Anything positive to say about BBC HD quality.

On 1 Jan, 04:37, "IanT" wrote:
"David" wrote in message

...

Watched a couple of programmes on BBC HD last night I thought quality had
improved, might just have been a program thing, so I wondered if all the
complaints might have had a positive result. * OR are they achieving
nothing?
Best wishes for the new year.
David

To watch HD you need a TV capable of 1080p. **NOT* 1080i as some
people seem to think. *Shops deliberately use misleading terms and/or
product specification descriptions to get a sale. *So people getting home
with a 1080 HD ready TV will find it is 1080i or 720p, so no different to
what they probably have. *There is also a lot of misunderstanding about
picture quality. *To see ANY difference between a normal show and one in
HD you would need to sit within 5 feet of a 32inch HD TV. *Any further
away and you are wasting your money. *What you do find is that on HD
broadcasts the contrast is turned up and colours almost saturated to give
the impression it is better than standard.
After looking at a few HD TVs, 1080p types, I decided it was a waste of
money to get one as I am quite happy with the quality of 720p.
I don't sit within 5 feet of a TV so will not benefit from HD broadcasts.
The type of people that say HD is far better are the type that claim DAB
sounds better than FM stereo. *What they really mean is that they never
ever connected a proper aerial to their old tuner so never enjoyed the
quality!

I don't have an HDTV at home, but a few days ago I was at a friend's
place and saw 'Britain from the Air' on BBC-HD via Sky, definitely a
much better picture, makes normal TV look a bit fuzzy.

This was on a large Sony 'Bravia', connected via an HDMI lead, I don't
know what the vital statistics of this TV are, whether it's 720, 1080,
interlaced or progressive, etc.

On 1 Jan, 04:37, "IanT" wrote:

The type of people that say HD is far better are the type that claim DAB
sounds better than FM stereo. *What they really mean is that they never
ever connected a proper aerial to their old tuner so never enjoyed the
quality!

DAB is a great improvement over FM, for the average listener, for a
start there is a greater choice of stations, I recommend BBC Radio 7,
BBC World Service and Premier Christian Radio, and it tends to either
work well or not at all, you don't get the hissing, distortion etc,
that there is with bad FM reception. Most DAB sets also receive FM, so
you can still hear the local community and pirate stations.

In article
s.com, alexander.keys1 scribeth thus
On 1 Jan, 04:37, "IanT" wrote:

The type of people that say HD is far better are the type that claim DAB
sounds better than FM stereo. *What they really mean is that they never
ever connected a proper aerial to their old tuner so never enjoyed the
quality!

DAB is a great improvement over FM, for the average listener,

Really?..

for a
start there is a greater choice of stations,

OK perhaps a few..

I recommend BBC Radio 7,
BBC World Service and Premier Christian Radio, and it tends to either
work well or not at all, you don't get the hissing, distortion etc,
that there is with bad FM reception.

Nope just bubblin mud and that unique bitless sound;(..

Most DAB sets also receive FM, so
you can still hear the local community and pirate stations.

Quite good fun pity the former cannot afford the exclusive DAB club but
still perhaps there're happier on a medium that can be heard by a LOT
more, especially mobile..





--
Tony Sayer

In message ,
In400metreskeepright wrote

I have absolutely NO problem with the HD quality on my Tosh.


Then you would have been blown away with the quality if you had seen it
when they first started out with a much higher bitrate.



--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alexander.keys1 wrote:


DAB is a great improvement over FM, for the average listener, for a
start there is a greater choice of stations, I recommend BBC Radio 7,
BBC World Service and Premier Christian Radio,

Interesting how you don't recommend any of the music stations on DAB.
Well DAB is possibly OK for speech, but it's dreadful for music.

and it tends to either
work well or not at all, you don't get the hissing, distortion etc,
that there is with bad FM reception.

Only in rather Poor FM reception areas.
And I'd rather have a bit of hiss and distortion than bubbling mud.

Most DAB sets also receive FM, so
you can still hear the local community and pirate stations.

Most DAB sets have a very poor FM radio, helping more people to believe
the myth that DAB is somehow better.

Richard E.

In article 259ef148-b96a-43b2-8f58-
, Alexander.keys1 wrote:
DAB is a great improvement over FM, for the average listener, for a
start there is a greater choice of stations, I recommend BBC Radio 7,
BBC World Service and Premier Christian Radio, and it tends to either
work well or not at all, you don't get the hissing, distortion etc,
that there is with bad FM reception. Most DAB sets also receive FM, so
you can still hear the local community and pirate stations.

BBC brainwashing seems to have worked on you then.

Personally, I don't listen to the PR hype, I listen to the music. I
prefer to form my own opinion of what I can hear, rather than accepting
someone else's

Have you considered that a greater choice of stations can only be called
an "improvement" if you actually *want* a greater choice of stations? How
many different stations do you think most people usually listen to? What
about those of us who would rather have a choice of listening quality?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"IanT" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
...
Watched a couple of programmes on BBC HD last night I thought quality had
improved, might just have been a program thing, so I wondered if all the
complaints might have had a positive result. OR are they achieving
nothing?
Best wishes for the new year.
David

To watch HD you need a TV capable of 1080p. *NOT* 1080i as some
people seem to think.

What does 1080p give you that 1080i doesn't, in terms of detail?

--
Bartc

alexander.keys1 wrote:
On 1 Jan, 04:37, "IanT" wrote:

The type of people that say HD is far better are the type that claim DAB
sounds better than FM stereo. What they really mean is that they never
ever connected a proper aerial to their old tuner so never enjoyed the
quality!

DAB is a great improvement over FM, for the average listener,

I suppose that if the average listener is a brain dead moron that could be true.

bcoombes wrote:
alexander.keys1 wrote:
On 1 Jan, 04:37, "IanT" wrote:

The type of people that say HD is far better are the type that claim DAB
sounds better than FM stereo. What they really mean is that they never
ever connected a proper aerial to their old tuner so never enjoyed the
quality!

DAB is a great improvement over FM, for the average listener,

I suppose that if the average listener is a brain dead moron that could
be true.

Unfortunately, you might find that the average listener is a bit
clueless about audio quality. They know it is digital, so they expect it
to be like CD, and this is not helped by the DAB industry telling them
that it is better than FM.

Also audio audio quality can be a strange thing. It can sound OK when
you first hear it, but as you listen you effectively train your brain to
pick out the faults. It then starts becoming annoying. Also the problem
can be that it is trying to listen to, but you don't always notice that
until you get tired.

So I think the average listener might get a DAB radio, hear sound
without any interference, and think. Yes that is digital, it is good.

As far as I'm concerned, the big question is whether or not they are
still happy with their DAB radio when they have had it for a few years.
Or do they stop using it because the way it sounds is starting to annoy
them, but they don't understand why.

Well I can't say I have a lot of experience about this, as I know so few
people who actually have a DAB radio. All I can say is that I have a few
DAB radios that I used to enjoy listening to, but now can not stand.
Plus my mum and dad, have had one for a couple of years, and that one
mysteriously doesn't seem to get used much any more.

The surveys about listener numbers don't seem to give a clear picture,
on this. Perhaps the lack of a survey suggests that the DAB industry
don't want one, as they know that the result would not be a good one.

Richard E.

Richard Evans wrote:

Typo

pick out the faults. It then starts becoming annoying. Also the problem
can be that it is trying to listen to, but you don't always notice that

*tiring* to listen to