The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

--
The Wanderer

I may be omniscient, but don't expect me to know everything.

In article ,
The Wanderer writes:

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]

I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it,
i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on
a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.

OTOH, I'm not an avid film/DVD viewer, and I'm normally sitting about
5m from the screen, which is already a bit too small for that distance.
YMMV

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
The Wanderer wrote:

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and
opinions about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD
alongside standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite
broadcasts made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I
really couldn't see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away
under normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV,

The answer is it depends on the source. Just because something is
transmitted on an HD service doesn't mean it is of the highest quality.
Drama in particular may not give big differences - the cameras are usually
'softened' electronically even for SD, since warts and all on closeups may
not be what's desired.

Sport can look *a lot* sharper. Wimbledon was a prime example - the
cameras would have been at their best for such an event too - and on the
crowd shots you would have easily recognised someone several rows back
over SD. Antiques Roadshow is also a good showcase for the medium. But
note not every camera in use will always be HD, especially on the footie.

or is
it a bit like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

Even with poor acoustics decent sound should be better than poor. But of
course to get the full benefit of what it can do decent acoustics are
needed - especially for a good soundstage in stereo.

So for HD you'll need a larger than previous set - or sit closer to it.

One nice feature, though, regardless of screen size, is movement artifacts
are less.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

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

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Wanderer writes:

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and
opinions about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD
alongside standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite
broadcasts made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I
really couldn't see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away
under normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or
is it a bit like the myth of super high fidelity sound
reproduction?[1]

I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it,
i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on
a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.

No value to me either. I think the main value is for people who want to say
"Look, I've got HDTV".


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Wanderer wrote:
The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?


I have HD (both BluRay and Sky-HD, played on a 1080p 40" Sony LCD), so I
guess you know what side of the fence I sit.

Yes, the picture quality IS better, as is the sound. You have to decide
whether you can justify the cost against the gain. We're Dual-Income, No
Kids, so I'm pretty easy-going with gadgets.

One benefit with Sky-HD is that, at least at the moment, the HD channels
seem to escape the horrendous compression applied to some SD channels -
not itself a good justification for HD, but a benefit, non-the-less. I
can, and do, notice the difference between HD and SD and always watch (&
record) HD for preference, but unless you get used to it then it's
understandable to question the merit of HD considering the costs. At the
time that we went HD, the costs to us for Sky increased by ~£14/mo and I
ended up with a "special" birthday present in the form of the BR player.
Careful shopping allows you to get a limited number of BR disks for a
couple of pounds more than the DVD equivalents, although the choice of
BR content is still very limited. Sport looks pretty good on HD, shame I
don't watch it.

Talking about "normal living rooms" - we sit ~13ft from a 40" screen and
can easily distiguish between SD and HD.

So, to answer your question - there IS benefit in terms of PQ and SQ,
but you have to be able to justify the relatively high cost at this time
to use HD. It worked for our situation (hell, I've even started
replacing some treasured DVDs with BRs - and believe me the remastered
Blade Runner is amazing to watch).

The Wanderer wrote:
The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]

Two things to bear in mind, firstly its not uncommon for shops to make a
complete balls up of HDTV feeds and end up showing SD while claiming its
HD (usually by something simple like using SCART rather than HDMI leads,
or not reconfiguring the Bluray/HD sat box to tell it the screen is HD
capable - much the same as the aspect ratio often looks wrong because
they have not told it that the ecreen is 16:9 either). Obviously it can
be hard to see much difference here[1]. Secondly, the bigger the screen,
the more noticeable the difference. SD on a 50" display looks really
quite ropey for example.

Many people also sit somewhat further from the screen than is advised if
you want to get a cinema like experience. Again this reduces the impact
of the HD display.

[1] There may actually be some difference in that the HD source locally
downconverted to SD may appear better than the broadcast SD

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it,
i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on
a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.

No value to me either. I think the main value is for people who want to
say "Look, I've got HDTV".

