examples of digital rip-off

Ian Jackson wrote:

Maybe it's the cross-posting, but some contributors simply don't seem to
be seeing that, for Crystal Palace, ALL the digital MUXes ARE within the
Group A bandwidth. They are between Chs 22 and 34 inclusive.


Perhaps people wish to have a general discussion about digital TV rather
than labour the point about Crystal Palace - a point that has already
been made again, and again ...

And here are you, wanting to make it again. ;-)

Paul Martin wrote:

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.


And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
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.


Neither is your statement dontcha tink;?..

Analogue radio on FM can be very good indeed given a clean signal and
decent aerial. Digital radio which is horribly mangled by MP2 bit rate
compression sounds worse..

However signals off satellite like Bayern Klassik 4 are excellent and
are what digital radio should be at 334 odd K/Bits for the audio..

Analogue TV especially on a good clean signal with a set thats got a
well designed PAL decoder will show up all what's wrong with the current
implementation of T-DTV in the UK which is far too many channels
compressed into the bandwidth available.

Digital TV can be excellent, but its not .. due to the amount of
compression applied. Witness SD versus HD digital TV for an example of
this....
--
Tony Sayer

Bruce wrote:
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.

When the weather turns nasty, digital signals can not be got from the
aerial, or satellite dish. Water, snow and wet foliage can act as an
R.F. screen. Analogue signals can still get through, albeit with a noisy
picture.


Dave

In message , Bruce
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

Maybe it's the cross-posting, but some contributors simply don't seem to
be seeing that, for Crystal Palace, ALL the digital MUXes ARE within the
Group A bandwidth. They are between Chs 22 and 34 inclusive.


Perhaps people wish to have a general discussion about digital TV rather
than labour the point about Crystal Palace - a point that has already
been made again, and again ...

And here are you, wanting to make it again. ;-)

I think it is maybe you who are missing the point (or even two points).

Point 1 is that the discussion is about 'Digital Rip-offs', and that (in
this specific example) there was no advantage in replacing the old Group
A Crystal Palace aerial with a new ('digital'?) aerial. Before and
after, the digital signals were OK. After, the analogue signals were
worse so, almost certainly, the digital signals were also 'worse' - it's
just that you couldn't see that they were.

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.
--
Ian

Bruce wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
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.


And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)

No, less so. FM has the advantage in bad weather. It's called the
capture effect. In the absence of another FM signal, it is possible to
get intelligible info from a weak signal. Albeit, you get a poor
picture. With digital, it just packs up below a certain signal level.

Dave

John Rumm wrote:

I would second that. If James would take the time to actually read the
site, he would learn that what he just posted makes him look like a
complete muppet!

James is a troll. He trolls in exactly the same way in every newsgroup
that he posts to.

tony sayer wrote:

Analogue radio on FM can be very good indeed given a clean signal and
decent aerial. Digital radio which is horribly mangled by MP2 bit rate
compression sounds worse..


Oh, I totally agree. I was careful not to mention the FM versus DAB
fiasco, for that is what it is.

Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Bruce
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

Maybe it's the cross-posting, but some contributors simply don't seem to
be seeing that, for Crystal Palace, ALL the digital MUXes ARE within the
Group A bandwidth. They are between Chs 22 and 34 inclusive.


Perhaps people wish to have a general discussion about digital TV rather
than labour the point about Crystal Palace - a point that has already
been made again, and again ...

And here are you, wanting to make it again. ;-)

I think it is maybe you who are missing the point (or even two points).

Point 1 is that the discussion is about 'Digital Rip-offs', and that (in
this specific example) there was no advantage in replacing the old Group
A Crystal Palace aerial with a new ('digital'?) aerial. Before and
after, the digital signals were OK. After, the analogue signals were
worse so, almost certainly, the digital signals were also 'worse' - it's
just that you couldn't see that they were.

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.


Those points have already been made. The thread has moved on - thread
drift is hardly uncommon on Usenet, is it.

But thank you for so eloquently setting down what has already been said.

Dave wrote:

Bruce wrote:
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.

When the weather turns nasty, digital signals can not be got from the
aerial, or satellite dish. Water, snow and wet foliage can act as an
R.F. screen. Analogue signals can still get through, albeit with a noisy
picture.


Dave

I'll second that.
Have line of site to Emley mast and perfect digi/anal reception.
Soon as summer comes, trees in the garden create multipath flutter on
Freeview. Things may improve when analogue is switched off and the
digi power level increased but the second rate Freeview picture
quality will not be improving.
TV execs are pushing profits by means of digital overcompression.
Flesh tones in particular, are looking more and more like paint-it-by-
numbers.