|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
October 24th 08, 02:49 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
QAM
If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM
64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John 
|
|
#2
October 24th 08, 03:03 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
"JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message ... If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM 64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO.
|
|
#3
October 24th 08, 03:10 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
On 24 Oct, 14:03, "Malcolm H" wrote:
"JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message ... If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM 64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? *I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. Ah! This would make sense if power levels could be raised and there was demand for more channel space. John
|
|
#4
October 24th 08, 04:32 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
JOHN PORCELLA wrote:
On 24 Oct, 14:03, "Malcolm H" wrote: "JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message ... If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM 64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? *I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. Ah! This would make sense if power levels could be raised and there was demand for more channel space. They will be and there will be. -- Dave Farrance
|
|
#5
October 24th 08, 05:25 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... JOHN PORCELLA wrote: On 24 Oct, 14:03, "Malcolm H" wrote: "JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message ... If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM 64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. Ah! This would make sense if power levels could be raised and there was demand for more channel space. They will be and there will be. -- Dave Farrance Altough I would much prefer to see more emphasis on quality and less on quantity.
|
|
#6
October 25th 08, 05:24 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
On 24 Oct, 15:32, Dave Farrance
wrote: JOHN PORCELLA wrote: On 24 Oct, 14:03, "Malcolm H" wrote: "JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message .... If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM 64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? *I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. Ah! *This would make sense if power levels could be raised and there was demand for more channel space. They will be ....more signal power...makes sense! and there will be. ....more demand...more room would be needed for HD and I can see the return of Sky Sports/Movies to DTT. John -- Dave Farrance- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
|
|
#7
October 25th 08, 05:25 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
On 24 Oct, 16:25, "Malcolm H" wrote:
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... JOHN PORCELLA wrote: On 24 Oct, 14:03, "Malcolm H" wrote: "JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message .... If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM 64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. Ah! *This would make sense if power levels could be raised and there was demand for more channel space. They will be and there will be. -- Dave Farrance Altough I would much prefer to see more emphasis on quality and less on quantity.- Technical qualifty could be improved with HD and higher power levels for the rest. Content quality...difficult...it is very subjective, but if there is more choice (quantity) available, then there is a better chance, perhaps, of having something for everybody. John
|
|
#8
October 25th 08, 10:07 PM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:03:37 +0100, "Malcolm H"
wrote: "JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message ... If I recall correctly, when OnDigital was broadcasting they used QAM 64 which meant that they could fit it plenty of channels. This was later switched to QAM 16 which was more stable. Would it make sense to return to QAM 64 after analogue switch-off? I wonder, since it would be good to have more choice available through more channels, and if the system was previously flaky, then it need not be if power levels are raised in future once analogue is not around anymore. John AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. I thought the multiplex containing ITV was already.
|
|
#9
October 26th 08, 01:28 AM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
"Scott" wrote in message news  AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. I thought the multiplex containing ITV was already. Yes well? Bill
|
|
#10
October 26th 08, 10:25 AM
posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
|
QAM
Bill Wright wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message news AIUI all channels will be QAM 64 after ASO. I thought the multiplex containing ITV was already. Yes well? Bill No, unwell :-) it doesn't have the energy to go more than a few yards without falling over. -- PeeGee "Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able to be removed from a computer easily." Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
