Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Davey wrote:


Agreed about the low volume on HD, just another reason I don't bother
with it.


Actually the volume on the HD channels is exactly correct. The SD
channels are too loud. That's what's confusing you. They make the sound
too loud on SD so you sit further back, so the picture doesn't look as bad.

That's right innit Mark? You tell 'im!

Bill

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:57:28 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:40:07 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

More annoying are level differences on the same channel between progs,
continuity shouters, and promos, (as Jonny B mentions in his post)
That's just sloppy operational practice.

Talking of which, have you listened to Ch.5 continuity lately?
I measured about a 12dB difference between programme and the sodding
announcer blasting over the top at the end. I'd almost guess someone
has switched out a comp./lim. accidentally somewhere. Talk about
incompetence...

Who does their TX these days?

Did Channel 4 get fined at one stage for transmitting the adverts
louder than the programmes?

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Scott wrote:

Having to adjust the volume control seem a bizarre reason to forego
high definition pictures. A friend of mine once said she would never
again buy a quartz watch because you keep having to change the
battery.

My dad bought one of them watches off Donny market. It needed a new
battery every three days.

Bill

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Max Demian wrote:

Quite a reasonable objection as you have to pay through the nose for
a battery every few years (even more for fitting)

"Through the nose"? The batteries themselves cost about £3 for a box
of ten at wholesale prices. I always fit my own, of course, (part time
clock and watch repairer), so I don't know what people have to pay at a
retail outlet. Could you give me some idea?

and probably lose
any water resistance.

Not if the service is provided correctly, of course, but I agree -
there's a risk of that if the retail outlet doesn't do a proper job.

Which is why I've bought a 'kinetic' one that
charges its own battery (though no guarantee it will last any longer
than a few years).

I have several, including three from the very first days when they were
launched as the Seiko AGS (automatic generating system). The early
ones used electrolytic capacitors which had a dreadful lifespan, often
failing after only a year or two.

The later ones use rechargeable batteries (using a special chemistry
developed by Seiko, incidentally) which are better, but honestly still
aren't that good. Five years is a realistic life span for the
rechargeables. Bearing in mind that some non-rechargeable batteries
will go five years if they are in a watch without complications
(day/date, etc), the case for Kinetic technology is unconvincing.

It's a shame, really - I very much admire the idea in principle.

--
SteveT

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Max Demian wrote:

Quite a reasonable objection as you have to pay through the nose for
a battery every few years (even more for fitting)

"Through the nose"? The batteries themselves cost about £3 for a box
of ten at wholesale prices. I always fit my own, of course, (part time
clock and watch repairer), so I don't know what people have to pay at a
retail outlet. Could you give me some idea?

There's no point in buying in bulk as they will deteriorate and 10 would
last 50 years. Bought singly they are about £2 or £3 each according to what
the shop thinks it can get away with - a more realistic price would be 50p
each but I haven't seen them at that price.

and probably lose any water resistance.

Not if the service is provided correctly, of course, but I agree -
there's a risk of that if the retail outlet doesn't do a proper job.

I always used to replace them myself, using the existing seal - so they were
at least showerproof. When I got a shop to do it they just removed the seal
so any exposure to moisture lead to condensation inside. I think they must
have charged about £6.

To do it properly and replace the seal they quoted £12 and wanted to keep it
overnight.

Which is why I've bought a 'kinetic' one that
charges its own battery (though no guarantee it will last any longer
than a few years).

I have several, including three from the very first days when they were
launched as the Seiko AGS (automatic generating system). The early
ones used electrolytic capacitors which had a dreadful lifespan, often
failing after only a year or two.

The later ones use rechargeable batteries (using a special chemistry
developed by Seiko, incidentally) which are better, but honestly still
aren't that good. Five years is a realistic life span for the
rechargeables. Bearing in mind that some non-rechargeable batteries
will go five years if they are in a watch without complications
(day/date, etc), the case for Kinetic technology is unconvincing.

The batteries for the Seiko I bought around 1987 used to last five years and
the watch packed up around 2009.

It's a shame, really - I very much admire the idea in principle.

I've got a Pulsar Kinetic now.

