Digital tuners in all TVs sold

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:21:31 GMT, "Tony"
wrote:

In many contexts, a "loudspeaker" includes its amplifier(s). For example,
sitting on my desk and connected to my PC are a pair of devices bought as
"loudspeakers", they include amplifiers.

True, but in the domestic context, not counting a very few hi-fi
devices of this nature, this is a novelty that has only appeared in
significant numbers with desktop computers in the last 15 years or so.

In the professional audio world
(sound recording and broadcasting) a monitoring loudspeaker is considered
as a device that takes a line level input and produces sound. And I own
quite a large "PA speaker" that contains its own amplifiers. Unfortunately
there isn't a separate term to distinguish speakers that contain amplifiers
from those that don't.

I first encountered this practice when I joined the BBC in the late
1960s. I may not be recollecting the details exactly, but I think the
ones that contained amplifiers were called "Loudspeaker Units" and had
code numbers beginning "LSU/...." while a passive speaker was just
"LS/....". The cone and coil assemblies fitted within the box would be
called "drive units", or "loudspeaker drive units", regardless of what
they were called by Radiospares or Lasky's.

The BBC had its own system of unambiguous definitions for things like
this, because it had to deal with them every day. Not everybody knew
them or kept to them in everyday speech of course, but you could
guarantee that any official documentation most definitely would. If
something was listed in the Technical Stores catalogue as a "plug" or
a "socket" for example, you knew what it would be because there was an
official specification for what the BBC meant by these words. In
everyday life, ordinary mortals can often be heard referring to
mysterious objects called "plug-sockets", but in the BBC, if its
contacts were pins it was a "plug", and if it had holes it was a
"socket", regardless of whether it was fitted to a cable or mounted on
a panel, this being described by the terms "free" otr "fixed".

Somehow I doubt things are still as clear now. The way presenters use
terms like "film" and "video" indiscriminately and apparently at
random, sometimes for the same thing in the same sentence, makes me
wonder if this is also common usage behind the scenes.

Rod.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:05:03 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

I may not be recollecting the details exactly, but I think the
ones that contained amplifiers were called "Loudspeaker Units" and had
code numbers beginning "LSU/...." while a passive speaker was just
"LS/....".

LSU/ was the old code before the codes were redefined to indicate
purpose rather than the innards.

LS3/ were OB monitors.
LS5/ were studio monitors.

Either could be active or passive.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/2007 06:53, buddenbrooks wrote:

France introduced its new TV law on February 22nd

thanks, the idea sounds sensible (if at odds with free trade, though that
sounds consistent with france's self-protection stance)

I don't think it blocks free trade. They are not saying a TV may not
receive other standards, just it must include the mandated
protocols.

They are just saying "if you sell something and call it a television, then
it must comply with the standard for France".

They are not stopping non-french manufacturers either directly or by
introducing a standard for France uneconomic to
manufacture for.

It would be better if the EU were to define the standard and mandate
complience throughout the EC.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:36:42 GMT, "Robin"
wrote:

Surely the French can't be ignoring Brussels (and
Luxembourg), can they?)

Do bears sh*t in the woods?


--

On 03/07/2007 18:00, buddenbrooks wrote:


I don't think it blocks free trade. They are not saying a TV may not
receive other standards, just it must include the mandated
protocols.

if you manufactured a TV that wasn't MPEG4 compatible (but was MPEG2
compatible) you'd feel cut out from the french FTA market, the MPEG4
will (initially at least) only be used for the french subscription channels.

How would you feel if every TV sold here had to have a VideoGuard decoder?

It would be better if the EU were to define the standard and mandate
complience throughout the EC.

The CCITT defines the standards, the EC should and does encourage their
adoption, it isn't for any single country to rideeoughshod ovver that.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
news:[email protected] if you manufactured a TV that
wasn't MPEG4 compatible (but was MPEG2
compatible) you'd feel cut out from the french FTA market, the MPEG4 will
(initially at least) only be used for the french subscription channels.

How would you feel if every TV sold here had to have a VideoGuard decoder?


Slightly different in that VideoGuard is a proprietory system, while MPEG4
is the standard a lot of the TV stations are pushing for
so that more channels may be squeezed in the same space.

The problem is possibly that with the rapid changes in standards, expensive
equipment is becoming obsolete.
I would not be surprised that in 2012, just as everyone has forked out to go
digital they will change the standards and we will
all be out buying adaptor boxes again.

On 03/07/2007 21:46, buddenbrooks wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote in message

How would you feel if every TV sold here had to have a VideoGuard decoder?

Slightly different in that VideoGuard is a proprietory system,

true

The problem is possibly that with the rapid changes in standards, expensive
equipment is becoming obsolete.
I would not be surprised that in 2012, just as everyone has forked out to go
digital they will change the standards and we will
all be out buying adaptor boxes again.

But people will only take a certain number of "kicks" to jump from
analogue to gen. 1 DTT, to gen. 2 DTT (that are actually fast enough to
run MHEG and will support 2K carriers after DSO) to MPEG4 before they
just give up.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...

But people will only take a certain number of "kicks" to jump from
analogue to gen. 1 DTT, to gen. 2 DTT (that are actually fast enough to
run MHEG and will support 2K carriers after DSO) to MPEG4 before they just
give up.

Indeed, and it is where EC legislation comes to play. Probably the answer
is that tuner and decoders should be defined in more generic terms and then
these characteristics mandated for all tvs sold. The characteristics should
include processing capapability and off-air download capability. So even if
the standards change over the life of the TV, it could be seamlessly
updated.

THis should not be so difficult now that the 'front end' of a tv has become
a multi-standard monitor capable of connecting to a veriety
of standatrds from PC VGA to HD.

"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...
My expectation is that a 'Television' sold tday shall perform its
function without adaptors from the day of purchase for the rest of its
functioning life.

This would be met by any of the platforms you mention. It is not met by an
analog only set.

I personally don't feel ready to buy a TV with a built in digital tuner. My
experience so far with set top boxes suggests there's a high likelihood that
it would have software bugs that would be triggered at a later date when
some new channel starts or something.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

My Gran's analogue TV gave up the ghost about 3 years ago

rather than buy a new analogue tv and a seperate freeview box, I bought on
her behalf an IDTV (integrated digital TV). Although this was the more
expensive option, it was the easiest for my Gran, who is 85, to use, with
just one remote control.

I've had satellite TV for years, and before her IDTV, she used to go on
about why do you want so many TV channels? whats wrong with the four we
already get??? ( she had not been able to recieve analogue Channel 5)

Now every time I visit her, she tells me she watched such and such on BBC3,
or on BBC4 or on ITV 2 or on FilmFour.... She has not watched a single
programme on an analogue TV channel for over 3 years now.

It is fair to say that having to wrestle with two remotes for a TV and
freeview box instead of one for an IDTV would have confused the hell out of
her and would have prevented her from watching BBC3, BBC4, ITV2 or FilmFour

So i can rest easy that she can enjoy her senior years....

Stephen


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Gillett wrote:
I recently bought a 21" flatscreen Analog TV for the bedroom for GBP 80
and a Freeview box to go with it for GBP30 all from Sainsburys. They had
the freeview version of the same TV for GBP130. I of course bought the
separates setup, and it works well.

So to save 20 quid you had two boxes rather than one and two remote
controls? Was it worth it?

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.