Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[AJ]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:31:26 +1100, "Swampfox" <groint@pochta.ru>
wrote:

Because digital is better.
No ghosting and a far superior picture.
And for most people the cost is minimal.
Set top boxes can be had for less than $200, which is cheaper than the
aerials required for analogue in poor reception areas.
Live program guides, extra channels on SBS and the ABC, better sound etc.
It's simply a better technology.

Just one other point remember is that the digital signal is still
sent across the air on a modulated analogue signal until it reaches
the decoder, so a lot of the same rules for radio still apply. If you
have poor analogue reception then if the digital signal is coming off
the same stick then your digital may also be crap and you may well
still need that better quality antenna. I also kind of thought reading
around the traps that even if your current analague is good, you may
still need a better antenna for digital, same too with the internal
cable quality and their connections within the building wiring.

The difference of course is the digital signal is a lot more tollerant
due to error correction and probably a bit of fudging in the decoders
so you might not notice poor signal quality until you loose the
picture totaly, at least with an analogue signal you can sometimes
still have a watchable picture.

 

[Chasing Kate]

Phil Allison wrote:

"ferret"

From a sales point of view its a complete disaster.


** Rot.


How is this NOT a marketing disaster.

** That is a different question in a new context - dickhead.

Makers and sellers of STBs have made good money from them - the same
designs are sold in Europe and elsewhere.

The government is concerned the Mandate to cut-off analogue will
expire before the majority have switched over.

** Most folk put off whatever is not urgent - when it gets urgent they
finally do it.

Wait and see what the Senate committee reports.

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

And again WHY does this have to be debated in the Senate?
Seems a waste of time

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.T" wrote:

Even many of the current PVR's have analog tuners!
I'm yet to see a DVD/HD recorder in the local shops with a digital tuner in
fact.
Copyright wars seem to be the problem.

MrT.

You won't see one until there is a fast enough A/D converter to
handle twice the highest frequency you want to receive.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Phil Allison]

"Chasing Kate"

But is there any logical reason to phase it out?

** There are any number of posts supply the logical reasons.

There are web sites that supply them - I posted one URL.





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

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4244af39$0$5594$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:JV01e.11859$C7.5216@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That's only reasonably recently and you're looking at the cost for just
one
TV. If I was to go "all digital" in my house I'd have to purchase 7 STBs
to
retain my current functionality (1 for each TV and 1 for each VCR) Even
if
I
was to purchased several of the Woolies $70 boxes that's an outlay of
$490.

Even if you did, you can't program the VCR's to change the STB channel
when
you're not home!

Some (not all) STBs have timers to change channels. More useful if you have
a VCR with a "rec-link" function (e.g. JVC) so you don't have to set timers
on both machines.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42442486.B92A4CC@internode.on.net...

Who_tat_me wrote:
PAL isn't being phased out. Analogue is being phased out and it isn't by
2010. It's at least 2014 in some areas.




But is there any logical reason to phase it out?

Is there any one reason? No.
Was there any one reason that we got TV in the first place? No.

Basically it comes down to progress. Everything is going to digital
eventually whether you like it or not and digital is better than analogue so
why not?

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4244DA2F.CAE85FD3@internode.on.net...

Phil Allison wrote:

"ferret"

From a sales point of view its a complete disaster.


** Rot.


How is this NOT a marketing disaster.

** That is a different question in a new context - dickhead.

Makers and sellers of STBs have made good money from them - the same
designs are sold in Europe and elsewhere.

The government is concerned the Mandate to cut-off analogue will
expire before the majority have switched over.

** Most folk put off whatever is not urgent - when it gets urgent they
finally do it.

Wait and see what the Senate committee reports.

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






And again WHY does this have to be debated in the Senate?
Seems a waste of time

Because the government manages the country and it was the government who put

in place the plans to phase in digital and phase out analogue. Since the
government's plans aren't going according to schedule it seems only logical
that they should investigate the reasons why those plans are going the way
that they want them to so that they can determine what action to take.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4244E202.41EA297@earthlink.net...

"Mr.T" wrote:

Even many of the current PVR's have analog tuners!
I'm yet to see a DVD/HD recorder in the local shops with a digital tuner
in
fact.
Copyright wars seem to be the problem.

MrT.


You won't see one until there is a fast enough A/D converter to
handle twice the highest frequency you want to receive.

Why would you need an A/D converter to record a digital broadcast?

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111792487.915136.188230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111789418.094263.114890@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.

Cheap can mean good too, price is NOT proportional to goodness.
Plenty of good SD STBs on eBay around the $100 mark, even less.

That's sort of true

Read - that's completely true.

No it isn't.

but the cheaper the STU, the fewer features that it will
have. That's fairly true of anything.

So a "good" STB has to have lots of "features" huh?

Generally yes, that is true. .