--
Max Demian

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:03:53 +0000
Scott wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 12:32:04 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 11:27:17 +0000
Scott wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:57:39 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

OK a while back I asked what bbc 1 leng was, well the talking
Goodmans box still calls it thatbut I've had confirmation that it
is indeed LON, so why its not said right must be down to the
speech synth in the box.
However no other station on Freeview identifies its region in
this way. I
can understand it on the sat feed, but it seems pointless on
Freeview unless there are now so many people who cannot tell
which transmitter is their right one its there to help them out!

Depends where you live. Mine is called 'BBC 1 Scot' :-)

Unnecessary it may be, but I can see some logic in distinguishing
if the two differ. As a matter of interest, I assume all of
England receives BBC 1 LON HD?

Mine, from Tacolneston, Norfolk, calls itself BBC 1 East. I don't
bother with HD, so can't answer that question.

Seems half the people think HD is brilliant and the other half can't
see much difference. You and I must be in different categories.

I only have a 26" TV screen, a Toshiba, and if I play a DVD using HDMI,
it looks really clear when sharp-edged artifacts are shown, such as
intro stuff. The picture when playing the film is fine. I tried
comparing SD and HD TV transmissions, using my Humax as the source, and
I can see no difference between them. All settings appear to be correct.
I would expect a different result with a larger screen, however.
I tried the same thing when an episode of 'Pointless' was on, as that
program often has text on a board that gets quite close together and
difficult to distinguish. Switching from BBC1 HD to BBC1 SD showed no
discernible difference.
Your mileage may differ.

--
Davey.

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Max Demian wrote:

I've got a Pulsar Kinetic now.

Yep, same company as Seiko.

--
SteveT

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

Max Demian wrote:

There's no point in buying in bulk as they will deteriorate

Only very slowly. They have good shelf life.

and 10 would
last 50 years. Bought singly they are about £2 or £3 each according to what
the shop thinks it can get away with - a more realistic price would be 50p
each but I haven't seen them at that price.

CPC: GPPBL1620001
£3.34 for 5.

I always used to replace them myself, using the existing seal - so they were
at least showerproof. When I got a shop to do it they just removed the seal
so any exposure to moisture lead to condensation inside. I think they must
have charged about £6.



To do it properly and replace the seal they quoted £12 and wanted to keep it
overnight.

Round here the jewellers fit a battery and charge £3 incl the battery
and fitting. The guy on the market charges £2.

Bill

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:16:03 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 11:52:46 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 10:04:46 -0000
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

And the talking box does notcover hd. Bit pointless really as the
sound is the same except its apparently quieter on hd and the AD on
boxes that support it sounds too quiet to me.
Brian


Agreed about the low volume on HD, just another reason I don't bother
with it.

Having to adjust the volume control seem a bizarre reason to forego
high definition pictures. A friend of mine once said she would never
again buy a quartz watch because you keep having to change the
battery.

Quite a reasonable objection as you have to pay through the nose for a
battery every few years (even more for fitting) and probably lose any water
resistance. Which is why I've bought a 'kinetic' one that charges its own
battery (though no guarantee it will last any longer than a few years).

Digital watches have had battery life ratings of 7 years or more
these past two decades ever since they started using Lithium coin
cells in place of the pair of silver oxide aspirin tablet sized cells
used by the previous generation of digital watches. That lady's
objection must stem from before the advent of Lithium coin cell based
designs. That's an awfully long time to be holding a grudge imho.

Appropo of watches, digital, I've been trying to determine how long
I've enjoyed the pleasure of ownership of my current Casio DataBank
2515 DB-360 watch which is still running on its original ten year life
rated CR2025 coin cell in spite of discovering the display blanked out
and permanently lit by its illuminator LED one morning a year or three
back which required me to swiftly remove the back (4 retaining screws)
in order to remove the cell to save it from premature demise.

I think I had to press a reset switch with a 'cocktail stick' after
refitting the same coin cell which still shows no signs of nearing
exhaustion when I occasionally make use of the backlight.

In my googling attempts to discover the year this model was first
introduced to the market, I've discovered that they're still being
offered as brand new items (possibly unused old stock) with 1 and 2
year warranties from quite a few suppliers. Unfortunately, I haven't
been able to discover when they were first manufactured other than the
odd e-bay supplier mentioning "2000 to present".

