get BBC2 Ceefax without errors he was going to pull the General
Election coverage. I could see Crystal Palace from his road and there was
a
very strong signal available. However, the set was fed with about an
extra
10m of vhf co-ax - so it could be taken into the garden. BBC2 pictures
were so 'snowy' the picture was barely discernable, explaing why Ceefax
didn't work. I remarked that the BBC2 pictures weren't very good to
recieve the reply "I woudn't know, I'm only a journalist". This
journalist
had for the previous 5 years been the BBC's Science Correspondent and
obviously seen studio quality pictures every working day!

I gather by that, that jounalists have poor eyesight? It's the only
reason I can think of. This has also made me think of my Brother
watching 4:3 broadcasts in 'stretch-o-vision' and him comenting on how
fat people on telly are. I explained the situation to him and asked
him if he would prefer the right aspect ratio or fat people filling
the screen and he opted for the latter.

Marky P.


I stayed (yes, I'll name it) at the Premier Inn Carlisle Central North
(phew!) just before Christmas. Presumably in preparation for Caldbeck
going digi sometime soon (?) they had new Philips hotel TV's with built-in
Freeview in every room.

Great! For the first time in many years in staying in a hotel I had a TV
with a good picture on all channels - NOT! Whoever installed them had set
them all to centre cut-out, so we had to endure newsreaders with long thin
faces and footballers that must have had Tutsi relatives! The restricted
remote would not, of course, permit this to be changed.

I asked at Reception if they had a full remote so that it could be
adjusted - to which the answer was no. All of the TVs were/are installed
and maintained by Comet.

Says it all really. Mind you, when the Customer Satisfaction Survey e-mail
arrived a few days later I didn't half let rip - but probably to no
avail.......

Did you not avail yourself of their "if you're not happy don't pay" offer

(they offered me this deal when I complained about there not being a shaver
socket in the bathroom)

tim

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Marky P
scribeth thus
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:38:57 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:
I found Five quite patchy in Bedford. Where I lived, my neighbour had
an old 5 element group A (with rotting coax) that picked up Five
perfectly. My aerial was less than 10 yards from there's and Five was
very grainy (10 element group A). I changed to a 14 element wideband
and it vastly improved, but the neighbour's Five was still cleaner on
their battered old group A. It wasn't 'till I installed a Televes
DAT45 that Five was as clean as the other 4 analogue channels.
Amazingly, the DAT45 didn't cause overloading of the stronger
channels.

Marky P.

With the respective ERP differences and aerial patterns, it makes me
wonder why they bothered with it..

Mrs T said she wanted it, way back in 1988. The IBA told her that technically
it would impossible to give it parity coverage with the other four channels,
but still she wanted it.

What the IBA and the frequency planners did was actually very clever, the
network was planned such that reception of the existing four channels would in
no way be impaired by the presence of C5. And to this day, the only service
that C5 analogue causes interference to is itself !

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

Mark Carver wrote:

With the respective ERP differences and aerial patterns, it makes me
wonder why they bothered with it..

Mrs T said she wanted it, way back in 1988. The IBA told her that technically it would impossible to give it parity coverage with the other four channels, but still she wanted it.

What the IBA and the frequency planners did was actually very clever, the network was planned such that reception of the existing four channels would in no way be impaired by the presence of C5. And to this day, the only service that C5 analogue causes interference to is itself !


Seem to remember the original plan was to use vertical Tx antenna at
the main sites.

When the planners were planning DTT role-out (Over 10 years ago now),
I recall one saying that if Channel 5 had not gone ahead, they could
have upped the power of many of DTT sites beyond what they were running.

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

In message , tony sayer
wrote

Perhaps they've been to the Russ Andrews academy of spin and ****e;!..

Isn't Russ a highly respected expert in the field of Hi-Fi?

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Woody" wrote in message
...
"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:15:23 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
pete wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:17:28 -0000, James R wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if
people
will put up with this?

Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is
broken?
Why refuse to get something fixed.

It's not necessarily a case of being thick.

[Snip]

but this attitude has been around for years. Sometime in the early
80s I
had to go and see the chap in charge of Ceefax because since he
personally
couldn't get BBC2 Ceefax without errors he was going to pull the
General
Election coverage. I could see Crystal Palace from his road and
there was a
very strong signal available. However, the set was fed with about
an extra
10m of vhf co-ax - so it could be taken into the garden. BBC2
pictures
were so 'snowy' the picture was barely discernable, explaing why
Ceefax
didn't work. I remarked that the BBC2 pictures weren't very good to
recieve the reply "I woudn't know, I'm only a journalist". This
journalist
had for the previous 5 years been the BBC's Science Correspondent
and
obviously seen studio quality pictures every working day!

I gather by that, that jounalists have poor eyesight? It's the only
reason I can think of. This has also made me think of my Brother
watching 4:3 broadcasts in 'stretch-o-vision' and him comenting on
how
fat people on telly are. I explained the situation to him and asked
him if he would prefer the right aspect ratio or fat people filling
the screen and he opted for the latter.

Marky P.


I stayed (yes, I'll name it) at the Premier Inn Carlisle Central
North (phew!) just before Christmas. Presumably in preparation for
Caldbeck going digi sometime soon (?) they had new Philips hotel TV's
with built-in Freeview in every room.

Great! For the first time in many years in staying in a hotel I had a
TV with a good picture on all channels - NOT! Whoever installed them
had set them all to centre cut-out, so we had to endure newsreaders
with long thin faces and footballers that must have had Tutsi
relatives! The restricted remote would not, of course, permit this to
be changed.

I asked at Reception if they had a full remote so that it could be
adjusted - to which the answer was no. All of the TVs were/are
installed and maintained by Comet.

Says it all really. Mind you, when the Customer Satisfaction Survey
e-mail arrived a few days later I didn't half let rip - but probably
to no avail.......

Did you not avail yourself of their "if you're not happy don't pay"
offer

(they offered me this deal when I complained about there not being a
shaver socket in the bathroom)

tim





Never thought of that, but they do say that guarantee a good night's
sleep - and I certainly did that in a supoer king sized bed!


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
 

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , tony sayer
wrote

Perhaps they've been to the Russ Andrews academy of spin and ****e;!..

Isn't Russ a highly respected expert in the field of Hi-Fi?

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com



Expert: Ex - a has-been, spurt - a drip under pressure!

You should try reading Russ' guides - best laugh in years!.

Mind you having said that, they can't all be locked up yet if he can
sell mains blocks with a 20p varistor or two inside for top side of
£100!



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com