On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:30 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

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...

Until there's heavy snow or rain.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"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?


Yes, you are right, digital terrestrial has a better picture quality than
analogue, (provided nothing moves of course).
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

In article , Ian Jackson ianREMOVET
scribeth thus
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?

Yes thats right .. but its at rates the like of which you'll never see
as an end user....


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.

No problems here from Sandy Heath..


And what makes you think that -digital- transmission is immune to CCI?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , PeterC
scribeth thus
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:30 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

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...

Until there's heavy snow or rain.

Not if you have an adequate -rain fade- margin in the system..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Graham.
scribeth thus


"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
"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?


Yes, you are right, digital terrestrial has a better picture quality than
analogue, (provided nothing moves of course).

Even then the colour grading leaves a few bits to be desired..
--
Tony Sayer

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

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

It used to be analogue all the way to the transmitter.
Then it was analogue, to digital to analogue.
Then it was digital to digital to analogue.
Now its digital to digital to digital to either analogue or digital
depending on the display.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

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

It used to be analogue all the way to the transmitter.
Then it was analogue, to digital to analogue.
Then it was digital to digital to analogue.
Now its digital to digital to digital to either analogue or digital
depending on the display.

So can I take that as a qualified 'yes'?
--
Ian

In article , Paul Martin
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , PeterC
scribeth thus
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:30 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Now digital satellite does look good...

Until there's heavy snow or rain.

Not if you have an adequate -rain fade- margin in the system..

There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that one.


I've seen -one- of them in the last Ten years that took the feeds to the
land based TX'es out;!...

Compared to the impairment caused by CCI thats not bad going Dontcha
think?..

Oh, and if the snow settles heavily on your dish, there's not going to
be much signal until it thaws or you knock it off. (This happened to me
in early December.)

Not a problem here with the odd shape of the LNB blocks in use..
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:15:04 +0000, Paul Martin wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , PeterC
scribeth thus
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:30 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Now digital satellite does look good...

Until there's heavy snow or rain.

Not if you have an adequate -rain fade- margin in the system..

There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that one.

Oh, and if the snow settles heavily on your dish, there's not going to
be much signal until it thaws or you knock it off. (This happened to me
in early December.)

Well, hello Paul! How's ZN doing these days? I often wonder how Zetland is
progressing.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Ian Jackson wrote:

But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

Other people have different experiences, and I respect that. But making
dogmatic statements about analogue being fundamentally better than
digital isn't helpful, because it just isn't true.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
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? Is it like vinyl
discs, where vinyl aficionados can't get by without the pops and clicks
that don't affect CDs?

Are you watching the same digital signals as the rest of us?


I don't think I have ever seen you in my living room or bedroom, so
probably not!

But you never know. ;-)

Ian Jackson wrote:

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.


Perhaps people wish to have a general discussion about digital TV rather
than labour the point about Crystal Palace - a point that has already
been made again, and again ...

And here are you, wanting to make it again. ;-)

Paul Martin wrote:

There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that one.


And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)

In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
Ian Jackson wrote:

But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

Other people have different experiences, and I respect that. But making
dogmatic statements about analogue being fundamentally better than
digital isn't helpful, because it just isn't true.


Neither is your statement dontcha tink;?..

Analogue radio on FM can be very good indeed given a clean signal and
decent aerial. Digital radio which is horribly mangled by MP2 bit rate
compression sounds worse..

However signals off satellite like Bayern Klassik 4 are excellent and
are what digital radio should be at 334 odd K/Bits for the audio..

Analogue TV especially on a good clean signal with a set thats got a
well designed PAL decoder will show up all what's wrong with the current
implementation of T-DTV in the UK which is far too many channels
compressed into the bandwidth available.

Digital TV can be excellent, but its not .. due to the amount of
compression applied. Witness SD versus HD digital TV for an example of
this....
--
Tony Sayer

Bruce wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

When the weather turns nasty, digital signals can not be got from the
aerial, or satellite dish. Water, snow and wet foliage can act as an
R.F. screen. Analogue signals can still get through, albeit with a noisy
picture.


Dave

In message , Bruce
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

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.


Perhaps people wish to have a general discussion about digital TV rather
than labour the point about Crystal Palace - a point that has already
been made again, and again ...

And here are you, wanting to make it again. ;-)

I think it is maybe you who are missing the point (or even two points).