My next door neighbour never saw the point of colour TV either. Until the
rental company couldn't repair his B&W set and gave him a colour one for
the same price. I explained to him that he could turn the colour off if he
preferred B&W but oddly he never did...

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

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

In article , The Wanderer
scribeth thus

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

They were demonstrating the right thing, not analogue -v- SD TV seeing
that most TV shop droids are totally clueless...

Richer sounds are a much better place to go ,....


Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

Mines fine) You need a little reverb..


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it,
i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on
a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.

No value to me either. I think the main value is for people who want to
say "Look, I've got HDTV".

My next door neighbour never saw the point of colour TV either. Until the
rental company couldn't repair his B&W set and gave him a colour one for
the same price. I explained to him that he could turn the colour off if he
preferred B&W but oddly he never did...


Thats how we used to shift colour tellys in the early/mid seventies,
just "accidentally" leave them a colour loaner one, the old monochrome
never went back;!...
--
Tony Sayer
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

Mines fine) You need a little reverb..

Exposed wood floors really mess up the stereo image, though, compared to
carpet. As does a hard surface behind the speakers. Of course all these
things are speaker dependent as well as others.

--
*Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

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

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite
broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]

All I can say is that there was something wrong.. maybe it wasn't a HD
program, or it wasn't a HD TV or you need specs.
There is a big difference between SD and HD here.
You may decide its not worth the bit of extra expense but there is a
difference.

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite
broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

--
The Wanderer

I may be omniscient, but don't expect me to know everything.

I only get BBC HD as part of my cable package and some programs are
transmitted simultaniously on both on BBC HD and BBC1 so comparison is easy.
Some of the HD programs are stunning IMHO. I had been resisting moving from
my CRT tele to an LCD flat screen version and I am very pleased now I have
made the change. I have always believed that the analog signal picture
quality was superior to digital and the move to digital was a big con. HD
has changed my mind.

Archie

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it,
i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on
a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.

No value to me either. I think the main value is for people who want to
say "Look, I've got HDTV".

My next door neighbour never saw the point of colour TV either. Until the
rental company couldn't repair his B&W set and gave him a colour one for
the same price. I explained to him that he could turn the colour off if he
preferred B&W but oddly he never did...


Thats how we used to shift colour tellys in the early/mid seventies,
just "accidentally" leave them a colour loaner one, the old monochrome
never went back;!...

I'm sure we did that too when I was in the rentals game, but I
can't for the life of me remember how we got round the fact
the subscriber would not have the appropriate licence.
Perhaps we just didn't consider it to be our problem.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite
broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

--
The Wanderer

I may be omniscient, but don't expect me to know everything.

The difference between standard and high definition is awesome... I have a
panasonic full HD plasma and my HD source is a humax dual receiver with hard
drive recorder. It is immediately obvious. I have taken my digital video
recorder across to my neighbour because he wanted to see what the difference
was... he's 84.. to quote his words " the colours are so vibrant and the
detail is incredible"

"BigGirlsBlouse" wrote in message
...

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD
alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite
broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away
under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a
bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

--
The Wanderer

I may be omniscient, but don't expect me to know everything.

The difference between standard and high definition is awesome... I have a
panasonic full HD plasma and my HD source is a humax dual receiver with
hard drive recorder. It is immediately obvious. I have taken my digital
video recorder across to my neighbour because he wanted to see what the
difference was... he's 84.. to quote his words " the colours are so
vibrant and the detail is incredible"

I ommitted to say that the Humax receiver is freesat

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:31:27 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit like the myth of
super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]

Find a store with a clue, most High Street places don't have any. There is
a significant and very noticeable difference between SD and HD.

No one has mentioned the marketing bull**** that surrounds HD. "HD Ready"
is a marketing term for a limited and basic technical spec. It would be
advisable to find a "Full HD" (though it appears there is also a "HD Ready
1080p" logo as well) set that can display 1080p on a screen of 1920 x 1080
pixels.

