Excellent article on BBC HD picture quality issue

charles wrote:
In article , jamie powell
wrote:

Most people wouldn't know high quality if it hit them on the head and
then smacked them in the face.

A colleague of mine, after answering a call during the run up to the
"Great Wavelength Changes" of 1978, said "Jo Public wouldn't know the
difference between a kilohertz and a hard-boiled egg." Nothing seems to
have changed in 30 years. ;-(


The BBC adopted DAB, which was the most incompetent technical decision in
the history of UK broadcasting.

What was that you were saying about the public being incompetent?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

Check that I haven't accused James "pathological liar" Cridland of being
biased towards DAB and biased against Internet radio: Tick Check that I've
deleted all racist and/or homophobic language: Tick Check that there are no
funeral magazines and/or addresses of senior members of the DAB industry
included: Tick Check that I've observed Sean "My Personal Obsessive
Stalker" Inglis's (Usenet username: seani) "How Steve Must Behave on Usenet
Rulebook (Totally Inapplicable to Other Users Edition)": Tick

jamie powell wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

So where's the spate of complaints regarding, say, Freeview's picture
quality? Freeview users are lucky if the channel they're watching
broadcasts at 2Mbps, and yet the platform is still very popular. Sky is
little better.


We're talking about HD quality, which people expect to be better than SD.

Try to keep up at the back.

Nah, we were talking about the public's perceptions of technical quality
in general, which is why you mentioned DAB as well.


People also complained in droves about DAB when the BBC reduced the bit
rates - you'll remember that because you'd just turned 40 at the time.


SD could look far, far better than it does on DVB, not that you'd know of
course.


I'm well aware that SD could look better than it does, thanks.


My original point though, was that the people ranting and raving on the
BBC forums are, by enlarge,


Not "by and large", then?


****wits who'll rant on any issue they can find, purely because they
enjoy the little rush of power they get each time they hit "Send".


Sounds like a bit of self-admission there, Dave.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

Check that I haven't accused James "pathological liar" Cridland of being
biased towards DAB and biased against Internet radio: Tick Check that I've
deleted all racist and/or homophobic language: Tick Check that there are no
funeral magazines and/or addresses of senior members of the DAB industry
included: Tick Check that I've observed Sean "My Personal Obsessive
Stalker" Inglis's (Usenet username: seani) "How Steve Must Behave on Usenet
Rulebook (Totally Inapplicable to Other Users Edition)": Tick

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

People also complained in droves about DAB when the BBC reduced the bit
rates -

I can recall a moderate number of complaints when the bitrate of Radio3 was
reduced - apparently they wanted precious 192kbps MP2 back - as if 192kbps MP2
were actually high fidelity!
I suspect it was merely another bandwagon for morons tbh.


you'll remember that because you'd just turned 40 at the time.

You wish I was 40+ ... ie. like you



I'm well aware that SD could look better than it does, thanks.

Then why no little "DVB looks worse than genuine PAL" campaigns on your part?



My original point though, was that the people ranting and raving on the
BBC forums are, by enlarge,


Not "by and large", then?

Indeed.



****wits who'll rant on any issue they can find, purely because they
enjoy the little rush of power they get each time they hit "Send".


Sounds like a bit of self-admission there, Dave.

weirdo.