Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[AJ]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:24:11 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

** Not pointless at all - many folk find they have poor of no FM
reception, very common with the antenna systems is blocks of units. In
the same situation, a STB supplies perfect quality, interruption free
music 24
/7 - nothing like it is broadcast on the FM band at all.


Hmmmm where is it getting the signal from to tune that radio from?


** The ABC runs two high quality, digital radio signals along with its
other
TV signals.

See: http://www.abc.net.au/dig/

Ok so the ABC has digital stations that's cool and didn't know that.
In that case it makes perfect sense so there would be an improvement,
BUT the orginal poster who asked about radio.....


" Set top box's give you better pictures and a menu system that has a
programme guide built in with programme information to boot. They also tune
in radio stations, they're excellent value at just over $100 "

He said it tunes in radio stations, did he mention digital at all. If

you knew that there were digital broadcasts then you might have
assumed that was what he was talking about, but futher back people
were talking about having extra boxes remotes etc, and someone said
that a STB could more or less get rid of a radio because it had radio
tuner inbuilt, which to mine didn't specificaly mean digital. Its a
whole heap of good if its only ABC stations you can tune in, isn't it.
How does that help with poor radio receiption in these units that you
are so fond of? It doesn't until such time as more than the ABC are
broadcasting on digital, and with this digital radio is that the same
standard as is being planned for digital radio or will it be something
totally different?

** Yes he was - dickhead.


it was just radio,


** He never mentioned other radio signals.


so you would be missing
many stations, so the original posters comment as to why the hell would
you run your radio through the TV?


** You are totally off with the fairies - fuckwit.

Don't know about that, and Oh FM radio was mentioned.

There is no circuitry in a STB that could improve the
signal.

** STBs do NOT contain a FM broadcast receiver - dickhead.

They DO provide capacity for DIGITAL radio reception in the VHF and UHF
bands.

Hundreds of radio channels are possible.

Possible yes, but now, how many, and my guess is if its ABC then its
probably only the national ABC stations and not the local ones.

 

[AJ]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:56:23 +1000, Barry OGrady <not@this.add> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:45:03 +1000, AJ <jc373@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:42:59 GMT, WDino <nogood@bigpond.com> wrote:


Digital is a backward step in some cases since it sometimes pixilates.

Here-in lay the problem. Digital as has been pointed out will no doubt
improve the quality for many, but it will also provide an inferior
service for others. When I built my house 5 years ago the dealer I got
the bits and peices off to install my antenna and my outlets
recomended everything, espiecaly the splitters should have screw in
connectors and not circuit board type splitters to improve the quality
for when I do go digital. I'm not sure if what he was saying was true,
but reckon it was, so how many people out there will go digital to
find their internal cabling is maybe not 100% up to scratch?

One of my friends who lives in the southern suburbs of Canberra
changed to digital and had to go back because of too much
pixilisation. He was in a poor receiption area before (one of the
black holes in that part of the world) and clearly the reception for
digital was just as shit. With analogue at least he had something
though.

No technology is 100% perfect, especialy when its transmitted over a
radio wave. For me I would happliy go digital if I could walk into my
local TV shop and buy a good priced set with the decoder in-built, for
pretty much the same money as I would pay for a decent CRT TV, and for
me that would be around the $1000 mark. At the moment I cannot see any
reason to change, all the extra's that digital is capable of don't
appeal to me at this stage and my current TV is working fine. If it
were to go tits up then I would consider something else, but until
that time why would I bother to change. I cannot speak for everyone in
Aust, but I reckon the vast majority of people would have pretty much
the same view as me on this one.

New technology is a good thing, and no doubt delivers many advantages
to us. Thats all well and good, but having it forced is another matter
altogether, and eventually when analogue TV is turned off that is
exactly what is being done to us.

 

[Phil Allison]

"AJ" = a fucking mental case
Phil Allison

** Not pointless at all - many folk find they have poor of no FM
reception, very common with the antenna systems is blocks of units.
In
the same situation, a STB supplies perfect quality, interruption free
music 24
/7 - nothing like it is broadcast on the FM band at all.