Point 1 is that the discussion is about 'Digital Rip-offs', and that (in
this specific example) there was no advantage in replacing the old Group
A Crystal Palace aerial with a new ('digital'?) aerial. Before and
after, the digital signals were OK. After, the analogue signals were
worse so, almost certainly, the digital signals were also 'worse' - it's
just that you couldn't see that they were.

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.
--
Ian

Bruce wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that one.


And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)

No, less so. FM has the advantage in bad weather. It's called the
capture effect. In the absence of another FM signal, it is possible to
get intelligible info from a weak signal. Albeit, you get a poor
picture. With digital, it just packs up below a certain signal level.

Dave

John Rumm wrote:

I would second that. If James would take the time to actually read the
site, he would learn that what he just posted makes him look like a
complete muppet!

James is a troll. He trolls in exactly the same way in every newsgroup
that he posts to.

tony sayer wrote:

Analogue radio on FM can be very good indeed given a clean signal and
decent aerial. Digital radio which is horribly mangled by MP2 bit rate
compression sounds worse..


Oh, I totally agree. I was careful not to mention the FM versus DAB
fiasco, for that is what it is.

Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Bruce
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

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.


Perhaps people wish to have a general discussion about digital TV rather
than labour the point about Crystal Palace - a point that has already
been made again, and again ...

And here are you, wanting to make it again. ;-)

I think it is maybe you who are missing the point (or even two points).

Point 1 is that the discussion is about 'Digital Rip-offs', and that (in
this specific example) there was no advantage in replacing the old Group
A Crystal Palace aerial with a new ('digital'?) aerial. Before and
after, the digital signals were OK. After, the analogue signals were
worse so, almost certainly, the digital signals were also 'worse' - it's
just that you couldn't see that they were.

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.


Those points have already been made. The thread has moved on - thread
drift is hardly uncommon on Usenet, is it.

But thank you for so eloquently setting down what has already been said.

Dave wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

When the weather turns nasty, digital signals can not be got from the
aerial, or satellite dish. Water, snow and wet foliage can act as an
R.F. screen. Analogue signals can still get through, albeit with a noisy
picture.


Dave

I'll second that.
Have line of site to Emley mast and perfect digi/anal reception.
Soon as summer comes, trees in the garden create multipath flutter on
Freeview. Things may improve when analogue is switched off and the
digi power level increased but the second rate Freeview picture
quality will not be improving.
TV execs are pushing profits by means of digital overcompression.
Flesh tones in particular, are looking more and more like paint-it-by-
numbers.

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

[Snip]

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.

Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , Bruce wrote:
As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

Other people have different experiences, and I respect that. But making
dogmatic statements about analogue being fundamentally better than
digital isn't helpful, because it just isn't true.

Regardless of anyone's experience, it's a gross oversimplification just to
state that either digital or analogue terrestrial television is "better"
than the other, because there are a great many factors involved.

Being able to see the whole of the picture, for example, is surely a
parameter of quality, and as a decision seems to have been taken only to
transmit the whole of the 16:9 picture on digital, analogue is given an
unfair disadvantage straight away.

Then there's the deliberate bit-rate reduction which is applied in
variable amounts to the various digital channels. When the quality is good
it can be very good, but it can also be quite atrocious.

Then there are the effects of transmission and reception, and what happens
to the picture when conditions are less than perfect. The two systems
behave differently in response to these, and of course everybody's
situation will be different too.

And so on. What works well in one set of circumstances may not work in
another, but one thing that can be said as objective fact is that digital
signals have gone through an extra process that analogue signals haven't.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that
there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that
one.


And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)

No, less so. FM has the advantage in bad weather. It's called the
capture effect. In the absence of another FM signal, it is possible to
get intelligible info from a weak signal. Albeit, you get a poor
picture. With digital, it just packs up below a certain signal level.

Dave



Er, Dave, go read your theory book again. Capture effect has nothing at
all to do with the weather although it is a feature of FM.

Capture effect is the ability of a receiver to 'hear' one signal and
suppress the effects a co-channel signal, usually on a signal strength
basis. It's a long time since I did the theory, but as I remember it, if
a tuner had a capture effect ratio of 2dB then it would suppress a
signal that was 2dB lower in strength usually by around 30dB - well, in
theory at least. If there is no other signal present capture effect does
not come into the equation.

And if you don't believe me look at
http://www.radio-electronics.com/inf..._reception.php

And why does FM come into picture quality since, in the UK, the video
signal is AM?


