Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Who_tat_me]

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4246b240$0$7757$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"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?

Not relevant. aus.tv is an top level newsgroup for the discussion of all

aspects of AUStralian TV. aus.tv.digital was created for the discussion of
aspects specifically relating to digital TV in Australia. aus.tv.digital is
a digital group. The implication of the other poster's question was that I
was posting to a specifically digital group. I am not.

 

[Phil Allison]

"David L. Jones"


** Questions for DLJ.


1. What does a STB's pic quality look like if the RF out is used to feed an
old TV ??

2. What does a STB's pic quality look like if the composite output is
connected to a VCR video input so the modulator feeds an old TV - so the
STB's signal can be recorded ??

3. What does a STB's pic quality look like if the RF out is connected to the
antenna input on a VCR, then proceeds via its tuner, IF strip, video
detector and RF modulator to an old TV ??

4. How does the above pic quality *compare* with that obtained by using
direct S-Video or Component Video linked to a modern, 68 cm TV ??


The arrangements 1, 2 & 3 are COMMON when STBs are used with old TVs.

The dudes you are debating are likely basing their comments on the pic
quality of 1, 2 or 3.




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

 

[KLR]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:11:27 GMT, "Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote:

"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?

The average VCR picture resolution quality these days - it wouldnt

really matter much for most if it came from the analog signal, it
would still come out relatively poor

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"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.

You snipped the part about "A fully digital" It isn't all digital
unless you digitize the incoming RF without a down converter. You
can't do it on a computer at the received frequency. Is is defiantly a
limitation in the electronics. You need high speed A/D converter(s),
digital filters such as FIR to process the data stream and a lot of
support parts to output a usable signal. I've worked with a receive
that digitizes with a 90 MHz center IF frequency that was up to 40 MHz
wide. The receivers sold for $80,000 four years ago. They are used to
track satellites and can be configured for receive bandwidth and type of
demodulation FM PSK FSK QSPK FQPSK and others. The complete system of
multiple receivers at multiple sites can be controlled via ethernet or
internet. This is the L-3com/Microdyne RCB2000 and you'll probably
never see one of them, unless you have a very high security clearance
and work for the right agencies.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Phil Allison]

"Michael A. Terrell" = yet another utterly obnoxious Septic

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.


You snipped the part about "A fully digital"

** You bloody liar - that is a fictitious quote !!!!

It isn't all digital
unless you digitize the incoming RF without a down converter.

** Piss off - Septic Tank moron !!!

You
can't do it on a computer at the received frequency. Is is defiantly a
limitation in the electronics. You need high speed A/D converter(s),
digital filters such as FIR to process the data stream and a lot of
support parts to output a usable signal. I've worked with a receive
that digitizes with a 90 MHz center IF frequency that was up to 40 MHz
wide. The receivers sold for $80,000 four years ago.

** Piss off - publicly masturbating Septic Tank moron !!!

They are used to
track satellites and can be configured for receive bandwidth and type of
demodulation FM PSK FSK QSPK FQPSK and others.

** Piss off - publicly masturbating Septic Tank moron !!!

The complete system of
multiple receivers at multiple sites can be controlled via ethernet or
internet. This is the L-3com/Microdyne RCB2000 and you'll probably
never see one of them, unless you have a very high security clearance
and work for the right agencies.

** Piss off - you bloody obnoxious, publicly masturbating Septic Tank
moron !!!

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

** Take a wander down to the Everglades asshole - let some Gator dine
on you.




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

 

[Chasing Kate]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"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.

Anarchy??? Such as?

 

[Roy Wilke]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" = yet another utterly obnoxious Septic

(snip)

** You bloody liar - that is a fictitious quote !!!!

(more snip)

** Piss off - Septic Tank moron !!!

(even more snip)

** Piss off - publicly masturbating Septic Tank moron !!!

(yet more snip)

** Piss off - publicly masturbating Septic Tank moron !!!

(and yet more snippage)

** Piss off - you bloody obnoxious, publicly masturbating Septic Tank
moron !!!

If I were you, I'd go to whoever taught you etiquette and ask for a refund.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" = yet another utterly obnoxious Septic

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.


You snipped the part about "A fully digital"

** You bloody liar - that is a fictitious quote !!!!

It isn't all digital
unless you digitize the incoming RF without a down converter.

** Piss off - Septic Tank moron !!!

You
can't do it on a computer at the received frequency. Is is defiantly a
limitation in the electronics. You need high speed A/D converter(s),
digital filters such as FIR to process the data stream and a lot of
support parts to output a usable signal. I've worked with a receive
that digitizes with a 90 MHz center IF frequency that was up to 40 MHz
wide. The receivers sold for $80,000 four years ago.

** Piss off - publicly masturbating Septic Tank moron !!!

They are used to
track satellites and can be configured for receive bandwidth and type of
demodulation FM PSK FSK QSPK FQPSK and others.

** Piss off - publicly masturbating Septic Tank moron !!!

The complete system of
multiple receivers at multiple sites can be controlled via ethernet or
internet. This is the L-3com/Microdyne RCB2000 and you'll probably
never see one of them, unless you have a very high security clearance
and work for the right agencies.