Hmmmm where is it getting the signal from to tune that radio from?


** The ABC runs two high quality, digital radio signals along with its
other
TV signals.

See: http://www.abc.net.au/dig/

Ok so the ABC has digital stations that's cool and didn't know that.
In that case it makes perfect sense so there would be an improvement,
BUT the orginal poster who asked about radio.....


" Set top box's give you better pictures and a menu system that has a
programme guide built in with programme information to boot. They also
tune
in radio stations, they're excellent value at just over $100 "

He said it tunes in radio stations, did he mention digital at all.

** No need to - STB are digital devices.

If
you knew that there were digital broadcasts then you might have
assumed that was what he was talking about, but futher back people
were talking about having extra boxes remotes etc, and someone said
that a STB could more or less get rid of a radio because it had radio
tuner inbuilt, which to mine didn't specificaly mean digital.

** Merely because YOU did not know it existed so misread all the posts.

DICKHEAD !!!

Its a
whole heap of good if its only ABC stations you can tune in, isn't it.
How does that help with poor radio receiption in these units that you
are so fond of?

** Nice, ad free, hi-fi sound is available 24/7 - that is just what
most folk want from FM radio and cannot get.

** STBs do NOT contain a FM broadcast receiver - dickhead.

They DO provide capacity for DIGITAL radio reception in the VHF and UHF
bands.

Hundreds of radio channels are possible.


Possible yes, but now, how many, and my guess is if its ABC then its
probably only the national ABC stations and not the local ones.

** Go and ACTUALLY read the URL I supplied - you bloody mental retard
!!!




................ Phil

 

[dmm]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:56:23 +1000, Barry OGrady <not@this.add> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:45:03 +1000, AJ <jc373@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:42:59 GMT, WDino <nogood@bigpond.com> wrote:

Firstly, anyone who HAS to ask that question apparently cannot distinguish a
good quality TV picture from a poor one. The majority of the population are like
that. They are happy to receive any sort of TV picture. SO digital will not do
anything for them.

Secondly, they will not realise that they are actually reaping part of the
benefit of digital TV already. Since the TV stations began distributing their TV
programmes in digital, the quality of the TV signal sent out from the existing
analogue TV transmitters has improved enormously.


How do you work that one out? In many cases what is sitting before the
transmitter, or in the case of digital what ever it is that digitises
the signal is pretty much the same stuff. Sure the stations may have
new camera's etc to cater more for digital TV (Widescreen and all that
good stuff that does make digital a good thing), but there ain't
nothing that is going to improve the analogue signal coming off the
stick. The broadcast quality that was sent before if received on a TV
with no problems would match the perfromance of the TV, so where would
you see an improvement.

Digital is a backward step in some cases since it sometimes pixilates.

Barry

If you've got pixellation, it's indicative of low signal strength. Try an antenna
with a higher gain, and/or upgrade the coax from the antenna to the tv/vcr/tuner/digital tuner.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"AJ" <jc373@hotmail.com.au> wrote in message
news:590f41l53o4t5msnh49msoun93u4motu5j@4ax.com...

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:56:23 +1000, Barry OGrady <not@this.add> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:45:03 +1000, AJ <jc373@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:42:59 GMT, WDino <nogood@bigpond.com> wrote:


Digital is a backward step in some cases since it sometimes pixilates.


Here-in lay the problem. Digital as has been pointed out will no doubt
improve the quality for many, but it will also provide an inferior
service for others. When I built my house 5 years ago the dealer I got
the bits and peices off to install my antenna and my outlets
recomended everything, espiecaly the splitters should have screw in
connectors and not circuit board type splitters to improve the quality
for when I do go digital. I'm not sure if what he was saying was true,
but reckon it was, so how many people out there will go digital to
find their internal cabling is maybe not 100% up to scratch?

The antenna hardware really doesn't matter that much unless your digital
stations are in different bands to your analogue signals and even then it
may not be a problem. If you're getting a good picture now, you will get a
good digital picture. If you're getting a bad picture due to noise, digital
may be an improvement. If you're suffereing from ghosting, digital probably
will be an improvement.

