examples of digital rip-off

Terry Casey wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?


Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?


Replacing a narrow band ("analogue") aerial with a wide band ("digital")
aerial is unlikely to improve analogue reception. In my case the
analogue reception is probably slightly worse now.


Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?


If it works well now, it is likely to get even better in future as
analogue signals are turned off and the power of digital transmissions
are increased.

What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.


Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?
Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

Not if the analogue and digital channels are in different groups (as where I
live) where a wideband aerial is indicated (if you want both from the same
aerial, that is).

The OP did say Crystal Palace - Group A for EVERYTHING!

Terry

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

In a similar vein, I think the magic went out of colour TV when thery
brought out AFC (automatic frequency control) on sets. Having to jump up
every two minutes to tweak the tuning was part of the experience. ;-)

Just amazing what we used to put up with.

Tim

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:00:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue?

And also, if one has a widescreen television (as I would hope this man
purchased for his new integrated digital television), why would one
use analog for receiving a truncated picture to be displayed either
in StretchyVision or with black bars (which seem to frighten some
people)?

Bruce wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?


Replacing a narrow band ("analogue") aerial with a wide band ("digital")
aerial is unlikely to improve analogue reception. In my case the
analogue reception is probably slightly worse now.


Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?


If it works well now, it is likely to get even better in future as
analogue signals are turned off and the power of digital transmissions
are increased.


Aren't you really missing the point that, on the evidence supplied, the
new installation is CRAP?

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:00:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue?

And also, if one has a widescreen television (as I would hope this man
purchased for his new integrated digital television), why would one
use analog for receiving a truncated picture to be displayed either
in StretchyVision or with black bars (which seem to frighten some
people)?

Surely the reference to analogue by the OP was to present evidence of
before and after performance?

Nobody has said that the punter actually wants to watch it!

Terry Casey wrote:

Aren't you really missing the point that, on the evidence supplied, the
new installation is CRAP?


Aren't you really missing the point that, on the evidence supplied, the
digital reception is good?

Aren't you really missing the point that nothing else really matters?

In message , Tim Downie
writes

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .

What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

In a similar vein, I think the magic went out of colour TV when thery
brought out AFC (automatic frequency control) on sets. Having to jump
up every two minutes to tweak the tuning was part of the experience. ;-)

Just amazing what we used to put up with.

Mine was regular tweaking the convergence controls on a 1967 Decca
CTV25, which someone kindly gave me in 1973. Essentially, it was a
superb set. Fortunately, there were a load of controls accessible
through a trapdoor on the left-hand side.
--
Ian

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:00:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue?

And also, if one has a widescreen television (as I would hope this man
purchased for his new integrated digital television), why would one
use analog for receiving a truncated picture to be displayed either
in StretchyVision or with black bars (which seem to frighten some
people)?
Ah, those black bars Sarf of the River..very frigthening, mon!

"J G Miller" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:00:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue?

And also, if one has a widescreen television (as I would hope this man
purchased for his new integrated digital television), why would one
use analog for receiving a truncated picture to be displayed either
in StretchyVision or with black bars (which seem to frighten some
people)?

I have friends who don't like widescreen as they don't like black bars.
They bought a 4:3 flat screen telly which is now connected to a freeview
box. Of course this should leave black bars top & bottom, but in their case
they've told their freeview box that their telly *is* widescreen so they
watch everything squashed up. A bad case of black bars and widescreen
phobia.

I've given up trying to understand their logic. ;-)

Tim