Wether the premium cost for a deceny HD setup is up to you, your viewing
habits and your sources of viewing. If you like movies and buy/rent fairly
regulary then it's probably worth the investment in a good screen sound
system and bluray player. If you only watch the news and "gold" stuff then
there is little point as that is all SD.

--
Cheers
Dave.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it,
i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on
a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.
No value to me either. I think the main value is for people who want to
say "Look, I've got HDTV".
My next door neighbour never saw the point of colour TV either. Until the
rental company couldn't repair his B&W set and gave him a colour one for
the same price. I explained to him that he could turn the colour off if he
preferred B&W but oddly he never did...


Thats how we used to shift colour tellys in the early/mid seventies,
just "accidentally" leave them a colour loaner one, the old monochrome
never went back;!...
My mother said 'I wont pay for colour' so we bought her an ex rental 10
year old colour set..for less than 6 months B&W rental..set rental went
out with valves really.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Thats how we used to shift colour tellys in the early/mid seventies,
just "accidentally" leave them a colour loaner one, the old monochrome
never went back;!...
My mother said 'I wont pay for colour' so we bought her an ex rental 10
year old colour set..for less than 6 months B&W rental..set rental went
out with valves really.

My other next door neighbour - the one referred to earlier died of old age
some time ago - still rents both TV and video. I've told her she's wasting
money (in the politest possible way) but she is adamant it suits her. The
set is an early 28" widescreen CRT Sony.
She'd be better off renting her vacuum cleaner judging by the number of
new Dysons she buys. ;-)

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

In article et,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
No one has mentioned the marketing bull**** that surrounds HD. "HD
Ready" is a marketing term for a limited and basic technical spec. It
would be advisable to find a "Full HD" (though it appears there is also
a "HD Ready 1080p" logo as well) set that can display 1080p on a screen
of 1920 x 1080 pixels.

My DLP rear projector only does 720p? but the difference on good HD stuff
is still very noticeable.

Just to emphasise that if you connect an HD source via SCART you won't get
HD - it has to be connected via components or digital. Dunno why.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

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

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, The Wanderer wrote:

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

My opinion is that, while most of the viewing freely available is SD,
HDTV is an irrelevance *for me*. This is also because all HDTV panels
I have seen are poor on Freeview SD.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]

I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver
with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's
sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

Kostas

[1] Because of the characteristics of the speakers, I don't need a
subwoofer, so I have 5.0.

In article . np.hx,
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver
with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's
sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

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

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:

Just to emphasise that if you connect an HD source via SCART you won't get
HD - it has to be connected via components or digital. Dunno why.

Isn't that because most HD streams require a copy-protected path
to the display?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . np.hx,
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver
with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's
sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

Oh..I think there was *one*..once..B&O..

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:31:27 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

Thanks everyone for your input. The quality of the display on our existing
TVs (3 fairly new Panasonics flat screen) is pretty good by my reckoning,
and all things considered, I'm not moved to go HD at this time. Need Sky to
lose some more customers so they offer an even better inducement that at
present!


--
The Wanderer

Caffeine isn't addictive as long as you keep taking it.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

Oh..I think there was *one*..once..B&O..

Plenty have advertised their models as having good sound - but I've yet to
hear one which approaches a good moderately priced music centre.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

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

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:10:15 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

My old Panasonic Prism A1 was pretty damn good, one of the reasons I
bought it. Pity it now has PSU problems and is 4:3 but then it was bought
in 1985.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it,
i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on
a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.
No value to me either. I think the main value is for people who want
to
say "Look, I've got HDTV".
My next door neighbour never saw the point of colour TV either. Until
the
rental company couldn't repair his B&W set and gave him a colour one for
the same price. I explained to him that he could turn the colour off if
he
preferred B&W but oddly he never did...


Thats how we used to shift colour tellys in the early/mid seventies,
just "accidentally" leave them a colour loaner one, the old monochrome
never went back;!...
My mother said 'I wont pay for colour' so we bought her an ex rental 10
year old colour set..for less than 6 months B&W rental..set rental went
out with valves really.


