examples of digital rip-off

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Tim Downie" 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?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?


Yes, you are right, digital terrestrial has a better picture quality than
analogue, (provided nothing moves of course).
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

In article , Ian Jackson ianREMOVET
scribeth thus
In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
"Tim Downie" 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?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?


As it isn't as good as good analogue;!...

Now digital satellite does look good...

But is there any good analogue any more? Surely what we get these days
is digital converted to analogue?

Yes thats right .. but its at rates the like of which you'll never see
as an end user....


And, even if you do get a 'good' analogue signal, there's a good chance
that it will be co-channel with a not-too-distant digital MUX. Even
under 'flat' propagation conditions, the SNR can be visibly impaired,
and if there's a 'lift' on, the analogue signal can be virtually
unwatchable.

No problems here from Sandy Heath..


And what makes you think that -digital- transmission is immune to CCI?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , PeterC
scribeth thus
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:30 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
"Tim Downie" 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?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?


As it isn't as good as good analogue;!...

Now digital satellite does look good...

Until there's heavy snow or rain.

Not if you have an adequate -rain fade- margin in the system..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Graham.
scribeth thus


"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
"Tim Downie" 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?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?


Yes, you are right, digital terrestrial has a better picture quality than
analogue, (provided nothing moves of course).

Even then the colour grading leaves a few bits to be desired..
--
Tony Sayer

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

But is there any good analogue any more? Surely what we get these days is
digital converted to analogue?

It used to be analogue all the way to the transmitter.
Then it was analogue, to digital to analogue.
Then it was digital to digital to analogue.
Now its digital to digital to digital to either analogue or digital
depending on the display.

In message , "[email protected]"
writes


"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

But is there any good analogue any more? Surely what we get these
days is digital converted to analogue?

It used to be analogue all the way to the transmitter.
Then it was analogue, to digital to analogue.
Then it was digital to digital to analogue.
Now its digital to digital to digital to either analogue or digital
depending on the display.

So can I take that as a qualified 'yes'?
--
Ian

In article , Paul Martin
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , PeterC
scribeth thus
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:30 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Now digital satellite does look good...

Until there's heavy snow or rain.

Not if you have an adequate -rain fade- margin in the system..

There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that one.


I've seen -one- of them in the last Ten years that took the feeds to the
land based TX'es out;!...

Compared to the impairment caused by CCI thats not bad going Dontcha
think?..

Oh, and if the snow settles heavily on your dish, there's not going to
be much signal until it thaws or you knock it off. (This happened to me
in early December.)

Not a problem here with the odd shape of the LNB blocks in use..
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:15:04 +0000, Paul Martin wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , PeterC
scribeth thus
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:30 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Now digital satellite does look good...

Until there's heavy snow or rain.

Not if you have an adequate -rain fade- margin in the system..

There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that one.

Oh, and if the snow settles heavily on your dish, there's not going to
be much signal until it thaws or you knock it off. (This happened to me
in early December.)

Well, hello Paul! How's ZN doing these days? I often wonder how Zetland is
progressing.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Ian Jackson wrote:

But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

Other people have different experiences, and I respect that. But making
dogmatic statements about analogue being fundamentally better than
digital isn't helpful, because it just isn't true.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
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? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

Are you watching the same digital signals as the rest of us?


I don't think I have ever seen you in my living room or bedroom, so
probably not!

But you never know. ;-)