| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
I called in to see my neighbours, as you do over Christmas and new year, and they commented that they were not interested in digital TV they were quite happy with the 4 stations that they already had. "4?" I asked, "Oh yes ch5 is not very good here" strange as we are only 10 miles line of sight from Sandy Heath and they have an outside aerial looking at it. I took a look at the TV and sure enough the signal on 5 was there, but only just and certainly not watchable, BBC1 was not a lot better and the other 2 were noisy. "It's always been like this" it had been like this for at least 10 years, they had been given a digi set top box last year and when it didn't work a very YUK set back amplifier with variable gain and a VERY blue power led, it almost lit up the room when the lights were off! This hadn't worked either and was still plugged to the mains in but not connected to anything. There was a box on the outside wall that split the signal between the lounge and the bedroom, checked signal in the bedroom and it was fine. Looked in splitter box, it was mounted so that the three cables came out of the side, the lower one being for the lounge. The tide mark of water was clearly visible, helped by the corrosion of the copper and metal work on the pcb no doubt. There was very little left connected to the lounge coax, BUT there is a God, for some reason the water had decided not to enter the coax and this was still nice and shiny when stripped back. A quick trip to Screwfix, sorry, and 1 X 49019 Labgear PSC120 combiner/splitter later, in a very nice waterproof box, mounted with the cables entering at the bottom, they had good signals on all 5 channels. 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. There again looking at the picture now, they have got a new one! How on earth they had put up with this for so long I have no idea. Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? -- Bill |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:46:42 +0000, Bill wrote:
I called in to see my neighbours, as you do over Christmas and new year, and they commented that they were not interested in digital TV they were quite happy with the 4 stations that they already had. "4?" I asked, "Oh yes ch5 is not very good here" strange as we are only 10 miles line of sight from Sandy Heath and they have an outside aerial looking at it. I took a look at the TV and sure enough the signal on 5 was there, but only just and certainly not watchable, BBC1 was not a lot better and the other 2 were noisy. "It's always been like this" it had been like this for at least 10 years, they had been given a digi set top box last year and when it didn't work a very YUK set back amplifier with variable gain and a VERY blue power led, it almost lit up the room when the lights were off! This hadn't worked either and was still plugged to the mains in but not connected to anything. There was a box on the outside wall that split the signal between the lounge and the bedroom, checked signal in the bedroom and it was fine. Looked in splitter box, it was mounted so that the three cables came out of the side, the lower one being for the lounge. The tide mark of water was clearly visible, helped by the corrosion of the copper and metal work on the pcb no doubt. There was very little left connected to the lounge coax, BUT there is a God, for some reason the water had decided not to enter the coax and this was still nice and shiny when stripped back. A quick trip to Screwfix, sorry, and 1 X 49019 Labgear PSC120 combiner/splitter later, in a very nice waterproof box, mounted with the cables entering at the bottom, they had good signals on all 5 channels. 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. There again looking at the picture now, they have got a new one! How on earth they had put up with this for so long I have no idea. You knew that they should be getting ch5; they didn't. From what you have written it seems that they were aware that reception varied from place to place: "Oh yes ch5 is not very good here", so they probably weren't consciously "putting up with" the situation because they didn't know that it could be improved (without them moving house). Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? Many people have no idea what they ought to be receiving. I guess that there are plenty of people who might be wondering whether they could get better pictures on their telly but are terrified of asking an expert who will say things they will not understand and might charge them a lot of money for the privilege. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:46:42 +0000, Bill wrote:
snipped good story Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? Um - I thought the general opinion was that the quality of transmissions is going downhill fast - so maybe they are not bothering... -- Geo |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message m... I think you are talking about the bus stop effect here. You rear it all the time. You find someone with be getting a poor signal, and then another person with a poor signal will say, Yes, I've been told its like that around here. Interestingly, all the people with good signals at the bus stop never say anything to contradict them, presumably to keep from an argument. If people think its normal, then they won't do anything about it. Brian -- There is certainly a received wisdom that everybody gets poorer reception on channel 5. Of course there is a great deal of truth in this, but it's but no means inevitable. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"Bill" wrote in message ... I called in to see my neighbours, as you do over Christmas and new year, and they commented that they were not interested in digital TV they were quite happy with the 4 stations that they already had. "4?" I asked, "Oh yes ch5 is not very good here" strange as we are only 10 miles line of sight from Sandy Heath and they have an outside aerial looking at it. I took a look at the TV and sure enough the signal on 5 was there, but only just and certainly not watchable, BBC1 was not a lot better and the other 2 were noisy. "It's always been like this" it had been like this for at least 10 years, they had been given a digi set top box last year and when it didn't work a very YUK set back amplifier with variable gain and a VERY blue power led, it almost lit up the room when the lights were off! This hadn't worked either and was still plugged to the mains in but not connected to anything. There was a box on the outside wall that split the signal between the lounge and the bedroom, checked signal in the bedroom and it was fine. Looked in splitter box, it was mounted so that the three cables came out of the side, the lower one being for the lounge. The tide mark of water was clearly visible, helped by the corrosion of the copper and metal work on the pcb no doubt. There was very little left connected to the lounge coax, BUT there is a God, for some reason the water had decided not to enter the coax and this was still nice and shiny when stripped back. A quick trip to Screwfix, sorry, and 1 X 49019 Labgear PSC120 combiner/splitter later, in a very nice waterproof box, mounted with the cables entering at the bottom, they had good signals on all 5 channels. 