** Piss off - you bloody obnoxious, publicly masturbating Septic Tank
moron !!!


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

** Take a wander down to the Everglades asshole - let some Gator dine
on you.

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

Don't you ever get beating off at the computer? This is the most
pathetic attemt at trolling I've ever seen. It wouldn't even rate you
as a .00001 on the Troll-O-Meter!

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[AJ]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:57:44 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"AJ" = what a dickhead
Thought that was you considering the shit you've been writting in this

thread. The sad thing is you actually make some very good and valid
points about the benifits of digital TV, but fuck it up with total
stupidity!

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 wasn't specificaly
talking about ABC radio, it was just radio, so you would be missing
many stations, so the orginal posters comment as to why the hell would
you run your radio through the TV?

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.

Again only for a channel that is sent digital. If its just acting as a

receiver for a FM radio channel then it does SFA

 

[David L. Jones]

Who_tat_me wrote:

"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4246b240$0$7757$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Eey1e.14169$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?

Not relevant. aus.tv is an top level newsgroup for the discussion of
all
aspects of AUStralian TV. aus.tv.digital was created for the
discussion of
aspects specifically relating to digital TV in Australia.
aus.tv.digital is
a digital group. The implication of the other poster's question was
that I
was posting to a specifically digital group. I am not.

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

 

[David L. Jones]

Phil Allison wrote:

"David L. Jones"


** Questions for DLJ.


1. What does a STB's pic quality look like if the RF out is used to
feed an
old TV ??

Not that great I would suspect.
Never tried it myself, as even my crappy 20yo 2nd TV has an A/V input.

2. What does a STB's pic quality look like if the composite output is

connected to a VCR video input so the modulator feeds an old TV -
so the
STB's signal can be recorded ??

As above.

3. What does a STB's pic quality look like if the RF out is connected
to the
antenna input on a VCR, then proceeds via its tuner, IF strip, video

detector and RF modulator to an old TV ??

As above.

4. How does the above pic quality *compare* with that obtained by
using
direct S-Video or Component Video linked to a modern, 68 cm TV ??


The arrangements 1, 2 & 3 are COMMON when STBs are used with old
TVs.

The dudes you are debating are likely basing their comments on the
pic
quality of 1, 2 or 3.
............. Phil

Yes, I suspect you are right Phil, except in the case of Who_tat_me who
doesn't even have an STB :->
Still ain't going to make any difference whether you get a $100 cheapie
or a $300 "good" unit though ;-)

Dave

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"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


--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Barry OGrady]

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

 

[Phil Allison]

"Michael A. Terrell" = yet another utterly obnoxious Septic Tank idiot



** Piss off - you sickening, obnoxious WANKER !!!

PISS OFF !!!!




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

 

[Phil Allison]

"AJ" = what a dickhead
Phil Allison


** Snip mindless abuse from a fuckwit.

** 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.....

** Bullshit - the poster ( "regn.pickford " ) who mentioned radio was
speaking of the digital radio channels you get from a STB - quote:

" 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 "

wasn't specificaly talking about ABC radio,

** 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.

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.

Again only for a channel that is sent digital. If its just acting as a
receiver for a FM radio channel then it does SFA

** 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.




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

 

[Who_tat_me]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111964193.229603.125570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"Kevin Hendrikssen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4246b240$0$7757$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:Eey1e.14169$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?

Not relevant. aus.tv is an top level newsgroup for the discussion of
all
aspects of AUStralian TV. aus.tv.digital was created for the
discussion of
aspects specifically relating to digital TV in Australia.
aus.tv.digital is
a digital group. The implication of the other poster's question was
that I
was posting to a specifically digital group. I am not.

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

The link you posted earlier had nothing to do with me though. As for me
posting to aus.tv.digital, if you try reading through some of the posts
there, you will see exactly why I subscribed to that group. It is explained
in the very first post that I made to that thread, not that it has any
relevance to this thread. I gather that now your arguments are evaporating
you're becoming a little desperate so you're reaching for anything that
might help you dig your way out of a hole. Don't bother.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"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.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Barry OGrady" <not@this.add> wrote in message
news:fvhe4119vstpku3gv7u1rgh3ivefi4e6bv@4ax.com...

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

At the same time, analogue suffers from ghosting, noise etc. I'd rather have
the occasional pixellation.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4246CAF1.584863EA@internode.on.net...

Who_tat_me wrote:
"Chasing Kate" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:42464F8C.59FAE8A1@internode.on.net...
Phil Allison wrote:
** Again, you are not being specific and you have ignored all
explanations supplied.

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.

Anarchy??? Such as?

It's not often that I agree with Phil but this is one of those times. There
have been several explanations in other posts that you seem to be ignoring.
I've given one or two myself.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"John de Stigter" <johnd@sydpcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:gfG1e.4485$Le2.30143@nasal.pacific.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?

Check out the links David Jones gave elsewhere in this thread.
Also, between all the major retailers, something suitable is constantly on
special.

Maybe in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane but not in the rest of the country.
There was one post recently from somebody who said his local Woolies has
cheap STBs all the time. My local Woolies got 20. That's all they've ever
had and they don't know if they'll ever get any more. A thorough check of
Lower Hunter stores found no cheap STBs available at all.