So what extra features do the "good" STBs have that the "cheapies" I
have posted links for do not have?

What are these features the "good" STBs have which the "cheap" STBs
do
not?

Oops, looks like you didn't answer my question the first time...

Does number of features equate to a better quality picture?, or a
better decoder chip?, or a better quality front end?

Yes, yes and yes

Really.
Please post the links to these supposed "good" receivers and what
evidence you have that they actually have better quality decoder chips
and front ends. I'm sure we'd all love to see what features they have
that make them worth 2-3 times the price.
I for one would be VERY surprised if one of your supposed "good" STB's
has 2-3 times the picture quality to justify the extra price...

Plenty good enough for most people I would think.

Good enough is not necessarily good. It usually means barely
adequate.

I paid $135 for my STB many months ago (and they are cheaper again
now), it's a top brand name, made in Europe, and has all the features I
could ever need.
There is simply no need to spend many hundreds of dollars to get a good
quality SD STB that will give you a first class result. If you are
paying that sort of money you are getting ripped off.

Dave

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111788848.160246.231310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

dewatf wrote:
That is all rubbish.

The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.

What "great expense"?
Standard definition STBs can be had for less than $100.
Simply plug in and go with your existing TV and antenna in most
cases.

That's only reasonably recently and you're looking at the cost for
just one
TV. If I was to go "all digital" in my house I'd have to purchase 7
STBs to
retain my current functionality (1 for each TV and 1 for each VCR)
Even if I
was to purchased several of the Woolies $70 boxes that's an outlay of
$490.
Not all that long ago it would have cost $1,400 and a couple of years
ago
the cost would have been $3,500.

Who cares how much something USED to cost?
Your case is exceptional and not relevent to the fact that for less
than $100 you can upgrade almost any TV set (and associated VCR) to
digital. For many people this offers a very worthwhile upgrade. About
the only people it would not benefit are those who have a 4:3 TV, get
absolutely PERFECT picture on EVERY channel, don't want an ever BETTER
picture, and don't care about getting on-line program guides or access
to WS in letterbox format etc

Most people have one good main TV (and associated VCR) that would
almost certainly benefit from an upgrade to digital.

BTW, it is possible to share one STB among a TV and VCR. If you need to
watch one show while recording another you simply use the analog
receiver of either unit to watch/record the other channel.

Dave

 

[Phil Allison]

"Who_tat_me"
"Michael A. Terrell" = straight from the Florida Everglades

You won't see one until there is a fast enough A/D converter to
handle twice the highest frequency you want to receive.

Why would you need an A/D converter to record a digital broadcast?

** Don't bother with it - just some Septic Tank trying to be a clever
dick.




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

 

[Andrew Bayley]

I wish channel 2 analog had been on VHF ch 12
Its frequency seems to be a bit low for optimum tv reception (maybe why 0
moved to 10 ?)

there were a number of reasons for the channel 0 stations in Melbourne and
Brisbane to go to 10, poor reception on the 0 frequency was one of them.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111816853.642434.108810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So what extra features do the "good" STBs have that the "cheapies" I
have posted links for do not have?

I didn't even look at those. Most people don't buy STBs off ebay. Show me
some links for STBs in shops.

I paid $135 for my STB many months ago (and they are cheaper again
now), it's a top brand name, made in Europe, and has all the features I
could ever need.

Did you buy it in a shop where *most* people buy them? You can always get
something cheaper if you look hard enough but if you're going to compare
prices you have to have a common frame of reference. Just because you might
have been lucky enough to get something doesn't mean that the price you paid
is the average price.

 

Who_tat_me wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111816853.642434.108810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So what extra features do the "good" STBs have that the "cheapies"
I
have posted links for do not have?

I didn't even look at those. Most people don't buy STBs off ebay.
Show me
some links for STBs in shops.

LMAO!
You made the claim that "good" STBs which cost more were better and
have more features than the "cheap" STBs, you get to prove it.
The ones on eBay are the SAME ones you can buy in the shops for grossly
inflated prices.

I paid $135 for my STB many months ago (and they are cheaper again
now), it's a top brand name, made in Europe, and has all the
features I
could ever need.

Did you buy it in a shop where *most* people buy them? You can always
get
something cheaper if you look hard enough but if you're going to
compare
prices you have to have a common frame of reference. Just because you
might
have been lucky enough to get something doesn't mean that the price
you paid
is the average price.

I wasn't lucky, anyone can get them at "Buy it Now" prices on eBay.
Sure, your average Joe doesn't buy on eBay but that has nothing to do
with your claim that "good" expensive STBs are better or have more
features than the "cheapies".

Dave

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111818232.581848.168710@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111788848.160246.231310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What "great expense"?
Standard definition STBs can be had for less than $100.

