In article , Adrian
scribeth thus
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 Feb, 21:15, "Adrian" wrote:

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough,
this isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is
"digital", but if you're being sold something you don't need, and a
new sort of something at that, then you do at least expect to have
one of that particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like
you need to learn more too.

My knowledge of TV aerials is almost zero - I've never owned a TV,
I've never had need to own an aerial.

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast. They were promised something particular,
then not delivered it (but charged for it). Now they obviously didn't
need a different type (it works without) but they were either advised
one in good faith (although not delivered) or they were up-sold one
needlessly (a 3rd rip-off).

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off in any way.

If your asked to "repair" an aerial system are you doing the customer a
favour in just replacing the part affected like say a lash wire thats
totally corroded and leave the rest or is it better to change the whole
thing as that it should all be OK for many years to come..

So perhaps the customer is better off long term.

But what if you do change the wire but at the same time the aerial which
is donkeys years old develops an intermittent connection which causes a
problem with the reception is the punter going to swallow your
explanation or do you think that the rigger should carry the loss of
replacing the aerial this time FOC?..

Which also leaves the original downlead in place?.....
--
Tony Sayer

In article fb789f3e-2f3e-428c-9042-c03ea2240840
@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, Andy Dingley says...

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast.

That's usually because the aerial is rotted onto the mast so the only
way to remove it is to break it and the co-ax will be most likely full
of water and the copper core and braid at the antenna end will be
corroded to hell if it's more than a couple of years old so would give
poor connectivity to the new antenna.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Tim Downie says...

I would have thought that if a mast was old enough to fail, it would be
false economy not to replace cheap components like the aerial at the same
time (which was probably the same age as the mast). If the downlead was
brittle and cracking then I'd want that replaced too.

Seconded. The expensive part of the job is the labour. It's a false
economy not to replace it.




--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...

"Adrian" wrote in message
om...
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 Feb, 11:01, "Adrian" wrote:

What do you mean by, an _analogue_ antenna?

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough, this
isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is "digital", but if
you're being sold something you don't need, and a new sort of
something at that, then you do at least expect to have one of that
particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like you
need to learn more too.

And what if there are new digital multiplexes placed on the channels
outside the band the aerial was designed for after the spectrum is sold
off? He'll have to have yet another new aerial installed. Rip-off.

This is becoming a dilemma. Of course we want to use grouped aerials because
of their superior performance, but who knows what the future holds?

Bill

"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead
most likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to
interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then
that is what is required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off
in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

dennis@home wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old
downlead most likely would not have been digital quality so
susceptable to interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and
copper braid then that is what is required. I doubt that your
parents have been ripped off in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the
same as "analogue" aerials.

Are you taking the ****? There is no such thing as a "digital" or "analogue"
aerials.
--
There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

On 16 Feb, 10:43, "Adrian" wrote:

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing.

The mast failure was caused by a steel clamp in contact with an
aluminium tube, and localized electrolytic reaction between them. It
was only around 10 years old, in an unpolluted rural location. I'm not
entirely impressed with the mast life for that matter - if you're
mixing metals like this, either plate them or shim them.

The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required.

It's plain braid. Half of it's RG58 now anyway - I did some relocation
of the sockets recently and chopped it, then replaced it with what I
had handy. As I said in the OP, they're so close to Winter Hill you
can practically run the lights off the signal strength - any impedance
mismatch isn't causing any problems.

In article , dennis@home says...

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

There speaks someone who knows diddly squat.

They look the same and are the same because they're receiving RF
signals on a set range of frequencies. The fact it's a digital or
analogue transmission is entirely irrelevent to the antenna.

It's not "in many cases" but "all cases". What differs from one antenna
to another is its gain and bandwidth.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In message , Adrian
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
om...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old
downlead most likely would not have been digital quality so
susceptable to interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and
copper braid then that is what is required. I doubt that your
parents have been ripped off in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the
same as "analogue" aerials.

Are you taking the ****? There is no such thing as a "digital" or "analogue"
aerials.

It could be argued that ALL aerials are actually 'analogue'. The RF
signal voltage delivered by them is a direct representation of the field
strength in which they are immersed. This, in turn, is a direct
representation of signal voltage sent out at the transmitting end. Etc,
ad nauseam.
--
Ian

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to
interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then
that is what is required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off
in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same as
"analogue" aerials.

You imply that in other cases they are different to analogue aerials.
I for one would be very interested to know what you think is
different about an aerial that makes it intrinsically "digital".

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Graham." wrote in message
...

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial
would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to
interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then
that is what is required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off
in any way.

How do you know it isn't a "digital" aerial?
They look the same, they work the same, in many cases they are the same
as "analogue" aerials.

You imply that in other cases they are different to analogue aerials.
I for one would be very interested to know what you think is
different about an aerial that makes it intrinsically "digital".

