Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[dewatf]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:28:10 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me
picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

I actually tape most of the TV I watch, often in LP to fit it all in,
so I gain nothing except the hassle of having to plug in an STB and
figure out how to programme it to timerecord with the VCR, and sort
out how to have the whole set up work with Foxtel and my DVD player as
well.

If I want to watch a movie I am better off to hire it for $4 on DVD
and watch the film without ads when I want to watch it.

Since the household has 2 TVs and 3 VCRs in operation it would need 5
STBs or new appliances with digital tuners just to get rid of
analogue.

And that's just to get what I get now. To benefit from the improved
quality and sound of HD you need STBs that cost more than $100, a
widescreen TV and a surround sound applifier and speakers.

After all that if I want to watch a movie I am still better of paying
$4 to hire the DVD and watch it without ads, watermarks, trailers and
promos when ever I want to.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle. Which is why it failed to take off.

The only place with rapid uptake of digital has been the UK where they
mandated a simple low resolution medium-width picture as standard.
They ensured that the STBs were compatible across Pay TV and FTA.
Even then they screwed up by not having the security on terrestrial
Pay strong enough.

In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to $ 800 = about $4000 to $ 5000 today.

Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were
prepared to pay a lot for it. Colour TV is the most most sucessful
introduction of new broadcast technology. It was also fully
compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking
of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it
up.

dewatf.

 

[Phil Allison]

"dewatf"
"Phil Allison"

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me
picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

** So fucking what ??

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.

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

** Absolute crapology.

A $100 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.

In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to $ 800 = about $4000 to $ 5000
today.

Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were
prepared to pay a lot for it.

** A 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.

All for $100 or so - not $ 4000.

It was also fully
compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking
of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it
up.

** You are a pathetic and really stupid liar.





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

 

[John de Stigter]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:TFT0e.11544$C7.8070@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ai9jfF6a0r90U1@individual.net...

"Who_tat_me"
"Phil Allison"

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.


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.


*************************** Crap


Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.


** So you got ripped off - eh ??

************************************************ No, haven't got one. I
don't see any point in getting one because I get excellent FTA reception
but
I prefer to watch Foxtel.

Cheap STBs are $80-$150
Good STBs cost at least $200

Prove otherwise

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

 

[Chasing Kate]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Chasing Kate"


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.


The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

** What "things" are you mysteriously alluding to now ??

Management of the use of electromagnetic spectrum ??

That is what I was alluding to?

Why should the government be in control of it and not a
private independant industry body????

That is absolutely and naturally and function of government.

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

** Again, you are not being specific and you have ignored all explanations
supplied.

Deliberately - like any other stinking troll.

Again I meant: Why not let private industry and an independent
body to handle and run things like digital TV and who gets what
and how the frequencies are divided up.....

 

[Chasing Kate]

dewatf wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:28:10 +1100, "Phil Allison"
philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me
picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

I actually tape most of the TV I watch, often in LP to fit it all in,
so I gain nothing except the hassle of having to plug in an STB and
figure out how to programme it to timerecord with the VCR, and sort
out how to have the whole set up work with Foxtel and my DVD player as
well.

If I want to watch a movie I am better off to hire it for $4 on DVD
and watch the film without ads when I want to watch it.

Since the household has 2 TVs and 3 VCRs in operation it would need 5
STBs or new appliances with digital tuners just to get rid of
analogue.

And that's just to get what I get now. To benefit from the improved
quality and sound of HD you need STBs that cost more than $100, a
widescreen TV and a surround sound applifier and speakers.

After all that if I want to watch a movie I am still better of paying
$4 to hire the DVD and watch it without ads, watermarks, trailers and
promos when ever I want to.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle. Which is why it failed to take off.

The only place with rapid uptake of digital has been the UK where they
mandated a simple low resolution medium-width picture as standard.
They ensured that the STBs were compatible across Pay TV and FTA.
Even then they screwed up by not having the security on terrestrial
Pay strong enough.

In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to $ 800 = about $4000 to $ 5000 today.

Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were
prepared to pay a lot for it. Colour TV is the most most sucessful
introduction of new broadcast technology. It was also fully
compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking
of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it
up.

dewatf.

Legislative junking?????

Care to explain please?

What was junked by legislation?

 

[WDino]

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.

