Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111912042.309508.47280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:

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."

Nope. They beg me to come around and fix the slightest problem they
have, they can't standing watching analog any more it gives them
headaches.
Face it, you are wrong.

No I'm not.

The STB digital picture is MUCH clearer to SOME
people.

Of course it is but if you already have a good analogue picture, a digital
STB is no substitute for spectacles or laser surgery

Just because you have no people that it makes a difference with
doesn't mean that's the way it is.

Just because you have a limited number of relatives who who think it makes a
difference doesn't mean that's the way it is either.

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"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."

Nope. They beg me to come around and fix the slightest problem they
have, they can't standing watching analog any more it gives them
headaches.
Face it, you are wrong. The STB digital picture is MUCH clearer to SOME
people. Just because you have no people that it makes a difference with
doesn't mean that's the way it is.

Dave

 

[David L. Jones]

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.
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.

Dave

 

[Mr.T]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3an5biF6c4nr4U1@individual.net...

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

Same as any political party too.
I do however agree it is a government responsibility, which is why I'm
surprised they haven't given it to private enterprise yet, like they have
all their other responsibilities.
Taxation is the only one they really want.

MrT.

 

[regn.pickford]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:SSu1e.13868$C7.1070@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"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*

Mostly it was that I had seen the improvement in picture on another tv.

I wouldn't have bought it only for the menu system but it is a pleasant add
on.

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.


The picture is magic and the pixelations ony kick in when there's a storm

blowing
and even then only for a few minutes till the storm eases up. Day to day
it's like
watching a DVD! ;^)

 

[Mr.T]

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

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

???????????

You can do it now with a computer, or by connecting a Topfield PVR to your
computer. But there doesn't seem to be a single set top unit yet.
The problem is not electronic.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111912042.309508.47280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Who_tat_me wrote:

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."

Nope. They beg me to come around and fix the slightest problem they
have, they can't standing watching analog any more it gives them
headaches.
Face it, you are wrong.

No I'm not.

You claimed that improved clarity in the digital STB picture offers NO
improvement what so ever for visually impaired people. I know several
visually imparied people who will tell you otherwise.
Therefore you are wrong.

The STB digital picture is MUCH clearer to SOME
people.

Of course it is but if you already have a good analogue picture, a
digital
STB is no substitute for spectacles or laser surgery

Never said it was. I can help SOME people that's all.

Just because you have no people that it makes a difference with
doesn't mean that's the way it is.

Just because you have a limited number of relatives who who think it
makes a
difference doesn't mean that's the way it is either.

What part of SOME people don't you understand?

Dave

 

[dmm]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:57:18 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3an5biF6c4nr4U1@individual.net...
Private industry has self interest and greed as its only driving forces -
if you have not noticed.

Same as any political party too.
I do however agree it is a government responsibility, which is why I'm
surprised they haven't given it to private enterprise yet, like they have
all their other responsibilities.

And which responsibilities are those?

Taxation is the only one they really want.

MrT.

 

[AJ]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:38:52 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Who_tat_me"
altzone@gmail.com

Umm, how about feeding your STB into your stereo?

Most stereos have an FM receiver in them so it would seem rather pointless
doing that.


** 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? As

far as I know radio stations are not digitised and re-broadcast on
digital are they in which case you will still have poor FM performance
won't you? There is no circuitry in a STB that could improve the
signal. In my place my FM radio is connected to my TV antenna and it
works just fine.

 

[AJ]

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.

 

[Mr.T]

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kc5d415ridf5fejda2eg312a7dutkl6j23@4ax.com...

And which responsibilities are those?

Telecommunications, electricity, gas, water, and many others depending on
state/territory.

MrT.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
newsOu1e.13867$C7.4090@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Since when is aus.tv a digital TV forum?

Try looking up the word "forum" in a dictionary.

