Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"Agamemnon" wrote in
. uk:


"Clive" wrote in message
6...



Hmm, not too sure if 'quality' was the driving force behind buying
these products. We bought our first 625/Colour TV in 1976, only when
the spares could no longer be found for the unreliable, valve driven
405 line set. I

Right, and how much did the spares cost compared with buying a second
hand 625 line B/W TV?


That was not my point, we didn't buy a colour television because of the
increase in picture quality, but rather that our old TV was no longer
maintainable. It's Horizontal output valve replacements which blew on
average once every six months were becoming as rare as rocking horses.
But with colour TV's been the norm by then, that was obviously the best
way to go.



When the price of a superior product became affordable. In 1976 the
prices of second hand colour TVs, ex hotel stock etc. cost the same as
a new B/W, but the TV licence fee was still 3 times that of B/W. A new
colour TV back then would have cost the same as a 2,000 plasma/LCD
screen today.


Oh indeed, my father saved for months and months to buy one new, most
people I knew rented theirs.

It wasn't until about 1980 that new Colour TVs became affordable and
reliable. Most of the TVs before then were all Valve based and
completely unreliable and took ages and ages to warm up. In 1980 you
got TVs which started up instantly, though Sony got there first in the
mid 70's if you could afford one.



Well before then, by the early 70's most televisions were solid-state.It
was a British manufacturer (forget which) who made the first fully
transistorized colour TV chassis in the late 60's.

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
In Europe Betamax outsold VHS because it was higher quality. The only
reason why VHS held on to win is because in the US VHS tapes were twice
the length you could possibly get on Betamax using the NTSC system and by
that time VHS HQ and Hi-Fi stereo had arrived which was better that the
original specification.

That is complete ********.

Betamax did not out sell VHS in Europe, *despite* being technically
superior. The reason VHS beat Betamax was because it cornered the porn and
rental market first.

Playback times were actually about 8% shorter for NTSC for both formats.

Complete and utter crap. What I said still stands. Look it up. You are
talking ********.

"Paul Murray" wrote in message
ng.com...
On 2008-10-13, Agamemnon wrote:
"Paul Murray" wrote in message
ng.com...
On 2008-10-11, Agamemnon wrote:
satisfied with the present DAB. What people want is quality, not
qunatity.
Experience seems to suggest that this is exactly wrong.
In Europe Betamax outsold VHS because it was higher quality. The only
reason
why VHS held on to win is because in the US VHS tapes were twice the
length
you could possibly get on Betamax using the NTSC system and by that time
VHS

So VHS did well because you could get more quantity on the tapes, even
though
Beta was better quality? Doesn't that sort of argue my point?

No. Betamax was totally useless for recording and distributing feature films
in the US since at the time it came out the longest tape length available in
the US was about 1 hour. VHS gave you double that when it first came out. In
Europe you could record up to 2 hours 40 minuites on a Betamax tape and 3
hours on a VHS tape, so quality prevailed and Betamax won the war in Europe.
In the US VHS was technically superior because it allowed you to record a
feature film on a single tape. Betamax therefore had no real practical use.
The superior format won the war in the US.


See above. Add 12inch 33 1/3rpm LPs and 45s over 78 inch discs. Add FM
radio
over Medium Wave. Add the Marconi's 405 line system over Baird's 32 line

FM can provide more channels than MW.

So? Hardly any of them were being used when FM was launched. People bought
FM radios because it was a superior system. The sound quality was better, it
offered stereo and the reception didn't become crap in the evening with
interference from the continent.


system. Add mp3 over mp2. Add 1280 line HDTV over 720 line HDTV.

MP3 allows more music at a given quality in a given space than mp2.

So quality prevails again.

Many more 720p TVs are being sold than 1080p. (Not 1280)

Only because they are cheaper. The broadcasters all offer programmes in
1080i not 720p. Any decent deinterlacer can convert 1080i to 1080p. Quality
prevails once again.

Agamemnon wrote:

Also the UK's first local radio station was BBC R.Leicester in 1967,
three years in advance of BBC R.London.

Was it on FM?

Yes, all BBC local stations were on FM from day one. They didn't
simulcast on AM until 1972

By 1973 there were 20 BBC local stations, and by 1976 19 ILR stations,
with a grand total of three local stations in London.

How many were on FM?

Every single one, and every single ILR station was on AM and in FM
stereo from day one.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
Indeed - no demand for it. Which has got nothing to do with the
bitrate on DAB.

There is no demand for it because the system used to broadcast it is
dire and doesn't work when you are on the move.

So we cab add the fact you know nothing about mobile reception to those
about DAB and AM?

We can add the fact that both I and the car manufacturers know that DAB is
totally unreliable on the move and the fact that you don't.

Agamemnon wrote:

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
In Europe Betamax outsold VHS because it was higher quality. The only
reason why VHS held on to win is because in the US VHS tapes were
twice the length you could possibly get on Betamax using the NTSC
system and by that time VHS HQ and Hi-Fi stereo had arrived which was
better that the original specification.