One of my friends who lives in the southern suburbs of Canberra
changed to digital and had to go back because of too much
pixilisation. He was in a poor receiption area before (one of the
black holes in that part of the world) and clearly the reception for
digital was just as shit. With analogue at least he had something
though.

That was probably a fault of his location, not the antenna, unless the
antenna was sub-standard to start with.

At the moment I cannot see any
reason to change, all the extra's that digital is capable of don't
appeal to me at this stage and my current TV is working fine. If it
were to go tits up then I would consider something else, but until
that time why would I bother to change. I cannot speak for everyone in
Aust, but I reckon the vast majority of people would have pretty much
the same view as me on this one.

I reckon you're right.

New technology is a good thing, and no doubt delivers many advantages
to us. Thats all well and good, but having it forced is another matter
altogether, and eventually when analogue TV is turned off that is
exactly what is being done to us.

It's not really being forced on you. After digital transmissions start in
your area analogue will remain available for 8 years. The changeover to
digital was well publicised before digital transmissions even started. By
the time analogue is finally turned off, most analogue TVs will be
approaching the end of their lives so they'll need replacement anyway.
Anybody who wants to get a few years extra out of the TV will just have to
buy a STB but for most, the purchase of a digital set will just be a
replacement of an existing set. New technology is forced on us all the time.
Colour, stereo sound, surround sound, picture in picture, S-video and scart
are just a few and none of these were actually mandated by the government.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:48:46 +0930, Chasing Kate
<sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote:

Legislative junking?????

Care to explain please?

What was junked by legislation?

TV station equipment had to be replaced with digital. The ABC had to
beg for nearly $100m to afford it.

In order to force people to adopt digital, because they won't do so by
their free will, the digtial legislation calls for the analogue
signals are to be switched off in 2008. Rendering TVs, VCRs, Tuner
cards etc. useless.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:04:04 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

The same STB will supply hi-fi sound to your stereo, a DVD quality pic to
any AV equipped TV set, eliminate ghosts, eliminate noise, provide extra
channels and work perfectly from a second rate antenna or in a poor or
fringe location.

A DVD quality picture is only slightly better than a PAL one (it will
just be a bit crisper). When watching VHS, as I do most of the time,
then then the picture is below PAL quality no matter whether I spend
$100 on STBs (and have to programme that to record something) or not.

I have no ghosting, I have no noise (except on SBS when there is a
downpour). The only extra channels are SBS foreign news and repeats of
ABC programmes. I get ABC2 on Foxtel, never actually wanted to watch
anything on it though.

A $150 analogue VCR will provide stereo and record programmes.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle.


** Absolute crapology.

Yet they don't abandon analogue, even for $100 STBs.

And one STB won't get you off analogue. To do what I do now I would
need 3 STBs or a DVR with tuners that could tape 2 programmes while
watching a 3rd. And that will cost far more than $100. And to get
significant benefits in picture and sound spend a lot more on a
widescreen TV and surround sound stereo system.

And the other TV in the house would some thing similar.

A $100 STB would make bugger all difference to my views, as it would
for most people, which is why they haven't bothered.

dewatf.

 

[Phil Allison]

"dewatf" ...
"Phil Allison"

The same STB will supply hi-fi sound to your stereo, a DVD quality pic to
any AV equipped TV set, eliminate ghosts, eliminate noise, provide extra
channels and work perfectly from a second rate antenna or in a poor or
fringe location.

A DVD quality picture is only slightly better than a PAL one (it will
just be a bit crisper).

** It is dramatically better - you pig ignorant fuckhead.

When watching VHS, as I do most of the time,

** You are not the subject - fuckhead.

I have no ghosting, I have no noise (except on SBS when there is a
downpour). The only extra channels are SBS foreign news and repeats of
ABC programmes. I get ABC2 on Foxtel, never actually wanted to watch
anything on it though.