 

[Phil Allison]

"AJ" = what a dickhead

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/

As
far as I know radio stations are not digitised and re-broadcast on
digital are they in which case you will still have poor FM performance
won't you?

** Total gobbledegook !!

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

** The music signal is **digitised** so does not suffer from the problems
that * analogue* FM does when arriving via a compromised antenna or in a
poor location.




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

 

[Oliver Twist]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111787720.370885.304080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

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

Goodie, same bucket of crap in High Definition. Yippee.

Digitial TV (as with radio) has everything to do with marketing and
interactivity. $$$$... there's no need for it except to sucker more people
into buying baubles and trinkets they don't need.

 

[Phil Allison]

"AJ" = an utter dickhead

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?

** It is blindingly obvious - you cretin.

( snip more drivel)

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.

** Only rarely ( until recent times) did broadcast analogue TV signals
match the performance of good TV sets - program quality varied over a wide
range and only live to air material originating in the same city as the
transmitter was reliably first class. The rest, derived from analogue tape
storage mediums and over long analogue links was highly variable. Nowadays,
digital storage and digital signals carried over those links has put an end
to quality loss there.

Modern TV sets all have AV inputs - most have S-Video and Component Video
inputs as well - so that full benefit of a DVD player's enhanced picture
quality can be had. Most STBs have S-Video and Component Video outputs too
( even the circa $100 ones) - since they are capable of DVD grade picture
quality or **better**.

If a DVD player or STB is connected via a TV set's RF input the pic quality
is unremarkable - though as good as most broadcast signals. When connected
via the composite input there is a large improvement, superior even to good
live ( eg daylight sport ) broadcast. When S-Video or Component inputs are
used there is another, very noticeable improvement on top of that.

The quality "bottleneck" in a standard TV set is the combined effects of the
tuner, IF amplifier and colour decoding circuitry - which are simply
bypassed by using S-Video or Component Video inputs.




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

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:42469e39$0$10868$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kc5d415ridf5fejda2eg312a7dutkl6j23@4ax.com...
And which responsibilities are those?

Telecommunications,

How have they given that away?

electricity, gas, water,

Or those?

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:42469ef2$0$7758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
newsOu1e.13867$C7.4090@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Since when is aus.tv a digital TV forum?

Try looking up the word "forum" in a dictionary.

Why? It's irrelevant to the question.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111916714.038480.228740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
Of course it is but if you already have a good analogue picture, a
digital
STB is no substitute for spectacles or laser surgery

Never said it was. I can help SOME people that's all.

That's not what you said though:

"Even if you have a perfect picture on all or some channels, the digital
picture is so much clearer, so there is a benefit there alone, just ask
anyone with eyesight problems who have trouble seeing a normal analog
screen."

"just ask anyone" implies a lot more than some.

What part of SOME people don't you understand?

Since you've only just started using SOME whereas previously your claim that
digital would help ANYONE with eyesight problems I'd suggest that you might
do well to consult a dictionary.

 

[Kevin Hendrikssen]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Eey1e.14169$C7.2675@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:42469ef2$0$7758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
newsOu1e.13867$C7.4090@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Since when is aus.tv a digital TV forum?

Try looking up the word "forum" in a dictionary.

Why? It's irrelevant to the question.

When is digital TV not TV?

 

[dmm]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:51:20 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"dmm" <dmmilne_REMOVE_@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kc5d415ridf5fejda2eg312a7dutkl6j23@4ax.com...
And which responsibilities are those?

Telecommunications, electricity, gas, water, and many others depending on
state/territory.

We were discussing the electromagnetic spectrum which is defined by international
agreements and run by the ACA, which is a body of the Federal Government.
Some frequencies are reserved for military, police, emergency services, telecoms providers,
television, radio, satellite, amateur, and other services. The service providers and users are
required to hold licenses to use those frequencies allocated to them, however there are
some exceptions.

Telecommunications? well that is now Telstra, and only a part of the overall telecoms structure
in Australia.

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

MrT.