If a wideband aerial is needed at a particular location in order to receive
all the digital multiplexes, and at the same location a grouped aerial will
receive all the analogue signals, the public could be forgiven for calling
the grouped aerial 'analogue' and the wideband one 'digital'. But this is a
this narrow context, hedged about by conditions. Although Mr J Bloggs might
speak confidently in this way of analogue and digital aerials, he is, in any
normal sense, wrong.

Few of you know this but I have stage magic as my other job. One trick I
like to do on TV is the transmogrification of an analogue aerial into a
digital one. I travel to Louth (Lincs) with a Group A aerial. It's an
analogue aerial obviously, because the Belmont multiplexes are spread across
the band. I demonstrate the aerial's inability to receive five of the muxes,
then put it in a sealed box and send it to London. When my glamourous
assistant opens the box and takes out the aerial it has been magically
transformed into a digital one. She points it at Crystal Palace and receives
all six muxes.

So you see gentlemen, it's all a matter of
(a) bull**** if you're a crooked aerial rigger
(c) misinformation if you are a media person providing half-arsed advice on
the analogue switch-off
(c) semantics to you and me.

Bill

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"James R" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
As part of the PARAS campaign we need to collect instances
in which vulnerable people have been ripped off as a result
of the analogue switch-off. These could be cases in which
people have been conned into buying an unneccessary aerial,
buying a new TV rather than a set top box, or subscribing
to a pay-TV service in order to receive the basic channels.

If you have any examples of this sort of thing please post
them here or contact PARAS on the website. All incidents
will remain completely anonymous.

Ok. Add the incident I reported last year of my dad being
ripped of by Comet who sold him a SCART lead he didn't need
for a LCD TV with built-in Freeview.
Bill


That was nothing to do with it. That was some old fool who
AGREED to BUY a SCART lead when he did not require one to
connect to an external device. I remember his son moaning on
and on about how stupid his dad was, but in this case the
shop was NOT at fault. The man requested a lead, then agreed
to buy it. He wasn't conned in any way.

He requested nothing of the kind. He was conned into buying a
SCART lead he didn't need by the salesman..

Ignore him, he's usenet's version of a village idiot.

Dick head.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
news
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"James R" wrote in message
...
That was nothing to do with it. That was some old fool who
AGREED to BUY a SCART lead when he did not require one to
connect to an external device. I remember his son moaning on
and on about how stupid his dad was, but in this case the
shop was NOT at fault. The man requested a lead, then agreed
to buy it. He wasn't conned in any way.

He requested nothing of the kind. He was conned into buying a
SCART lead he didn't need by the salesman..

Ignore him, he's usenet's version of a village idiot.

Dick head.

Why are you calling Steve that when he's just supported you?

On Feb 16, 10:43*am, "Adrian" wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 Feb, 21:15, "Adrian" wrote:

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough,
this isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is
"digital", but if you're being sold something you don't need, and a
new sort of something at that, then you do at least expect to have
one of that particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like
you need to learn more too.

My knowledge of TV aerials is almost zero - I've never owned a TV,
I've never had need to own an aerial.

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast. They were promised something particular,
then not delivered it (but charged for it). Now they obviously didn't
need a different type (it works without) but they were either advised
one in good faith (although not delivered) or they were up-sold one
needlessly (a 3rd rip-off).

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off in any way.

A dodgy rigger is a dodgy rigger, and if they'd bough a new analogue
TV, the outcome would almost certainly have been the same.

So, again, not really anything specific connected to analogue switch
off.

MBQ

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
news
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"James R" wrote in message
...
That was nothing to do with it. That was some old fool who
AGREED to BUY a SCART lead when he did not require one to
connect to an external device. I remember his son moaning on
and on about how stupid his dad was, but in this case the
shop was NOT at fault. The man requested a lead, then agreed
to buy it. He wasn't conned in any way.

He requested nothing of the kind. He was conned into buying a
SCART lead he didn't need by the salesman..

Ignore him, he's usenet's version of a village idiot.

Dick head.

Why are you calling Steve that when he's just supported you?

I thought he was attacking me. If not I apologise.

Agamemnon wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
news
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"James R" wrote in message
...
That was nothing to do with it. That was some old fool who
AGREED to BUY a SCART lead when he did not require one to
connect to an external device. I remember his son moaning on
and on about how stupid his dad was, but in this case the
shop was NOT at fault. The man requested a lead, then agreed
to buy it. He wasn't conned in any way.

He requested nothing of the kind. He was conned into buying a
SCART lead he didn't need by the salesman..

Ignore him, he's usenet's version of a village idiot.

Dick head.

Why are you calling Steve that when he's just supported you?

I thought he was attacking me. If not I apologise.

James R is the latest alias of the Tiscali Idiot.

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.


Gary

"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

Tim

Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?


Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?

Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?