Looking at images for this watch, it would seem to have been a very
popular model indeed. A scan through the images reveals that around 30
to 50% display various dates for the year 2000 but nothing prior to
the last year of the millenium.

Since the watch has developed a habit of resetting the date to 2000
1- 1 (yet, curiously, still retained the correct time of day the last
time this happened a couple of weeks ago) once or twice a year over
the last year or two, it does look as though my previous Casio may
have managed to survive into the third millenium despite my feeling
that the current watch was bought before the end of the second.

I've noticed over the last few years that it never seems to be off
by more than a second. In fact, this year, it proved to be within half
a second of the correct time when I checked it a few minutes before
seeing in the new year and the last time I adjusted it to the exact
time must have been well over 6 months ago.

Since, according to my googling results, it appears to have been a
popular and long lived model, I suspect that a few of the regulars in
this NG might well also be proud owners of this model of watch who
might be able to shed some light with regard to its first appearance
in UK shops.

Actually, after further discussion with the XYL with regard to
whether we'd bought the watch prior to our 2005 trip to Canada, she
recalled my buying a "One Dollar Watch" in a "Dollar Shop"
(effectively, a 50p Shop at the then currency exchange rates plus
taxes) whilst we were staying in Toronto.

This revelation tells me that the current watch must have been bought
sometime between late April and December of that year which now makes
the watch a mere 8 1/2 years old (give or take 4 months).

As much as I enjoyed being able to boast my ownership of a "One
Dollar Watch", I don't think I tarried too long over buying a
replacement for the earlier Casio that had broken during our trip to
Canada which had necessitated the emergency purchase of a 'cheap 'n'
cheerful' substitute.

Prior to buying that DataBank watch back in 2005, I'd previously
owned two Casio watches, both resin case designs. The first one had
split due to the pressure from the press fit circular back cover
plate. The second watch was a "World Time" model (also a resin case
design but using a screwed on back cover plate). In this case, the
failure was on the actual strap retaining lugs.

When it came to buying my third Casio, I was specifically on the look
out for a steel cased model (I'd had enough disappointment with the
resin cased ones to last me a lifetime by then).

Most of the Casio watches I saw on sale were resin cased designs but
there were a (pitifully) few steel case models to choose from
(naturally in a higher price bracket than the resin cased models). I
simply chose the cheapest model that didn't skimp _too_ much on
_useful_ features (an expenditure of about 30 quid istr as opposed to
my more usual 15 to 20 quid 'comfort zone'). The fact that its been
accurate to within 2 or 3 seconds per year is most likely just 'dumb
luck', a feature that endears me to this 'ancient classic'.

With regard to battery life, I would expect you'd be hard pushed to
find a model these days that offers less than a ten year battery life.
Indeed, if you're happy with a resin cased watch and a mere 5 or 6
years service life, the cost of battery replacement isn't going to be
an issue.

--
Regards, J B Good

Why does BBC 1 now call itself BBC1 LON?
 

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 23:58:11 +0000, Davey
wrote:

Seems half the people think HD is brilliant and the other half can't
see much difference. You and I must be in different categories.

I only have a 26" TV screen, a Toshiba, and if I play a DVD using HDMI,
it looks really clear when sharp-edged artifacts are shown, such as
intro stuff. The picture when playing the film is fine. I tried
comparing SD and HD TV transmissions, using my Humax as the source, and
I can see no difference between them. All settings appear to be correct.
I would expect a different result with a larger screen, however.
I tried the same thing when an episode of 'Pointless' was on, as that
program often has text on a board that gets quite close together and
difficult to distinguish. Switching from BBC1 HD to BBC1 SD showed no
discernible difference.
Your mileage may differ.

It does. You'd probably have to sit quite close to a 26" screen to be
impressed by the difference, so I'm not surprised you can't see it,
particularly when you're only using one programme source.

But bigger screens are becoming much more common nowadays, and we can
connect a variety of sources to them - receivers, disk players,
computers, games machines etc. Try a few of those and you'll soon see
that the differences are real.

Rod.