Thirdly, the wider 16:9 aspect ratio can only be appreciated on a widescreen TV
set and not on an analogue one. Most movies are widescreen (although usually
more than 16:9).

Fourthly, the quality of digital TV can only be appreciated on a large screen TV
set. On any set less than 68 cm (diagonal) most people sit too far away to see
any fine detail anyway.

Finally, digital TV is much more spectrum efficient. So more channels can be
fitted into the same TV frequencies. In Oz at least three Standard Definition
digital TV channels can occupy on analogue TV channel.
What does this mean to the viewer? Well, probably not much (except for the extra
TV programming) but for the stations it means that they are getting more value
for the money that they have paid out for their TV transmitting licence.
And of course. in the long term, the Government will rake in more money as they
will be able to sell more spectrum space.

David L. Jones wrote:

Chasing Kate wrote:

Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?


Digital has MANY advantages over the existing system. I too was
skeptical until I got a STB to enable me to get my favourite shows in
widescreen.
The benefits I've found are:
- Absolutely perfect picture on every channel, all with my existing
crappy antenna. I could hardly pick up SBS at all before, now I get it
perfect, along with all the other channels. Fantastic. Not many people
get a perfect picture on every channel with analog. Sure there is a bit
of pixelisation now and then, but you have to be watching for it. Give
me a perfect picture and a bit of pixelisation over a snowy picture any
day.
- Widescreen. A HUGE benefit IMHO.
- A much sharper picture, and much easier to see and clearer so say
people I know with vision problems.
- The sound is slightly better, but this only a marginal benefit for
me.
- Online TV guides. Marginal benefit, but nice.
- High definition for those with the gear, although Hi-Def is still
ridiculously expensive for the small benefit. i.e. I can't watch any of
my DVDs in Hi-Def.

Dave

 

[Phil Allison]

"WDino"

Finally, digital TV is much more spectrum efficient. So more channels can
be fitted into the same TV frequencies. In Oz at least three Standard
Definition digital TV channels can occupy one analogue TV channel.

** It is actually far better than that. Analogue TV signals cannot operate
on adjacent frequencies - there has to be a wide vacant gap equal to
another channel between any two stations. ( Chs 9 and 10 are separated by
ch 9A - which is to be used for digital ) So for the usual 4 analogue
channels to co-exist requires that another 7 or 8 channels be left vacant -
one above and one below each channel.

It is by the elimination of these vacant blocks of spectrum ( about 50 MHz
worth in each capitol) that new services will be made possible.

It is even better with the UHF band - with digital services all 41
channels can be occupied in the same area instead of the previous max of
about 20.

So, allowing 3 x SD signals per channel number results in a possible 123
digital TV channels on UHF !!!

Another benefit is how much closer stations using the same frequency can be
located - with analogue there has to be hundreds of miles of separation as
even the slightest signal from a distant same frequency transmitter produces
a visible image on the screen. With digital, the significantly stronger
signal wins out and no sign of the weaker one is seen.




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

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42463611.E1A79C5F@internode.on.net...

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

The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

You really don't understand how things work do you?

You have to have one overall control and monitoring body or you'd have
anarchy.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42464F8C.59FAE8A1@internode.on.net...

Phil Allison wrote:

"Chasing Kate"


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.


The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

** What "things" are you mysteriously alluding to now ??

Management of the use of electromagnetic spectrum ??


That is what I was alluding to?

Why should the government be in control of it and not a
private independant industry body????


That is absolutely and naturally and function of government.

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

** Again, you are not being specific and you have ignored all
explanations
supplied.

Deliberately - like any other stinking troll.



Again I meant: Why not let private industry and an independent
body to handle and run things like digital TV and who gets what
and how the frequencies are divided up.....

Because there would be anarchy.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42463611.E1A79C5F@internode.on.net...

The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

You really don't understand how things work do you?

You have to have one overall control and monitoring body or you'd have
anarchy.

Like the early days of AM broadcast. People built stations on the
same frequency and caused all kinds of interference. It has to be
handled by someone who is responsible to international agreements or it
is a real mess.
--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Phil Allison]

"Chasing Kate"

Phil Allison wrote:

The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

** What "things" are you mysteriously alluding to now ??

Management of the use of electromagnetic spectrum ??

That is what I was alluding to?

Why should the government be in control of it and not a
private independant industry body????

** Because the EM spectrum is an extremely valuable public resource -
you utterly mad cow.

That is absolutely and naturally and function of government.

