examples of digital rip-off

"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
Mortimer wrote:

I hadn't realised that digital required higher-standard cable. Is that
mainly because muxes at present are transmitted at such low power
relative to analogue and other forms of interference to the mux?

Most of the older cable in use had very little copper braid and the
screening properties were much reduced. Impulsive interference, from say
passing cars, isn't too much of a problem on analogue tv - simply the odd
black or white flash on the screen - but with digital the effect is a
complete freeze or total break up of the picture.

Is there -that- much impulse noise around these days?..

I can't recall the last time I ever heard any in the car on FM, and no
we're not blessed with hugely powerful signals in the Cambridge area....

I'd like to know why impulse interference gives white marks when the carrier
has negative-going video.

Bill

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...


"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead
most likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to
interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then
that is what is required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off
in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

[email protected] wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old
downlead most likely would not have been digital quality so
susceptable to interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and
copper braid then that is what is required. I doubt that your
parents have been ripped off in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the
same as "analogue" aerials.

Are you taking the ****? There is no such thing as a "digital" or "analogue"
aerials.
--
There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

On 16 Feb, 10:43, "Adrian" wrote:

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing.

The mast failure was caused by a steel clamp in contact with an
aluminium tube, and localized electrolytic reaction between them. It
was only around 10 years old, in an unpolluted rural location. I'm not
entirely impressed with the mast life for that matter - if you're
mixing metals like this, either plate them or shim them.

The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required.

It's plain braid. Half of it's RG58 now anyway - I did some relocation
of the sockets recently and chopped it, then replaced it with what I
had handy. As I said in the OP, they're so close to Winter Hill you
can practically run the lights off the signal strength - any impedance
mismatch isn't causing any problems.

In article , [email protected] says...

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

There speaks someone who knows diddly squat.

They look the same and are the same because they're receiving RF
signals on a set range of frequencies. The fact it's a digital or
analogue transmission is entirely irrelevent to the antenna.

It's not "in many cases" but "all cases". What differs from one antenna
to another is its gain and bandwidth.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:28:45 GMT, Clem Dye wrote:

Bill, here's a thought: what about recycling STBs and what have you? I
seem to amass boxen that I end-up stowing somewhere, where all they do
is sleep cosily in their packing. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this
position, having surplus kit that could benefit the elderly/less
fortunate during the DSO

Problem is that many 'older' STBs use far more electricity than modern
equivalents. A recycled STB may be free but it could end up using more
electricity in the first year or two than the cost of a more efficient
unit.


Most STB for sale are not of V. low standby power, this hasn't become
mandatory yet. I would say that alot more energy is used in the
construction of a STB compared with the 5 to 10w used. The cost is
irrelevent and very small, the idea is that it saves
resources/environment when they are all added up, but then only a little
bit. Re-use would be much more environmentally friendly than
replacement with lower power units.

--
Tony

In message , Adrian
writes
[email protected] wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old
downlead most likely would not have been digital quality so
susceptable to interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and
copper braid then that is what is required. I doubt that your
parents have been ripped off in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the
same as "analogue" aerials.

Are you taking the ****? There is no such thing as a "digital" or "analogue"
aerials.

It could be argued that ALL aerials are actually 'analogue'. The RF
signal voltage delivered by them is a direct representation of the field
strength in which they are immersed. This, in turn, is a direct
representation of signal voltage sent out at the transmitting end. Etc,
ad nauseam.
--
Ian

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to
interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then
that is what is required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off
in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

You imply that in other cases they are different to analogue aerials.
I for one would be very interested to know what you think is
different about an aerial that makes it intrinsically "digital".

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Graham." wrote in message
...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to
interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then
that is what is required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off
in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same
as "analogue" aerials.

You imply that in other cases they are different to analogue aerials.
I for one would be very interested to know what you think is
different about an aerial that makes it intrinsically "digital".

If a wideband aerial is needed at a particular location in order to receive
all the digital multiplexes, and at the same location a grouped aerial will
receive all the analogue signals, the public could be forgiven for calling
the grouped aerial 'analogue' and the wideband one 'digital'. But this is a
this narrow context, hedged about by conditions. Although Mr J Bloggs might
speak confidently in this way of analogue and digital aerials, he is, in any
normal sense, wrong.

Few of you know this but I have stage magic as my other job. One trick I
like to do on TV is the transmogrification of an analogue aerial into a
digital one. I travel to Louth (Lincs) with a Group A aerial. It's an
analogue aerial obviously, because the Belmont multiplexes are spread across
the band. I demonstrate the aerial's inability to receive five of the muxes,
then put it in a sealed box and send it to London. When my glamourous
assistant opens the box and takes out the aerial it has been magically
transformed into a digital one. She points it at Crystal Palace and receives
all six muxes.

So you see gentlemen, it's all a matter of
(a) bull**** if you're a crooked aerial rigger
(c) misinformation if you are a media person providing half-arsed advice on
the analogue switch-off
(c) semantics to you and me.

Bill