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. There again looking at the picture now, they have got a new one! How on earth they had put up with this for so long I have no idea. Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? -- Bill Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is broken? Why refuse to get something fixed. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:46:42 +0000, Bill wrote: I called in to see my neighbours, as you do over Christmas and new year, and they commented that they were not interested in digital TV they were quite happy with the 4 stations that they already had. "4?" I asked, "Oh yes ch5 is not very good here" strange as we are only 10 miles line of sight from Sandy Heath and they have an outside aerial looking at it. I took a look at the TV and sure enough the signal on 5 was there, but only just and certainly not watchable, BBC1 was not a lot better and the other 2 were noisy. "It's always been like this" it had been like this for at least 10 years, they had been given a digi set top box last year and when it didn't work a very YUK set back amplifier with variable gain and a VERY blue power led, it almost lit up the room when the lights were off! This hadn't worked either and was still plugged to the mains in but not connected to anything. There was a box on the outside wall that split the signal between the lounge and the bedroom, checked signal in the bedroom and it was fine. Looked in splitter box, it was mounted so that the three cables came out of the side, the lower one being for the lounge. The tide mark of water was clearly visible, helped by the corrosion of the copper and metal work on the pcb no doubt. There was very little left connected to the lounge coax, BUT there is a God, for some reason the water had decided not to enter the coax and this was still nice and shiny when stripped back. A quick trip to Screwfix, sorry, and 1 X 49019 Labgear PSC120 combiner/splitter later, in a very nice waterproof box, mounted with the cables entering at the bottom, they had good signals on all 5 channels. 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. There again looking at the picture now, they have got a new one! How on earth they had put up with this for so long I have no idea. You knew that they should be getting ch5; they didn't. From what you have written it seems that they were aware that reception varied from place to place: "Oh yes ch5 is not very good here", so they probably weren't consciously "putting up with" the situation because they didn't know that it could be improved (without them moving house). Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? Many people have no idea what they ought to be receiving. I guess that there are plenty of people who might be wondering whether they could get better pictures on their telly but are terrified of asking an expert who will say things they will not understand and might charge them a lot of money for the privilege. The problem is that there are many cowboy installers about. We have all encountered them, people that want hundreds for a new TV aerial/coax. There is one in this group that slags every other companies work off but will never name them as it's a lie and he would be sued! He always "goes to the rescue" and charges accordingly. I had quotes of £350+ for an 18 element contract aerial with 40ft of coax and a 10ft pole on the chimney. No chance! These cowboys and con merchants are also CAI approved as they never seem to check work. Subcontractors don't need to be approved, only a company name. It is a shame a claim can not be made against CAI for poor workmanship or for severe overcharging by people they promote and approve. They are liable in some way legally for this. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:29:55 -0000, "James R" wrote:
... There is one in this group that slags every other companies work off but will never name them as it's a lie and he would be sued! ... Presumably you're so thick that you don't see the irony in not naming the 'one in this group'? -- Alan White Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland. Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather Walks and Treks:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:17:28 -0000, "James R" wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message ... I called in to see my neighbours, as you do over Christmas and new year, and they commented that they were not interested in digital TV they were quite happy with the 4 stations that they already had. "4?" I asked, "Oh yes ch5 is not very good here" strange as we are only 10 miles line of sight from Sandy Heath and they have an outside aerial looking at it. I took a look at the TV and sure enough the signal on 5 was there, but only just and certainly not watchable, BBC1 was not a lot better and the other 2 were noisy. "It's always been like this" it had been like this for at least 10 years, they had been given a digi set top box last year and when it didn't work a very YUK set back amplifier with variable gain and a VERY blue power led, it almost lit up the room when the lights were off! This hadn't worked either and was still plugged to the mains in but not connected to anything. There was a box on the outside wall that split the signal between the lounge and the bedroom, checked signal in the bedroom and it was fine. Looked in splitter box, it was mounted so that the three cables came out of the side, the lower one being for the lounge. The tide mark of water was clearly visible, helped by the corrosion of the copper and metal work on the pcb no doubt. There was very little left connected to the lounge coax, BUT there is a God, for some reason the water had decided not to enter the coax and this was still nice and shiny when stripped back. A quick trip to Screwfix, sorry, and 1 X 49019 Labgear PSC120 combiner/splitter later, in a very nice waterproof box, mounted with the cables entering at the bottom, they had good signals on all 5 channels. 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. There again looking at the picture now, they have got a new one! How on earth they had put up with this for so long I have no idea. Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? -- Bill Why are people so thick as to put up with something that is broken? Because they don't know it is broken. Why refuse to get something fixed. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