It did not. I worked for one of the large rental chains, and many all solid
state TV sets were rented for many years after valve ones disappeared. The
death knell for the TV rental business came when the Japanese manufacturers
started exporting their sets in huge numbers into the UK retail market. It
quickly became apparent to consumers that these sets were incredibly
reliable compared to their British made counterparts, which took away the
major reason for renting.

Arfa

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:07:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . np.hx,
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver
with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's
sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

Oh..I think there was *one*..once..B&O..

I once came across a B&O television set - it had a beautiful case, but
the innards was a Philips G8... :-)

--
Frank Erskine

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . np.hx,
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver
with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's
sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

The high end Sony 4:3 (KV-S2942U) that I had til recently (when its
tube went open circuit on one of the primaries), made a credible stab at
it. Upon disassembling (i.e. lobbing in the skip I had handy) it was
apparent why. The speakers were actually built into proper enclosures
inside the main box, a two way design with crossover and rear port
handling the main channels, and a separate ported enclosure for a sub
somewhere tucked round the back. I bought it at the same time as a
proper surround sound system and hence did not even bothering listening
to its audio in the shop - but was actually quite surprised when I heard
what it could do.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
Just to emphasise that if you connect an HD source via SCART you won't get
HD - it has to be connected via components or digital. Dunno why.

Isn't that because most HD streams require a copy-protected path
to the display?

Yes. (it's not a technical reason - computer VGS is pure analogue, and
works OK - you just aren't allowed by the copyright holders)

Andy

The Wanderer wrote:
The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


HDTV pictures, properly set up, are way better than SD pictures. HD
runs 1080 lines, PAL SD is 576 so it's getting on for twice as sharp.

I'm also hearing rumours that SD broadcasts are compressed to the point
of annoyance, but HD ones aren't. This makes the difference even more
than it should be.

To get the best you need to get a screen with "full HD" - so it will
play genuine 1080 line pictures. Many of the sets out there are 768
lines for no good reason - or at least not one anyone has ever persuaded
me is a good reason (1). This reduces picture quality. a 720 line set
is 2ndbest, *anything* else is a distant third. Unless you get that
Samsung 2160 line one...

If you are buying a set, make sure it'll handle 720i, 720p, 1080i, and
preferably 1080p and the 24FPS rate used on some movies. (2)

My view? I'd really like one. But not enough to spend several thousand
on it. I'll keep my old CRT 4:3 set until it does - perhaps by then
OLED will be a reasonable price!

Andy

(1) No, I don't believe that 42 inch LCD sets have 768 lines "because
it's a computer standard". No computer screen even half that size has
that few pixels.

(2) Merkin-speak for films.

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:07:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . np.hx,
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer
receiver with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive
TV's sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

Oh..I think there was *one*..once..B&O..

I once came across a B&O television set - it had a beautiful case, but
the innards was a Philips G8... :-)

My first colour set was a G6 - the one with regulated EHT and colour
difference drive. And quite the worst sound I've ever had on any TV. SET
valve output and a 4 inch speaker - covered in hum and inter carrier buzz.
As soon as it was out of warranty modified it to give a line out to feed
to the Hi-Fi - and I've never used internal sound on any TV since then.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

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

On Mar 8, 11:31*am, The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:31:27 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:
The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

Thanks everyone for your input. The quality of the display on our existing
TVs (3 fairly new Panasonics flat screen) is pretty good by my reckoning,
and all things considered, I'm not moved to go HD at this time. Need Sky to
lose some more customers so they offer an even better inducement that at
present!

--
The Wanderer

Caffeine isn't addictive as long as you keep taking it.

I've just dipped into the HD world, and how much you notice it does
depend on the original source, and the quality of the TV overall.
Watching football on ITV in SD (if you're into that sort of thing) is
attrocious compared to HD. But watching "Nature's Great Events" in HD
isn't anywhere near as impressive (compared to the SD version) as I'd
expected it to be. I guess my TV is doing a good job of upscaling the
SD source to a 1920 x 1080 screen, if its given a decent enough SD
source to start with.