** You are not the subject - fuckhead.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle.


** Absolute crapology.


And one STB won't get you off analogue. To do what I do now I would
need 3 STBs or a DVR.....

** You are not he subject - fuckhead.

A $100 STB would make bugger all difference to my views,

** You are not he subject - fuckhead.

as it would for most people,

** You are not most people - fuckhead.



............. Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"dewatf"
Chasing Kate

Legislative junking?????

Care to explain please?

What was junked by legislation?

TV station equipment had to be replaced with digital.
The ABC had to beg for nearly $100m to afford it.

** For ch 10 in Sydney to put a digital signal on air was ridiculously
cheap.

Only a small ( 5kw) transmitter and a digital modulator - peanuts to
them.

In order to force people to adopt digital, because they won't do so by
their free will, the digital legislation calls for the analogue
signals are to be switched off in 2008. Rendering TVs, VCRs, Tuner
cards etc. useless.

** Nothing is rendered useless - you lying fuckhead.




............ Phil

 

[Mr.T]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Uay1e.14161$C7.12350@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Telecommunications,

How have they given that away?

The second half will be shortly.

electricity, gas, water,

Or those?

They gave them away in Melbourne under Kennett.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:c5cd41ha6s77vg378obmf5hmi4tq1rc63m@4ax.com...

The delivery of electricity, gas and water are/were State concerns, not
Federal.

Just as I stated.

Government in Australia is Federal, state, and local.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3apr7bF6as37vU1@individual.net...

In order to force people to adopt digital, because they won't do so by
their free will, the digital legislation calls for the analogue
signals are to be switched off in 2008. Rendering TVs, VCRs, Tuner
cards etc. useless.

Agreed. But I would rather have extra digital channels than dual
transmission for ever.

** Nothing is rendered useless - you lying fuckhead.

I'd love to know how Phil programs his VCR to tape from his STB, turn it on,
and change channels when he's not home.
Or how he proposes to do it when analog transmission is turned off.

It will be partly useless anyway!

MrT.

 

[Chopper]

Hi Ross

Do you notice any difference between Ch9's coverage & that of Ch10's?
I find even on analogue, 9 doesn't seem as good as 10?

--
Regards

Chopper

<Remove 'Chopper' in Email address>


"Ross Herbert" <rherber1SPAMEX@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:8lrc415hhhb6c94t7tg5b2deuk46facqkj@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:54:13 +1000, "Chopper"
Chopperbplayne@skeylink.net> wrote:

Hi all

I've just recently re-subscribed to this NG (and others) after a fairly
long
absence. Dial up was too slow. Now that I have finally got Broadband,
things
are much better. It is good to see that some things in this NG haven't
changed. It is with great fear & trepidation that I type my first post


I just want to add my comments on this thread

My first real experience with Digital TV was last night (Friday) when I
went
over to my neighbours place to see the AFL on his new 42" Plasma & HDTV
DTB
etc. I did have a bit of a preview of HDTV a few days earlier & was
considerably impressed, BUT when Ch9 started showing some fast live AFL
action with lots of background (crowd), the HDTV seemed to lose the plot.
Pixelation & jaggies where all over the place. The spectators were
reduced
to blotches & squares. My neighbour kept saying, "It's out of focus". We
switched to the Standard Definition mode which seemed to improve things
abit. I did notice that there were very few fast camera pans which
included
the crowd after the first 1/4.

Maybe the camera crew etc are still coming to grips with some of the
'ways'
of Digital TV so things may improve.

Maybe the neighbours equipment wasn't setup properly

Ian implies below that his AFL is not good. He did not elaborate here as
to
why.

What is means to me is that if this is typical of DTV, I will keep my
good
old analogue for a while yet. (I would like the wide screen bit though)

BTW all things aside, viewing the AFL on wide screen was far better than
watching it on his old set which had the goal posts at about 25deg to the
vertical when viewed from behind.


Regards

Chopper Playne.


