examples of digital rip-off

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Conor
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer says...

Now digital satellite does look good...
Not for those of us who had analogue it doesn't.



Try some signals from over the other side of the channel..

In countries where they still value the input of engineers which they
don't in the UK....
It has always been the case.

I was involved in a highe ned FM receiver design in te 70's. It was a
very very nice sounding beats here in teh UK, where ome very smooth
filters made for an impressive sound.

Then we took it to its target market, Germany. Where there were DOZENS
of FM stations. Oh dear. adjacent channels were screwing it up.

So we went for more filters of less quality to sharpen the tuning: it
got rid of the adjacent channel burble, but the sound was never as
good..HF stereo stuff sounded slightly odd. I surmised that the stereo
information had sideband well outside the nominal 400Khz pass band.

The less bandwidth you use, the more quality has to be compromised.

All modulation and compression schemas imply that you are trading
bandwidth for total information, and relying on the fact that some of
that information is redundant.

This works as long as the assumption in the compression or modulation
algorithm is valid. Often its not. Like the massive pre-emphasis on
analogue tape at HF, used to reduce hiss and get a better overall
transfer characteristic: then not making te VU meters peak reading and
even when they are, not monitoring the actual tape head after
pre-emphasis. I would say that less than one in ten of any hi-hat tracks
ever recorded are not clipped badly.

At least with digital you have a better chance..

(Zero Tolerance) wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:26:39 +0000, Bruce wrote:

The bitrates on DSAT for the BBC in
particular used to be far higher, then they dropped them dramatically.

Isn't that because the BBC changed to a separate feed to the Astra
satellite that doesn't go via Sky's ground station?

The BBC's feeds never went via Sky in the first place, they've always
uplinked them themselves.


Thanks.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

[Snip]

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.

Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.


..Cheapskate...

no, just getting my money's worth - the whole installation, 2 x uhf and 1 x
VHF/FM, cost nearly 100 quid - and that was at trade prices. - installed by
myself.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

[Snip]

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.

Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.

Come to think of it so am I. Mine was installed at about the same time.

Bill

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Ian Jackson ianREMOVET
scribeth thus

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.

Well... its not a bad thing for an aerial thats been up there some
years. Corrosion will take its toll and for what it costs and the number
of years it lasts .. its rather good value...

But, as I said...
"provided that the existing aerial is in good condition"...
Obviously, if you suspected that the aerial was in poor condition, it
would be a false economy not to replace (or refurbish) it.
--
Ian

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I was involved in a highe ned FM receiver design in te 70's. It was a
very very nice sounding beats here in teh UK, where ome very smooth
filters made for an impressive sound.


Any chance of that in English?

I don't like to hear ANY beats on my FM receiver, no matter how smooth
they sound ...

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:21:34 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.

Come to think of it so am I. Mine was installed at about the same time.

If the antenna itself is still in good electrical and mechanical condition
then there is obviously no need to replace it.

But after 20 years, is it not time to replace the coaxial cable, which
probably was not the double shielded type?

PeterC wrote:

Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.

Same here, probably of similar age.

I'm on Oxford, so wideband.

Group C/D surely ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:04:32 +0100, J G Miller wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:21:34 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.

Come to think of it so am I. Mine was installed at about the same time.

If the antenna itself is still in good electrical and mechanical condition
then there is obviously no need to replace it.

But after 20 years, is it not time to replace the coaxial cable, which
probably was not the double shielded type?

Just remaking the connections will have an effect. I had to remake just the
bottom end and Five went from discernable to [just about] watchable. The
cable was a bit corroded, even indoors.

I've some 'digital' co-ax and it has far less copper in it than the 30yo
stuff does.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:21:34 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in
1978.

Come to think of it so am I. Mine was installed at about the same time.

If the antenna itself is still in good electrical and mechanical condition
then there is obviously no need to replace it.

But after 20 years, is it not time to replace the coaxial cable, which
probably was not the double shielded type?

mine wasn't, but it was good quality URM202 which has a decent amount of
braid.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11