TV Home Forum

Analogue Switch Off

Vote: How long till the Country is Digital? (February 2004)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BC
broadband cowboy
The question remains - are you happy with the quality of digital tv - those who viewed the rugby on the weekend and compared analogue with digital ( especially on s4c - low bit rate ) will know the answer to that one . If you're not happy there's only one answer - keep your analogue and tell the government to pi ss off , digital can't hold a candle to analogue at the moment , and until they can bring in a compression system that looks the same as analogue under exacting conditions with a 4Mb/s bit rate they can put analogue where the monkey sticks his nuts. Evil or Very Mad
CO
Corin
We all know that people in Greater London are much more technologically advanced and knowledgeable compared to the great unwashed (and mainly uneducated) peasants living out in the provinces.

Therefore, the government should take a bold move and turn off Crystal Palace analog transmissions first, where the removal of analog transmissions would be negligible due to most people already having a digital set top box, digital cable, or digital satellite, or the economic means to make the changeover.
BC
broadband cowboy
Corin posted:
We all know that people in Greater London are much more technologically advanced and knowledgeable compared to the great unwashed (and mainly uneducated) peasants living out in the provinces..


If they think that digital is superior then they (and you ) are talking out of your backsides. Determination by inspection ( and I don't mean your backside by that , but carry on if you must ) proves that it's not. Everyone knows that the great unwashed ( quite a lot in London judging by the smell last time I was there ) would not know quality if it kicked them up the backside. An ars ehole is an ars ehole wherever he/she lives - as your eloquent posts proves beyond all doubt. Go get a technical education .
MN
MarkN Founding member
If analogue transmissions were switched off, then:

1. There would be more space for digital multiplexes.
2. Therefore, the existing channels could be spread across the new space available.
3. Fewer channels to a multiplex = a lower ratio of compression can be used = potentially higher quality.
MN
MarkN Founding member
broadband cowboy posted:
Corin posted:
We all know that people in Greater London are much more technologically advanced and knowledgeable compared to the great unwashed (and mainly uneducated) peasants living out in the provinces..


If they think that digital is superior then they (and you ) are talking out of your backsides. Determination by inspection ( and I don't mean your backside by that , but carry on if you must ) proves that it's not. Everyone knows that the great unwashed ( quite a lot in London judging by the smell last time I was there ) would not know quality if it kicked them up the backside. An ars ehole is an ars ehole wherever he/she lives - as your eloquent posts proves beyond all doubt. Go get a technical education .


Please contact your local further education college, and ask them whether they do a course on "how to spot sarcasm, irony and other forms of wit".
BC
broadband cowboy
MarkN posted:
If analogue transmissions were switched off, then:

1. There would be more space for digital multiplexes.
2. Therefore, the existing channels could be spread across the new space available.
3. Fewer channels to a multiplex = a lower ratio of compression can be used = potentially higher quality.


If you believe that .............................
BC
broadband cowboy
MarkN posted:
broadband cowboy posted:
Corin posted:
We all know that people in Greater London are much more technologically advanced and knowledgeable compared to the great unwashed (and mainly uneducated) peasants living out in the provinces..


If they think that digital is superior then they (and you ) are talking out of your backsides. Determination by inspection ( and I don't mean your backside by that , but carry on if you must ) proves that it's not. Everyone knows that the great unwashed ( quite a lot in London judging by the smell last time I was there ) would not know quality if it kicked them up the backside. An ars ehole is an ars ehole wherever he/she lives - as your eloquent posts proves beyond all doubt. Go get a technical education .


Please contact your local further education college, and ask them whether they do a course on "how to spot sarcasm, irony and other forms of wit".


Oh , sorry , I didn't know they had those things in London - they must be catching up with the rest of us then - I'll try and look out for it in future. Please feel free to point it out next time you think you've spotted it and I'll have a second look. Thanks very much for your helpful , instructive post . Most appreciated. What would we do without you ? Smile
BC
broadband cowboy
broadband cowboy posted:
MarkN posted:
If analogue transmissions were switched off, then:

1. There would be more space for digital multiplexes.
2. Therefore, the existing channels could be spread across the new space available.
3. Fewer channels to a multiplex = a lower ratio of compression can be used = potentially higher quality.


If you believe that .............................


Oh , gosh , sorry - I've missed it again - haven't I ?
That was more sarcasm , irony and sh it - sorry I mean wit - wasn't it ?
Silly me ! You boys in the smoke are too quick for me. Razz
CO
Corin
broadband cowboy posted:
If they think that digital is superior

But at least it is in widescreen (subject to program content), which means that people who have widescreen televisions can at least watch their tv shows without being subjected all the time to StretchyVision (tm) (because they refuse to have black bars down the sides of the picture all the time on analog).

And another advantage is the absence of ghosting due to multi-path interference which I believe is the bane of the South Wales valleys.
AD
Adam
Corin posted:
broadband cowboy posted:
If they think that digital is superior

But at least it is in widescreen (subject to program content), which means that people who have widescreen televisions can at least watch their tv shows without being subjected all the time to StretchyVision (tm) (because they refuse to have black bars down the sides of the picture all the time on analog)..


What's worse is when the TV displays in the the right ration - without the lines at the side. BBC News is awful - I wouldn't mind the whole aston being cut off but with half the text showing it's just awful.
BC
broadband cowboy
Corin posted:
broadband cowboy posted:
If they think that digital is superior

But at least it is in widescreen (subject to program content), which means that people who have widescreen televisions can at least watch their tv shows without being subjected all the time to StretchyVision (tm) (because they refuse to have black bars down the sides of the picture all the time on analog).

And another advantage is the absence of ghosting due to multi-path interference which I believe is the bane of the South Wales valleys.


That really is a lame rejoinder , you can have widescreen on analogue as well - palplus , d-mac etc. and multipath isn't a problem if you have a half decent aerial system. The problem is the cowboys who install the systems ( usually people who tell you how fantastic things are but actually know bugger all about it - and that's not sarcasm , it's heartfelt.)
Mad
CO
Corin
broadband cowboy posted:
The question remains - are you happy with the quality of digital tv

No, but the problem is not inherently the fact that it is digital, but it is the UK implementation of trying to stuff too many services on a multiplex at the cost of quality, just as is the case with DAB.

This problem could easily be resolved if the regulations were such that services on the multiplex were individually licensed rather than whole multiplexes themselves, which just results in the multiplex operator trying to stuff as much as possible in to maximize profits, exactly as is the case in the UK.

Newer posts