I still use my old Sony analogue TV in conjunction with a Topfield
TF5000PVRt STB and while this is not a HDTV unit, I have never seen
any pixellation or "jaggies" while watching AFL in 16:9 or any other
format. The resolution and clarity of the picture are eminently
superior to standard analogue FTA and I get excellent analogue
reception where I am anyway. This will do me until I can afford a
larger widescreen display.

Perhaps your neighbour's STB is not one of the better quality units
such as the Topfield and that is what is causing the pixellation and
"jaggies" problem.

 

[Jacques Guy]

Phil Allison wrote:

** Nothing is rendered useless - you lying fuckhead.

Except analogue mobile phones... perhaps?

 

[Brian Goldsmith]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote

electricity, gas, water,

Or those?

They gave them away in Melbourne under Kennett.

MrT.

***** What a stupid moronic statement!! A load of absolute crap.
Politics aside,the State of Victoria was paid an enormous amount of money by
the buyers of the gas and electricity undertakings.

Please engage brain before putting mouth into gear!!


Brian Goldsmith

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42474691.288C8325@earthlink.net...
"David L. Jones" wrote:


The link I posted shows aus.tv.digital only, so unless Google is
lying
or not showing cross posted groups, you do post to aus.tv.digital

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?safe=images&as_ugroup=aus.tv.digital&as_uauthors=who_tat_me&lr=&hl=en

Dave




bject:
Re: Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?
Date:
27 Mar 2005 14:56:33 -0800
From:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:
aus.tv, aus.politics, aus.electronics
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ,
14 ,
15


--
?

Easily explained. We've been having a discussion about the benefits
of
digital. His arguments have been shot down so now he's grabbing for
anything
that he thinks might help him, even if it's totally off-topic and
irrelevant
to the conversation. He's at the "Shit! Now I'll have to try
discrediting
the other poster" stage.

Every single one of my arguments has been based on genuine benfits
digital TV has for SOME people. Show me one of my arguments which has
been "shot down".

Digital has some very big benefits for a LOT of people for very little
outlay in many cases, while others may find little or no benefit.

Dave

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4247bc32$0$12159$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Uay1e.14161$C7.12350@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Telecommunications,

How have they given that away?

The second half will be shortly.

That's not an answer to my question. Telecommunications is still under the

control of the government. http://www.aca.gov.au

electricity, gas, water,

Or those?

They gave them away in Melbourne under Kennett.

That's Victoria. Who cares about Victoria?

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112002617.278287.124250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
Easily explained. We've been having a discussion about the benefits of
digital. His arguments have been shot down so now he's grabbing for
anything that he thinks might help him, even if it's totally off-topic
and
irrelevant to the conversation. He's at the "Shit! Now I'll have to try
discrediting the other poster" stage.

Every single one of my arguments has been based on genuine benfits

Genuine perceived benefits. That's not the same as "actual"

digital TV has for SOME people. Show me one of my arguments which has
been "shot down".

The claim that digital TV will benefit ANYONE with poor eyesight is the most
glaring example. Even you have now revised that claim to just "some".

Digital has some very big benefits for a LOT of people for very little
outlay in many cases, while others may find little or no benefit.

You've changed your tune.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4247ab79.26860125@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:48:46 +0930, Chasing Kate
sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote:

Legislative junking?????

Care to explain please?

What was junked by legislation?

TV station equipment had to be replaced with digital. The ABC had to
beg for nearly $100m to afford it.

In order to force people to adopt digital, because they won't do so by
their free will, the digtial legislation calls for the analogue
signals are to be switched off in 2008. Rendering TVs, VCRs, Tuner
cards etc. useless.

It's only 2008 in some areas. Analogue will be around until at least 2014

and probably longer in some areas.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Jacques Guy" <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:4247c667$1@news.alphalink.com.au...

Phil Allison wrote:

** Nothing is rendered useless - you lying fuckhead.


Except analogue mobile phones... perhaps?

Analogue phones were a different kettle of fish. I got my first mobile phone
in mid 1997. I tried to get a digital phone but there were none available.
That was definitely a waste. The phase-in was too quick, unlike digital
which has been phasing in forever it seems.