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

** Again, you are not being specific and you have ignored all
explanations
supplied.

Deliberately - like any other stinking troll.


Again I meant: Why not let private industry and an independent
body to handle and run things like digital TV and who gets what
and how the frequencies are divided up.....

** Because the Australian Government OWNS the frequency spectrum and MUST
administer it for the public benefit.

All users ( commercial or not) of the EM spectrum are licensed so that they
can be made to operate in a way that does not interfere with other users nor
is contrary to the public interest.

Private industry has self interest and greed as its only driving forces -
if you have not noticed.





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

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111894973.370976.113760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:

Wrong again.
Many of the low end STBs have SCART, A/V, and coax digital. That's 3
(count them) audio outputs.

Maybe the ones that you buy on ebay have them but the under $100 STBs that
I've seen in shops are a lot more basic than that. The $79 model that
Woolies has been selling recently is one example.

If you want to use
the stereo it makes matters more complex than the average person is
interested in it being. Not only do you have to find/puyrchase
additional
cables you end up having to use 3 remotes just to listen to the
radio. Most
people like to be able to sit down, press ON and watch with one
remote in
hand.

My STB is the same brand as my TV, so I can share remote. In fact the
single power button turns both sets on and off. Very nice.

Lucky you.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111894760.006739.43800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111885451.096802.176920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111877906.628138.148510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
just ask
anyone with eyesight problems who have trouble seeing a normal
analog
screen.


That's like asking anyone with poor hearing whether $5,000 home
enetertainment system sounds better than a $10 portable radio.

Unless the reception is really crappy to start with and hard to
see
for
somebody with good eyesight, digital isn't going to be a benefit
for
somebody with bad eyesight and even then it's doubtful whether
there'll be
an improvement.

I don't have bad eyesight myself, so can't speak for myself, but I
have
bought STBs for older relatives with eyesight problems and they
rave
about the clarity of the STB picture compared to what I think is
pretty
darn close to an ideal analog picture. They can now see stuff in
detail
without their glasses, don't get sore eyes etc. So obviously it CAN
make a difference, and obvously you have no actual experience in
this
area.

Obviously I have more experience than you. I have 80 year old parents
with
failing eyesight and they have lots of 80 year old friends. I live in
an
area with a large aged population and I run a business that
originally
started as a PC support operation but has expanded into other areas.
I have
quite a few aged customers who I see on a regular basis, both in a
professional and personal capacity. Not one of them has ever raved
about
digital TV and yes, I have shown quite a few of them the benefits of
digital
while tuning their VCRs, fixing PCs, connecting Foxtel boxes etc. In
almost
every case a marked improvement has resulted from an increase in
picture
size, not from making an already clear picture clearer.

The problem with your argument is that it only takes one single case to
prove you wrong. I have several visually impaired people who contradict
what you say, so the clearer STB picture CAN help some people.

Maybe your relatives were just being nice to you. When you went on so much
about the virtues of digital they didn't want to upset you by saying "No, I
can't see any bloody difference."

 

[lora Norda]

"Trevor Woods" <trevorw@omninet.net.au> wrote in
news:42456c08@news.eftel.com:

Why more people aren't switching to digital is they don't see there's
enough there to bother making the change. Whenever I hear someone on
the the radio extolling the virtues of getting a digital set top box,
the first thing they will say is "no ghosting". I don't have ghosting.
Will all these people with ghosting please stand up. What will make me
and a lot others switch to digital is getting a lot more choice in
what to watch. So using the digital spectrum for more channels. It
won't "no ghosting", a sharper picture or wide screen.

If you're in Tassie you need it to watch ch10.

 

[regn.pickford]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42465046.6D540C00@internode.on.net...

dewatf wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:28:10 +1100, "Phil Allison"
philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me
picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

I actually tape most of the TV I watch, often in LP to fit it all in,
so I gain nothing except the hassle of having to plug in an STB and
figure out how to programme it to timerecord with the VCR, and sort
out how to have the whole set up work with Foxtel and my DVD player as
well.

If I want to watch a movie I am better off to hire it for $4 on DVD
and watch the film without ads when I want to watch it.

Since the household has 2 TVs and 3 VCRs in operation it would need 5
STBs or new appliances with digital tuners just to get rid of
analogue.