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:25:40 +0000 (GMT), charles wrote:

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

[Snip]

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.

Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.

Same here, probably of similar age.

I'm on Oxford, so wideband.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

In message , Woody
writes
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that
there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that
one.


And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)

No, less so. FM has the advantage in bad weather. It's called the
capture effect. In the absence of another FM signal, it is possible to
get intelligible info from a weak signal. Albeit, you get a poor
picture. With digital, it just packs up below a certain signal level.

Dave



Er, Dave, go read your theory book again. Capture effect has nothing at
all to do with the weather although it is a feature of FM.

Capture effect is the ability of a receiver to 'hear' one signal and
suppress the effects a co-channel signal, usually on a signal strength
basis. It's a long time since I did the theory, but as I remember it, if
a tuner had a capture effect ratio of 2dB then it would suppress a
signal that was 2dB lower in strength usually by around 30dB - well, in
theory at least. If there is no other signal present capture effect does
not come into the equation.

And if you don't believe me look at
http://www.radio-electronics.com/inf..._reception.php

And why does FM come into picture quality since, in the UK, the video
signal is AM?

Wasn't the rain affecting satellite signals? The analogues are FM.

And does this not depend on whether there's any AGC system? FM receivers
often don't rely simply on amplitude limiting. Also, limiting itself is
effectively a form of AGC (albeit crude). As the signal gets weaker, the
system overall gain winds up so that a constant signal level is
presented at the detector, and this brings up the noise level.

As long as the noise is well below the signal, the FM capture effect
suppresses the AM noise, and you get a 'clean' signal. However, when the
noise becomes nearly as strong as the signal, the recovered
signal-to-noise deteriorates rapidly. On FM video, that's when you get
the 'sparklies'. Below the 'knee' where the capture effect occurs, the
reduction of signal-to-noise is more-or-less inversely proportional to
the signal level.
--
Ian

Bruce wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen.

Well I dont find that.

Sports is particularly irritating - you get compression artefacts round
all moving objects.

I think, but am not sure, that different sets handle this better or worse.



In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.


ONly have freeview.

Other people have different experiences, and I respect that. But making
dogmatic statements about analogue being fundamentally better than
digital isn't helpful, because it just isn't true.


It uses more bandwith and carries more information. This shows up.

Depending on how compressed the channel is, and how good the decoders,
it can be pretty horrible actually.

Dave wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that one.


And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)

No, less so. FM has the advantage in bad weather. It's called the
capture effect. In the absence of another FM signal, it is possible to
get intelligible info from a weak signal. Albeit, you get a poor
picture. With digital, it just packs up below a certain signal level.

Dave

Well thats is not the way I have found it. Weak signals are better on
digital than on analogue. I have found that if the digital is
undisplayable, the analogue is usually a ghost lost noise almost completely.

Woody wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that
there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that
one.

And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)
No, less so. FM has the advantage in bad weather. It's called the
capture effect. In the absence of another FM signal, it is possible to
get intelligible info from a weak signal. Albeit, you get a poor
picture. With digital, it just packs up below a certain signal level.

Dave



Er, Dave, go read your theory book again. Capture effect has nothing at
all to do with the weather although it is a feature of FM.

Its only a feature of wideband FM.

And IIRC the analogue video is AM antyway, not FM.

Mike Henry wrote:
In , Bruce
wrote:

In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

Did you have both before Easter 2000?


No, Freeview is more recent than that. Freeview was launched in October
2002, so to have both before then would have been impossible.


The bitrates on DSAT for the BBC in
particular used to be far higher, then they dropped them dramatically.


Isn't that because the BBC changed to a separate feed to the Astra
satellite that doesn't go via Sky's ground station? Sky have kept BBC
on the Programme Guide for the convenience of Sky subscribers but the
main BBC channels are free-to-air via the same Astra satellite.

Bruce wrote:
Mike Henry wrote:
In , Bruce
wrote:

In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as
Freeview; I have both.

Did you have both before Easter 2000?


No, Freeview is more recent than that. Freeview was launched in
October 2002, so to have both before then would have been impossible.

That's just a name change, DTT has been around a lot longer.
--
There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

In article , Dave
scribeth thus
Bruce wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

When the weather turns nasty, digital signals can not be got from the
aerial, or satellite dish. Water, snow and wet foliage can act as an
R.F. screen. Analogue signals can still get through, albeit with a noisy
picture.