It cost me £100 to go HD (compared to the other TV I was looking at,
which was HD ready), and whilst its a nice future proofing, its £100 I
could have easily spent elsewhere.

Matt

In article
,
wrote:
But watching "Nature's Great Events" in HD isn't anywhere near as
impressive (compared to the SD version) as I'd expected it to be.

Wildlife progs tend to have lots of closeups of things we wouldn't
ordinarily see, so start off being impressive.

Where HD really scores is in wide shots - background detail. But drama
techniques often choose lenses where this is out of focus anyway to
concentrate the view on the important part.

Sport benefits from the reduced movement artifacts of HD - effectively
higher refresh rates - which plague SD digital.

Watched a short recording of Joan Armitrading at Glastonbury last night -
that was stunning in HD.

Other thing to remember is not all cameras and lenses do justice to SD -
they may be off peak performance for a number of reasons. With HD more
care is likely to be taken. For the moment at least.

Anyone who says they can't tell the difference has not seen it at its best
- or a faulty demonstration. And as I said my set is only 'half' HD.

--
*Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

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

Thats how we used to shift colour tellys in the early/mid seventies,
just "accidentally" leave them a colour loaner one, the old monochrome
never went back;!...

I'm sure we did that too when I was in the rentals game, but I
can't for the life of me remember how we got round the fact
the subscriber would not have the appropriate licence.
Perhaps we just didn't consider it to be our problem.


Wasn't a problem for just a week or so..

Usually a matter of days before they decided .. some said don't bring
the old one back there and then!...
--
Tony Sayer

I only get BBC HD as part of my cable package and some programs are
transmitted simultaniously on both on BBC HD and BBC1 so comparison is easy.
Some of the HD programs are stunning IMHO. I had been resisting moving from
my CRT tele to an LCD flat screen version and I am very pleased now I have
made the change. I have always believed that the analog signal picture
quality was superior to digital and the move to digital was a big con. HD
has changed my mind.


Well so it should .. nothing wrong with digital transmission at all --
-provided that- there are sufficient bits transmitted....

--
Tony Sayer

In article , BigGirlsBlouse
scribeth thus

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions
about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside
standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a
satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between
channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite
broadcasts
made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't
see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under
normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit
like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]


[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living
room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

--
The Wanderer

I may be omniscient, but don't expect me to know everything.

The difference between standard and high definition is awesome... I have a
panasonic full HD plasma and my HD source is a humax dual receiver with hard
drive recorder. It is immediately obvious. I have taken my digital video
recorder across to my neighbour because he wanted to see what the difference
was... he's 84.. to quote his words " the colours are so vibrant and the
detail is incredible"


Just like good well reproduced analogue;~)...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article . np.hx,
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver
with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's
sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

Baird 600 series Mono chassis and Phillips K70 colour were notably good..

Pix as well on both too..

Not quite in the same league as out Quad ESL63 system annexed to the TV these
days..

The sound on some TV progs is excellent, seems they still have a few around in
TV sound who know what there're doing...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . np.hx,
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver
with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's
sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good
improvement on Freeview as well.

There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

Oh..I think there was *one*..once..B&O..

The B&O M6000 chassis set we've got isn't all that good ;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
There's never been a TV made with decent internal speakers.

Baird 600 series Mono chassis and Phillips K70 colour were notably good..

Depends on what you mean by good, I suppose.

Pix as well on both too..

Not quite in the same league as out Quad ESL63 system annexed to the TV
these days..

Indeed. I've not used the internal speakers in a TV for many a year.

The sound on some TV progs is excellent, seems they still have a few
around in TV sound who know what there're doing...

It's always used pretty well the same sort of chain as radio, so apart
from the obvious limitations of the environment where is is sourced from
shouldn't be any different. Except that TV doesn't process the audio 'at
the transmitter' quite as heavily as most radio stations do.

Watched Red Riding the other day which had a very wide dynamic range -
quite unusual these days. But of course means the ads came crashing in...

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

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