That is complete ********.

Betamax did not out sell VHS in Europe, *despite* being technically
superior. The reason VHS beat Betamax was because it cornered the porn
and rental market first.

Playback times were actually about 8% shorter for NTSC for both formats.

Complete and utter crap. What I said still stands. Look it up. You are
talking ********.

Really ?

The only market where (arguably) Beta won, was Japan, but I'm wasting
any more time on you.

On 2008-10-13, Agamemnon wrote:
"Paul Murray" wrote in message
ng.com...
On 2008-10-13, Agamemnon wrote:
"Paul Murray" wrote in message
ng.com...
On 2008-10-11, Agamemnon wrote:
satisfied with the present DAB. What people want is quality, not
qunatity.
Experience seems to suggest that this is exactly wrong.
In Europe Betamax outsold VHS because it was higher quality. The only
reason why VHS held on to win is because in the US VHS tapes were twice
the length you could possibly get on Betamax using the NTSC system and
by that time VHS
So VHS did well because you could get more quantity on the tapes, even
though Beta was better quality? Doesn't that sort of argue my point?
No. Betamax was totally useless for recording and distributing feature films
in the US since at the time it came out the longest tape length available in
the US was about 1 hour. VHS gave you double that when it first came out. In

So as I said, VHS won because it provided better quantity than Beta, even
though Beta had better picture quality. Exactly the opposite of what you were
arguing.

system. Add mp3 over mp2. Add 1280 line HDTV over 720 line HDTV.
MP3 allows more music at a given quality in a given space than mp2.
So quality prevails again.

Or quantity does. Same quality, same space, more music.

Many more 720p TVs are being sold than 1080p. (Not 1280)
Only because they are cheaper. The broadcasters all offer programmes in
1080i not 720p. Any decent deinterlacer can convert 1080i to 1080p. Quality
prevails once again.

If quality prevailed, TV would be broadcast at 1080p, which would be
unarguably the best quality. However, that uses too much bandwidth, so
instead they use 1080i and get more channels in.
Quantity chosen over quality.

"Paul Murray" wrote in message
ng.com...
On 2008-10-13, Agamemnon wrote:
"Paul Murray" wrote in message
ng.com...
On 2008-10-13, Agamemnon wrote:
"Paul Murray" wrote in message
ng.com...
On 2008-10-11, Agamemnon wrote:
satisfied with the present DAB. What people want is quality, not
qunatity.
Experience seems to suggest that this is exactly wrong.
In Europe Betamax outsold VHS because it was higher quality. The only
reason why VHS held on to win is because in the US VHS tapes were twice
the length you could possibly get on Betamax using the NTSC system and
by that time VHS
So VHS did well because you could get more quantity on the tapes, even
though Beta was better quality? Doesn't that sort of argue my point?
No. Betamax was totally useless for recording and distributing feature
films
in the US since at the time it came out the longest tape length available
in
the US was about 1 hour. VHS gave you double that when it first came out.
In

So as I said, VHS won because it provided better quantity than Beta, even
though Beta had better picture quality. Exactly the opposite of what you
were
arguing.

VHS provided better technical superiority for the NTSC system and that's why
it won in the US. Betamax won in Europe for the same reason because it was
technically superior on PAL. It was nothing to do with quantity. Betamax was
practically unusable in the US. DAB is practically unusable in the UK.


system. Add mp3 over mp2. Add 1280 line HDTV over 720 line HDTV.
MP3 allows more music at a given quality in a given space than mp2.
So quality prevails again.

Or quantity does. Same quality, same space, more music.

Better quality same space. Quality prevails.


Many more 720p TVs are being sold than 1080p. (Not 1280)
Only because they are cheaper. The broadcasters all offer programmes in
1080i not 720p. Any decent deinterlacer can convert 1080i to 1080p.
Quality
prevails once again.

If quality prevailed, TV would be broadcast at 1080p, which would be
unarguably the best quality. However, that uses too much bandwidth, so
instead they use 1080i and get more channels in.
Quantity chosen over quality.

Any decent deinterlacer can covert 1080i to 1080p with no noticeable
degradation in quality than if it had been broadcast as 1080p. HDDVD and
Blu-Ray are both capable of 1080p50. The source material, Hollywood movies
only needs 1080p24 so no loss in quality.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Silk, you're *just* a troll, so STFU.

Even a troll can see what a jerk you are.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:58:54 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
every single ILR station was on AM and in FM stereo from day one.

With one notable exception. Well, Liverpool always has to be different.

Radio City (Sound of Merseyside Limited) started broadcasting at 06:00h
on Monday, October 21st, 1974 from the AM transmitter of the IBA on 1548
KHz with a power of 1,2 kW from Rainford, MB of St Helens.

It was not until Saturday, February 8th, 1975, nearly 3,5 months later,
that broadcasts commenced from the FM transmitter of the IBA on 96,7 MHz
with a power of 5 kW from Allerton Park, City of Liverpool.