Dave

Depending on your setup .. where you are, and some other variables_...
--
Tony Sayer

In article
s.com, scribeth thus

Dave wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
But is there any good analogue any more?


No, and there never was.

People tend to put on rose-tinted spectacles (and headphones!) when they
recall the "golden age" of vinyl records, analogue TV, Radio 1 on AM
(Medium Wave). My grandparents fondly remembered 78 RPM records and
didn't like new fangled 33.3 RPM vinyl LPs, even when played in stereo.
People just cling on to old things and feel threatened by anything new.

As far as I am concerned, digital terrestrial is a huge improvement on
even the best analogue picture I have seen. In my experience, the
picture quality of digital satellite (BSkyB) is not as good as Freeview;
I have both.

When the weather turns nasty, digital signals can not be got from the
aerial, or satellite dish. Water, snow and wet foliage can act as an
R.F. screen. Analogue signals can still get through, albeit with a noisy
picture.


Dave

I'll second that.
Have line of site to Emley mast and perfect digi/anal reception.
Soon as summer comes, trees in the garden create multipath flutter on
Freeview. Things may improve when analogue is switched off and the
digi power level increased but the second rate Freeview picture
quality will not be improving.
TV execs are pushing profits by means of digital overcompression.
Flesh tones in particular, are looking more and more like paint-it-by-
numbers.

Indeed thats what too much bit rate reduction does.

Now on satellite theres far more bandwidth available but they still
insist in this "more is better" with Terrestrial TV...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Woody wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
There are very occasionally rain storms which are so heavy that
there's
no signal whatsoever that gets through them. I've experienced that
one.

And they will affect analogue just as much as digital. ;-)
No, less so. FM has the advantage in bad weather. It's called the
capture effect. In the absence of another FM signal, it is possible to
get intelligible info from a weak signal. Albeit, you get a poor
picture. With digital, it just packs up below a certain signal level.

Dave



Er, Dave, go read your theory book again. Capture effect has nothing at
all to do with the weather although it is a feature of FM.

Its only a feature of wideband FM.

And IIRC the analogue video is AM antyway, not FM.


On terrestrial negative going AM..

On anal sat FM...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Ian Jackson ianREMOVET
scribeth thus
In message , Bruce
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

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.


Perhaps people wish to have a general discussion about digital TV rather
than labour the point about Crystal Palace - a point that has already
been made again, and again ...

And here are you, wanting to make it again. ;-)

I think it is maybe you who are missing the point (or even two points).

Point 1 is that the discussion is about 'Digital Rip-offs', and that (in
this specific example) there was no advantage in replacing the old Group
A Crystal Palace aerial with a new ('digital'?) aerial. Before and
after, the digital signals were OK. After, the analogue signals were
worse so, almost certainly, the digital signals were also 'worse' - it's
just that you couldn't see that they were.

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.

Well... its not a bad thing for an aerial thats been up there some
years. Corrosion will take its toll and for what it costs and the number
of years it lasts .. its rather good value...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

[Snip]

Point 2 is that a large number of cases (the majority, I believe)
majority are like Crystal Palace, ie the digital muxes will be in the
same aerial group as the analogues. When this is the case, provided that
the existing aerial is in good condition and the analogues are being
received OK, there is nothing to be gained by replacing the aerial (and
certainly not with a wideband aerial). It's just extra cost. 'If it
ain't broke, don't fix it' applies.

Indeed so. I'm still using my 'analogue' aerial - installed in 1978.


...Cheapskate...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer says...

Now digital satellite does look good...

Not for those of us who had analogue it doesn't.


--
Conor

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

In article , Dave says...

When the weather turns nasty, digital signals can not be got from the
aerial, or satellite dish. Water, snow and wet foliage can act as an
R.F. screen. Analogue signals can still get through, albeit with a noisy
picture.

Can't remember when I last experienced that.




--
Conor

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

In article , Conor
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer says...

Now digital satellite does look good...

Not for those of us who had analogue it doesn't.



Try some signals from over the other side of the channel..

In countries where they still value the input of engineers which they
don't in the UK....
--
Tony Sayer

On 2009-02-20, Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Have line of site to Emley mast and perfect digi/anal reception.

Sounds painful. :-)

Yeah. Most people don't boast about having their finger stuck in there...

--
David Taylor