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. It's quite possible that they don't care to watch repeats, sport, programmes about celebrities or phone-ins. In which case TV would form only a very small portion of their lives and is not soemthing to get worked up about, if it stops working. They'd just find something more interesting to do. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
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! -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
In article , Graham
scribeth thus "Brian Gaff" wrote in message om... I think you are talking about the bus stop effect here. You rear it all the time. You find someone with be getting a poor signal, and then another person with a poor signal will say, Yes, I've been told its like that around here. Interestingly, all the people with good signals at the bus stop never say anything to contradict them, presumably to keep from an argument. If people think its normal, then they won't do anything about it. Brian -- There is certainly a received wisdom that everybody gets poorer reception on channel 5. Of course there is a great deal of truth in this, but it's but no means inevitable. Not surprising in the case of 't eath. Some 10 kW -v- 1 odd Megawatt ERP IIRC and the 10 K on a rather directional aerial. 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;?... -- Tony Sayer |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"James R" wrote in message ... There is one in this group that slags every other companies work off but will never name them. But does that person use his own name, or does he prefer to make his nasty comments anonymously? And James, does he change his name from time to time when he gets unpopular? That would be the sign of a real bounder. Bill |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
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. -- Bill |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:38:57 +0000, tony sayer
wrote: In article , Graham scribeth thus "Brian Gaff" wrote in message . com... I think you are talking about the bus stop effect here. You rear it all the time. You find someone with be getting a poor signal, and then another person with a poor signal will say, Yes, I've been told its like that around here. Interestingly, all the people with good signals at the bus stop never say anything to contradict them, presumably to keep from an argument. If people think its normal, then they won't do anything about it. Brian -- There is certainly a received wisdom that everybody gets poorer reception on channel 5. Of course there is a great deal of truth in this, but it's but no means inevitable. Not surprising in the case of 't eath. Some 10 kW -v- 1 odd Megawatt ERP IIRC and the 10 K on a rather directional aerial. 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;?... 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. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
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. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:46:42 +0000, Bill wrote: Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? Many people have no idea what they ought to be receiving. I guess that there are plenty of people who might be wondering whether they could get better pictures on their telly but are terrified of asking an expert who will say things they will not understand and might charge them a lot of money for the privilege. Yea, I think the "overcharge" thing is a huge issue.. What Bill did would have probably cost £150 by most "installers".. And if they would have ever asked in the mainstream TV shops then some prepubsecent senior sale supervising manager who has leveled to 99 with his 6 hours of training will tell you that to get a better quality picture you will need a £900 TV with gold scart leads connected through the VCR (as non gold ones corrupt the signal that comes from the transmitter).. The days of information, service, and sales has been replaced by sell, sell, sell.. |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
In article , Marky P
wrote: 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. My interpretatiom was that he could only have been the Science Correspondent because he could pronounce the words in the scripts he was given. -- From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey" Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"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....... -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
In article , mr deo
scribeth thus "Peter Duncanson" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:46:42 +0000, Bill wrote: Why do the broadcasters bother transmitting quality signals if people will put up with this? Many people have no idea what they ought to be receiving. I guess that there are plenty of people who might be wondering whether they could get better pictures on their telly but are terrified of asking an expert who will say things they will not understand and might charge them a lot of money for the privilege. Yea, I think the "overcharge" thing is a huge issue.. What Bill did would have probably cost £150 by most "installers".. And if they would have ever asked in the mainstream TV shops then some prepubsecent senior sale supervising manager who has leveled to 99 with his 6 hours of training will tell you that to get a better quality picture you will need a £900 TV with gold scart leads connected through the VCR (as non gold ones corrupt the signal that comes from the transmitter).. The days of information, service, and sales has been replaced by sell, sell, sell.. Indeed.. Just wandering around curry's and vomit the other day and it seems their pushing expensive leads now.. Perhaps they've been to the Russ Andrews academy of spin and ****e;!.. -- Tony Sayer |