And that's just to get what I get now. To benefit from the improved
quality and sound of HD you need STBs that cost more than $100, a
widescreen TV and a surround sound applifier and speakers.

After all that if I want to watch a movie I am still better of paying
$4 to hire the DVD and watch it without ads, watermarks, trailers and
promos when ever I want to.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle. Which is why it failed to take off.

The only place with rapid uptake of digital has been the UK where they
mandated a simple low resolution medium-width picture as standard.
They ensured that the STBs were compatible across Pay TV and FTA.
Even then they screwed up by not having the security on terrestrial
Pay strong enough.

In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to $ 800 = about $4000 to $ 5000
today.

Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were
prepared to pay a lot for it. Colour TV is the most most sucessful
introduction of new broadcast technology. It was also fully
compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking
of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it
up.

dewatf.




Legislative junking?????

Care to explain please?

What was junked by legislation?

analogue phones.

 

[Ross Herbert]

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.

 

[regn.pickford]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Ghn1e.13209$C7.12019@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"regn.pickford" <doregn.pickford@beegpond.com> wrote in message
news:8gl1e.13074$C7.12444@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

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


Most people really don't care about extra menus and listening to the radio
on your TV is not really the most cost effective way of listening to the
radio. As well as the cost of the STB you then have to fok out extra $$$
for
the extra power consumed by the TV over a normal radio. A 68cm TV uses 8
times the power that a home stereo system uses.

I like the menus, I like the programme information and guides. I have never
used the
radio side of it, I have my favourite stations already programmed into the
entertainment
centre.

The improvement in the picture is really effective where I live. It goes
from snowy
to crystal clear. It was a good buy

 

[Ross Herbert]

On 25 Mar 2005 22:00:53 -0800, "David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com>
wrote:

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?

Well a good STB may have features such as dual tuners and a hard disk
for recording (up to 200Gb currently) so you can actually record two
programs simultaneously, even while watching a previously recorded
program.

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...

I don't specifically know what makes a "good" STB better than a
cheaper one with less features. This is for the individual to decide
based on what they consider is "good", what features they desire, and
how much they wish to pay. Here is a typical "good" quality STB if you
have around $900.00 (new retail) to spare
http://www.topfield-australia.com.au/product.asp?SKU=TF5000PVRT

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.

I'd have to agree with that...

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111912986.944127.86250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111894973.370976.113760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:

Wrong again.
Many of the low end STBs have SCART, A/V, and coax digital. That's
3
(count them) audio outputs.

Maybe the ones that you buy on ebay have them but the under $100 STBs
that
I've seen in shops are a lot more basic than that. The $79 model that

Woolies has been selling recently is one example.

Not according to this thread:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=39chvpF5tlrpeU1%40individual.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwoolworths%2Bstb%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D39chvpF5tlrpeU1%2540individual.net%26rnum%3D1
(Hope the link works)
They claim the new Wollies box has RCA and Digital out for your lousy
$75.

It doesn't have SCART, which is the most compatible outlet. Most TVs and
home stereos don't have coax in so that leaves just 1 set of RCA connectors
and RF for most people.

But then again, you should know that, you contributed to the thread.
I find it curious that you contribute to a digital TV forum yet you
don't have an STB yourself.

Since when is aus.tv a digital TV forum?

 

[Who_tat_me]

"regn.pickford" <doregn.pickford@beegpond.com> wrote in message
news:cvu1e.13849$C7.2740@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Ghn1e.13209$C7.12019@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"regn.pickford" <doregn.pickford@beegpond.com> wrote in message
news:8gl1e.13074$C7.12444@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

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


Most people really don't care about extra menus and listening to the
radio
on your TV is not really the most cost effective way of listening to the
radio. As well as the cost of the STB you then have to fok out extra $$$
for
the extra power consumed by the TV over a normal radio. A 68cm TV uses 8
times the power that a home stereo system uses.


I like the menus, I like the programme information and guides.

Just out of interest, were they a big point when you purchased your STB?

*snip*

The improvement in the picture is really effective where I live. It goes
from snowy to crystal clear. It was a good buy

I know of quite a few people who purchased didgital STBs specifically for
that reason and many of them are happy. Unfortunately a lot are in a
position where nothing helps their TV reception but even some of those
prefer the digital picture over the analogue version. Even the pixelation
that they now suffer is better than the severe ghosting that they previously
had to put up with.