That's only reasonably recently and you're looking at the cost for
just one TV. If I was to go "all digital" in my house I'd have to
purchase 7
STBs to retain my current functionality (1 for each TV and 1 for each
VCR)
Even if I was to purchased several of the Woolies $70 boxes that's an
outlay of
$490. Not all that long ago it would have cost $1,400 and a couple of
years
ago the cost would have been $3,500.

Who cares how much something USED to cost?

How much it used to cost is entirely relevant. Your claim was that it only
costs $100 for an STB. The example that I used demonstrates that it costs a
lot more and the $100 that you quoted is only the case as of fairly
recently.

Your case is exceptional

No it isn't. A lot of people have multiple TVs and multiple VCRs.

and not relevent to the fact that for less
than $100 you can upgrade almost any TV set (and associated VCR) to
digital.

I's entirely relevant and your claim isn't actually true. With a TV and
associated VCR NOW you can record one program and watch another. If you buy
one STB you can not do that. You have to buy at least two STBs to maintain
the existing functionality. At least two because with an existing VCR you
can program the VCR to tune to any channel and record when you are not at
home. $100 STBs don't generally have an autotune function so if you really
want to retain the analogue functionality you need at least one STB for each
channel that you want recorded while you're away.

For many people this offers a very worthwhile upgrade. About
the only people it would not benefit are those who have a 4:3 TV, get
absolutely PERFECT picture on EVERY channel, don't want an ever BETTER
picture, and don't care about getting on-line program guides or access
to WS in letterbox format etc

RUBBISH. Benefit is subsjective. Most people get an adequate picture. People
like me get a good picture that is more than just adequate. Most people
don't give a damn about EPGs and widescreen so the only real benefit of
digital is a possibly improved picture and most people don't see $100 or
more value in that.

Most people have one good main TV (and associated VCR) that would
almost certainly benefit from an upgrade to digital.

BTW, it is possible to share one STB among a TV and VCR. If you need to
watch one show while recording another you simply use the analog
receiver of either unit to watch/record the other channel.

But would they be satisfied with the vastly inferior picture on the non STB
device? If didgital is so great, how could they bear to go back to analogue?

 

[Who_tat_me]

"John de Stigter" <johnd@sydpcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:bv71e.4379$Le2.27996@nasal.pacific.net.au...

Phil is quite right, you can pick up a perfectly good stb for $100.

Are they easy to get and widely available all the time?

It can render a nice picture from something totally unwatchable on
analogue
( ABC on Sydney northern beaches ).
If you lash out like I did, you can get a stb with hard drive for $299 -
so
you get a noticeably better picture and no more video tapes to buy.
Of course you may just be rich, and happy to share your cash around.

Regards,
John.

 

[Who_tat_me]

<altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111820622.254452.88960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111816853.642434.108810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So what extra features do the "good" STBs have that the "cheapies"
I
have posted links for do not have?

I didn't even look at those. Most people don't buy STBs off ebay.
Show me
some links for STBs in shops.

LMAO!
You made the claim that "good" STBs which cost more were better and
have more features than the "cheap" STBs, you get to prove it.

I don't need to prove it any more than I need to prove that the sun will
rise tomorrow. Anybody whe has seen the specs and features of one of the
cheapies and then looked the specs and features of one of the more expensive
models knows the more expensive models are better.

The ones on eBay are the SAME ones you can buy in the shops for grossly
inflated prices.

Too bad. Most people buy them from shops so that's the pricing you need to
be comparing.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Andrew Bayley" <SPAM?NOTHANKYOUabaus2@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42450346$0$5594$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

I wish channel 2 analog had been on VHF ch 12
Its frequency seems to be a bit low for optimum tv reception (maybe why 0
moved to 10 ?)

there were a number of reasons for the channel 0 stations in Melbourne and
Brisbane to go to 10, poor reception on the 0 frequency was one of them.
The plan for the 0 to 10 relocation has been around since FM radio first

started in Australia in the 70s.

 

[D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.?]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:7781e.12470$C7.5380@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"John de Stigter" <johnd@sydpcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:bv71e.4379$Le2.27996@nasal.pacific.net.au...

Phil is quite right, you can pick up a perfectly good stb for $100.

Are they easy to get and widely available all the time?

my local woolies has em for $80 pretty much all the time (mcarthur central,
Brisbane CBD)

 

[Who_tat_me]

"D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.?" <BjkausNSPAN@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qgb1e.12757$C7.9085@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:7781e.12470$C7.5380@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"John de Stigter" <johnd@sydpcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:bv71e.4379$Le2.27996@nasal.pacific.net.au...

Phil is quite right, you can pick up a perfectly good stb for $100.

Are they easy to get and widely available all the time?



my local woolies has em for $80 pretty much all the time (mcarthur
central, Brisbane CBD)

You're lucky. Every woolies I've tried sold out and they don't know if
they're getting any more in.