Terry

"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

Not if the analogue and digital channels are in different groups (as where I
live) where a wideband aerial is indicated (if you want both from the same
aerial, that is). Interestingly he didn't say "good" digital, he said
usable. One might think that, for digital (but not analogue) good=usable but
only he can say.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
Tim

"Tim Downie" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?

In message , Terry Casey
writes
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.
Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that
will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future. If he has
good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?


Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?

Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?

Maybe he should have said "good enough digital reception"? However,
although things would have been best left alone, in practice the digital
reception WILL probably be OK for the foreseeable future - especially
when they turn the wick up at CP.
--
Ian

Terry Casey wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?


Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?


Replacing a narrow band ("analogue") aerial with a wide band ("digital")
aerial is unlikely to improve analogue reception. In my case the
analogue reception is probably slightly worse now.


Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?


If it works well now, it is likely to get even better in future as
analogue signals are turned off and the power of digital transmissions
are increased.

What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.


Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?
Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

Not if the analogue and digital channels are in different groups (as where I
live) where a wideband aerial is indicated (if you want both from the same
aerial, that is).

The OP did say Crystal Palace - Group A for EVERYTHING!

Terry

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

In a similar vein, I think the magic went out of colour TV when thery
brought out AFC (automatic frequency control) on sets. Having to jump up
every two minutes to tweak the tuning was part of the experience. ;-)

Just amazing what we used to put up with.

Tim

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:00:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue?

And also, if one has a widescreen television (as I would hope this man
purchased for his new integrated digital television), why would one
use analog for receiving a truncated picture to be displayed either
in StretchyVision or with black bars (which seem to frighten some
people)?

Bruce wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?


Replacing a narrow band ("analogue") aerial with a wide band ("digital")
aerial is unlikely to improve analogue reception. In my case the
analogue reception is probably slightly worse now.


Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?


If it works well now, it is likely to get even better in future as
analogue signals are turned off and the power of digital transmissions
are increased.


Aren't you really missing the point that, on the evidence supplied, the
new installation is CRAP?

Terry Casey wrote:

Aren't you really missing the point that, on the evidence supplied, the
new installation is CRAP?


Aren't you really missing the point that, on the evidence supplied, the
digital reception is good?

Aren't you really missing the point that nothing else really matters?

In message , Tim Downie
writes

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .

What I cannot understand is that, after getting a good digital signal,
why on earth would anyone want to go back to analogue? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

In a similar vein, I think the magic went out of colour TV when thery
brought out AFC (automatic frequency control) on sets. Having to jump
up every two minutes to tweak the tuning was part of the experience. ;-)

Just amazing what we used to put up with.

Mine was regular tweaking the convergence controls on a 1967 Decca
CTV25, which someone kindly gave me in 1973. Essentially, it was a
superb set. Fortunately, there were a load of controls accessible
through a trapdoor on the left-hand side.
--
Ian

In article , Gary says...

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

Irrelevent if it's a narrow band that doesn't cover the frequencies of
the analogue MUX's. I had a cracking analogue reception but the MUX's
were above the frequency range of the antenna.



--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Tim Downie says...

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

No.




--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

You missed off the smiley, or are you really that stupid?
--
There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that
will meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need
analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer
analogue reception = poorer digital reception"?

Not if the analogue and digital channels are in different groups (as
where I live) where a wideband aerial is indicated (if you want both
from the same aerial, that is). Interestingly he didn't say "good"
digital, he said usable. One might think that, for digital (but not
analogue) good=usable but only he can say.


Tim

He said he was getting his signal from Crystal Palace, analogue and digital
are group A.
--
There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

On Feb 19, 12:53*pm, Bruce wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? *For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. *My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before. *

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. *Why
wouldn't it? *

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal,

That's total ********, and it will only get worse once they have us
all over the digital barrel and start pumping even more channels down
the same mulitiplexes.

MBQ

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:
Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced by
POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation might
not have been carried out very well?

These DIY shed aerials are all wideband, and many are crap.

Bill

In message , Conor
writes
In article , Gary says...

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

Irrelevent if it's a narrow band that doesn't cover the frequencies of
the analogue MUX's. I had a cracking analogue reception but the MUX's
were above the frequency range of the antenna.

Maybe it's the cross-posting, but some contributors simply don't seem to
be seeing that, for Crystal Palace, ALL the digital MUXes ARE within the
Group A bandwidth. They are between Chs 22 and 34 inclusive.
--
Ian

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
"Tim Downie" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?


As it isn't as good as good analogue;!...

Now digital satellite does look good...
--
Tony Sayer

..

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
"Tim Downie" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?


As it isn't as good as good analogue;!...

Now digital satellite does look good...

But is there any good analogue any more? Surely what we get these days
is digital converted to analogue?

And, even if you do get a 'good' analogue signal, there's a good chance
that it will be co-channel with a not-too-distant digital MUX. Even
under 'flat' propagation conditions, the SNR can be visibly impaired,
and if there's a 'lift' on, the analogue signal can be virtually
unwatchable.
--
Ian