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 |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
In article , Alan
scribeth thus 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? Yes for conning the gullible public;!.. -- Tony Sayer |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"tony sayer" wrote in message
... In article , Alan scribeth thus 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? Yes for conning the gullible public;!.. -- Tony Sayer -- JohnT |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"tony sayer" wrote in message
... In article , Alan scribeth thus 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? Yes for conning the gullible public;!.. Are you trying to tell me that this isn't really worth £799.81? http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...KGBHUQLTRIMKIP -- JohnT |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
In message , JohnT
wrote "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Alan scribeth thus 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? Yes for conning the gullible public;!.. Are you trying to tell me that this isn't really worth £799.81? http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...currency=GBP&p f_id=2565&customer_id=PAA0419018409084IIKGBHUQLTR IMKIP You'll never know until you buy one and hear the difference. -- Alan news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
"James R" wrote in message ... | The problem is that there are many cowboy installers about. We have all | encountered them, people that want hundreds for a new TV aerial/coax. | There is one in this group that slags every other companies work off but | will never name them as it's a lie and he would be sued! | He always "goes to the rescue" and charges accordingly. | | I had quotes of £350+ for an 18 element contract aerial with 40ft of coax | and a 10ft pole on the chimney. No chance! These cowboys and | con merchants are also CAI approved as they never seem to check work. | Subcontractors don't need to be approved, only a company name. | It is a shame a claim can not be made against CAI for poor workmanship | or for severe overcharging by people they promote and approve. They | are liable in some way legally for this. I have a new house that's been fully wired up for Aerial and sky plus, all that was needed was the aerial. I contacted a company who featured very well on "check a trade" who would not give me any idea of price, but said the installer will come and survey then give me a price. Expecting them to at least look at the system, the installer arrived and I told him the set up and he just said £175 plus VAT. I told him thanks but no thanks. My next door neighbour offered to put one up the same as his at a cost of £40 plus a beer. It works beuatifully............the installer had a wasted journey - shame! |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
Woody wrote:
I stayed (yes, I'll name it) at the Premier Inn Carlisle Central North I stayed at one of the Preston Premier Inns last September and had exactly the same problem! 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....... I just assumed complaining would be futile and didn't bother... |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:14:21 UTC, Fred Carnot
wrote: Woody wrote: I stayed (yes, I'll name it) at the Premier Inn Carlisle Central North I stayed at one of the Preston Premier Inns last September and had exactly the same problem! 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....... I just assumed complaining would be futile and didn't bother... It is a bit like all these new/upgraded hotel rooms that have every computer connection one can think of in the room - and nowhere to anchor a laptop security cable :-( -- Regards Dave Saville NB Remove nospam. for good email address |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
In message ,
Alan Proclaimed from the tallest tower: In message , JohnT wrote "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Alan scribeth thus 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? Yes for conning the gullible public;!.. Are you trying to tell me that this isn't really worth £799.81? http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...currency=GBP&p f_id=2565&customer_id=PAA0419018409084IIKGBHUQLTRI MKIP You'll never know until you buy one and hear the difference. Then I'll never know... :) I doubt that even if I was stupid/rich enough to buy one, that I would be able to hear any difference whatsoever!! I wonder what 'KIMBER's latest discoveries in the nature of digital signals' actually are? Obviously not the fact that a digital signal would be just as good along any decent bit of wire as it would down a solid silver, zero oxygen fat free, low CO emission, thousand pound cable!! -- Regards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
In article , JohnT
scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Alan scribeth thus 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? Yes for conning the gullible public;!.. Are you trying to tell me that this isn't really worth £799.81? http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...BP&pf_id= 256 5&customer_id=PAA0419018409084IIKGBHUQLTRIMKIP Yes as long as you can afford the speaker cables to match;!!!!!!!! http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...currency=GBP&p f_id=3360&customer_id=PAA0419018409084IIKGBHUQLTRI MKIP -- Tony Sayer |
Why do the broadcasters bother?????????????
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:50:53 +0000, tony sayer
wrote: In article , JohnT scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Alan scribeth thus 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? Yes for conning the gullible public;!.. Are you trying to tell me that this isn't really worth £799.81? http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...BP&pf_id= 256 5&customer_id=PAA0419018409084IIKGBHUQLTRIMKIP Yes as long as you can afford the speaker cables to match;!!!!!!!! http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...currency=GBP&p f_id=3360&customer_id=PAA0419018409084IIKGBHUQLTR IMKIP Whilst we're on this subject, what about directional cables? My speaker cable, although quite cheap, has arrows on it as do some of my interconnects. Marky P. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com