Satellite v Freeview

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Ours are in the loft. I prefer this as it makes self-install and changes
easer, and keeps things away from weather and large birds. Not very
practical for a sat dish, though...

If you get 4G hassle an outdoor aerial on your Gp A tx might provide
good reliable reception.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/02/2013 18:03, Bill Wright wrote:

TV aerials are bigger than dishes.

Depends how you measure it.

A dish is maybe 4 square feet.
A minidish is around 2 sq ft.

The Yagi I can see out of my window is an
inch-wide stick 4ft long, with some little fiddly bits on it. The pole
is more visible than the fish-skeleton, and the lot can't be more than 1
square foot... on the other hand if you look at our house from the front
there's a yagi like that, and you can't see the dish at all.

Aerial masts are occasionally 1" diameter, but more usually 1.25", 1.5"
or 2". A normal mast length is either 6ft, 10ft, or 12ft. An 18 element
aerial is about 6ft long.

The degree of visual intrusion doesn't depend very much on the area of
the object; more on whether or not it cuts the skyline and whether the
shape is harmonious (dishes) or all jaggedy (aerials).

However the degree of perceived visual intrusion depends on
preconceptions as much as anything. The three hundred year old cottage
nestling in the hills looks wonderful whereas the very much smaller
brand new electricity sub-station next door is a blot on the landscape.

some 20 years ago, I was taking two Greek broadcasting engineers to see
Wrotham and CP. I remarked that CP was unusual because the building was
underground - for aesthetic reasons. There was a brief converstion in
Greek and then one said "I'm surprised they didn't make you put the mast
undergound for the same reasons."

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

rbel wrote:

From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any
advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is
it less prone to interference/reception problems?

I recall that about 2 years after Freesat started ( ~2010? ) somebody said
that there were a few popular channels that were on Freeview but not
Freesat. Anybody know if there are still any Freeview-but-not-Freesat
channels?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:29:43 +0000, Dave Farrance
wrote:

rbel wrote:

From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any
advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is
it less prone to interference/reception problems?

I recall that about 2 years after Freesat started ( ~2010? ) somebody said
that there were a few popular channels that were on Freeview but not
Freesat. Anybody know if there are still any Freeview-but-not-Freesat
channels?

Yes.

The UKTV channels are not on Freesat. Dave, Yesterday and Really are
available on Freeview.

Also, Quest (from Discovery Channel) is on Freeview not Freesat.

And 4Music and Viva.

There are more "adult" channels on Freeview than on Freesat.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

tim..... wrote:

there's nothing wrong with SD quality on the appropriate screen for
watching from 4 feet away

tim

The only thing wrong with it is that HD surpasses it. So why not have
the best? You deserve it...

Bill

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It has the disadvantage that you need a separate cable to each tuner.
That isn't much of an issue really. Just do it.

Plus other complications if you want to tune in to different stations
on a number of TVs/recorders.
Well, I dunno. I have customers who are Freesat only, and my own living
room is Freesat only. There doesn't seem to be a problem.

My Freesat-only customers are only vaguely aware that they get
everything from satellite.

The distinction is having something in place rather than being forced into
a change.

In my case I have

A) A TV and a recorder in one room.

B) A recorder in another room, plus a feed to use a tuner with a computer.

C) Another room, with another feed for a tuner with computer.

So I have four outputs, all independenly tunable/usable. And in fact (C)
comes from a different antenna to (A)/(B) and is aimed at a different TX.

Having someone come and give us even a 'free sat dish with one output'
isn't going to replace that. Nor will the existing coax dostribution cover
it.

So I'd need a fairly fancy system, not "Have a free dish" from MitCo.

Cost and inconvenience to change. When I have no interest in all the
'extra channels'.

So the situation for some already happy with DTTV as was means being
forced to change isn't exactly either convenient or free of cost.

And since both my antennas are in the loft I may not qualify anyway.


On 25 Feb in uk.tech.digital-tv, Bill Wright wrote:

If you get 4G hassle an outdoor aerial on your Gp A tx might provide
good reliable reception.

Actually, I can get pretty reliable reception *now* from Durris. That's my
'plan B' since a filter stands far more chance of sorting that as it is
low-band.

However I have used Angus rather than Durris much of the time because for a
few days per year Durris fades due to exceptional weather. Quite a long
path, mainly over the sea and coast. That said, it may well be about as
reliable as Sat given the factors of snow and heavy rain at times here.

I'd have added 'fighter jets from Leuchers' but the MoD are moving them
away and replacing them with squaddies. :-)

So although I expect I'll have problems getting Angus once 4G starts here,
I think it likely I'll get acceptable reception from Durris. At least until
our broadband finally improves and the net gives better results!

Indeed, I must admit I regard sat a bit like sat users regard DTTV. Due to
be replaced in time by the internet. No need to point at different sats to
get different stations. Distribute around the house easily with no dishs,
etc, on the roof or walls. The snag is the broadband support in the area
where the user lives. At present it *just* copes with one SD stream. Not
enough for all purposes, so really needs to improve.

So I suspect that a decade or more from now people will regard sat TV as
being as quaint as DTTV. :-)

However my basic concern is that I and others should change as a result of
our free preferences and wishs. Not because we've been forced or due to
sanctioned jamming!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Bill Wright wrote:

The only thing wrong with it is that HD surpasses it. So why not have
the best? You deserve it...

I agree completely. The closer you are, the *more* you need HD, not
the less, because each pixel subtends a larger angle in the visual
field.

Whatever viewing arrangement you have, HD always looks better than SD,
because there is more picture detail and the compression artefacts are
less visible.

Honestly, tim, it's money well spent and it isn't another hundred quid,
anyway.

--
SteveT

On 24/02/2013 14:05, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:16:15 +0000, rbel wrote:


From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any
advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is
it less prone to interference/reception problems?

A larger selection of rubbish is about it. The disadvantage is the
dish.

Steve



as if television aerials are pretty?

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:16:59 +0000, the dog from that film you saw
wrote:

On 24/02/2013 14:05, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:16:15 +0000, rbel wrote:


From a consumer's perspective does satellite viewing have any
advantages over Freeview other than a wider selection of stations? Is
it less prone to interference/reception problems?

A larger selection of rubbish is about it. The disadvantage is the
dish.

Steve



as if television aerials are pretty?

I would need to climb on the roof to see my TV aerial as it's not
visible from the ground. These days climbing is a bit of a challenge
for me.

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

On 24/02/2013 18:13, Bill Wright wrote:
David Kennedy wrote:

One installer told a neighbour that they
were not allowed by Sky to do roof installs and ended up nailing the
bracket to the fence...

One of my neighbours' dishes was so stupidly positioned the postman
walked into it.

I know some posties *are* stupid but you should take into
consideration all possibilities, including the "two drunks" one.

Something seems to have gone amiss at a block of flats I deliver to.
The "postie route" over the roof, via the fire escape, afforded me a
sight of the two dishes installed there with their LNBs lying on the
roof, the plastic brackets on the arms having been broken. Whether
this is foul or fowl* play remains to be seen.

*There are ravens and herring gulls thereabouts.
--
Phil Cook