 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:52:29 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmail com> did spake thusly:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>
> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
'Digital television is great it will allow many more channels to be
broadcast within the same frequency range' = money to be split between
four channels rather than just the one = the government scrabbling to get
more broadcasters to fill all these channels = really cheap television.
Oo four Shopping Channels, how did I ever cope before "Russia Today", and
where would I lose money if not for "SuperCasino" or "The Big Deal"?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>
> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
If we were still limited by analogue bandwidth to only 4 or 5 channels, I
fail to see how 99% of the rubbish channels that there are now would even
exist. The fact that digital allowed a couple orders of magnitude more
channels to be available IMO caused the average quality of progamming
available to drop massively.
Do what I do, simply program in the best channels, ignore the other 99% of
channels, and suddenly you can be back to almost a reasonable average
quality level.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> I wonder if you transmitted analogue at the power where digital starts
> to fail, what the analogue picture would look like? Where my mum lives
> they still transmit both, the analogue TV is transmitted at 500 kW and
> the digital at 20 kW...
>
Well yes, there still might be more power on the analog signal. What I
ment is that while digital signal goes either off or soundless blocks,
analog signal just starts having noice and even to very poor S/N -ratio
you still can know what's going on in the transmission (if you really
want to).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2010 9:18 AM, scott wrote:
>>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>>
>> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
>> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
>
> If we were still limited by analogue bandwidth to only 4 or 5 channels,
> I fail to see how 99% of the rubbish channels that there are now would
> even exist. The fact that digital allowed a couple orders of magnitude
> more channels to be available IMO caused the average quality of
> progamming available to drop massively.
>
> Do what I do, simply program in the best channels, ignore the other 99%
> of channels, and suddenly you can be back to almost a reasonable average
> quality level.
>
>
Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
**did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you
can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only
had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them
with specialized HD versions.
Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the
ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b)
you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10
channels 15 years back.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you
> can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only
> had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them
> with specialized HD versions.
>
> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the
> ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b)
> you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10
> channels 15 years back.
Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2010 1:35 AM, scott wrote:
>> In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal should
>> be as good as any other,
>
> Unless it is *only just* capable of handling the signal, in which case
> any additional interference (eg you put a new device or another cable
> next to the HDMI cable or receiver, a car drives past, someone turns on
> a motor, etc) and then it will stop working. I have never seen anything
> like this though, even my $10 5 meter DVI->HDMI cable has worked
> flawlessy at 1080p while being tangled up behind 100 other cables behind
> my computer and TV.
>
Yeah. Bigger concern if house wiring and splitters. Lot of idiots are
still using older 800hz splitters, when digital requires *at minimum*
1000hz, or 2500hz, if you want to have the best range (though that is
overkill, in "most" cases), and 90% of the houses are wired with coax
wiring that is about half the width of the stuff now recommended. By the
estimate of my cable company people, the wiring we have in the house,
just by itself, is cutting the signal by probably 10%. Add in a 30% drop
for two splitters, to get to my computer, while also running the TV off
of it, and I am still OK. Add in another, or some moron slapping in a
3-4 way, which drops it more like 25%, or worse, or a cable that's too
short, causing signal deflections, and you lose over half of your
signal, and even your digital cable box will fail to work, never mind
your modem.
It can make a difference, depending on local noise, length, if you do
something dumb, like making short loops in your wire, etc., or somewhat
thinner wires. It all can add up, but, its still not worth the insane
cost of the high end cables, when talking about things like HDMI (not
unless you have some serious need for that quality).
Mind.. This is also probably like the difference between buying
something that has a clear, "This much variance exists in the part",
vs., "You will probably be OK, but we are not even bothering to print
variances, signal loss per length, or other data on this cable, because
we just buy cheap wire to make it, don't bother checking too careful,
and for all we know it came from anything from a telephone box to a toy
car. Oh, and we don't guarantee that any of it is well soldiered, and
properly grounded either." The ones "with" that information stamped on
them tend to cost 3 times as much. **But**, they also fail 90% less
often, and cause less problems (you don't want to know how many cheap
splitters I have gone through, before they tore all of them out and
replaced them with ones that "do" have those specs clearly printed on
them). Cables.. are likely much the same. You get what they are willing
to charge you to guarantee.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2010 1:44 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
>> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
>> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
>> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
>> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
>> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck,
>> you can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all
>> only had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5%
>> of them with specialized HD versions.
>>
>> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
>> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
>> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
>> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick
>> the ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it,
>> and b) you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get
>> 10 channels 15 years back.
>
> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>
The US. Why?
But, I am serious. Yes, you have had some added, like the Food Network,
but 90% of the rest of the crap is new channels, tacked on by existing
broadcasters, as part of their big name channels. Some places they just
end up with goofy letter combos, which make it hard to figure out which
mega-corp, who has been making crap shows since the 70s sitcom era, they
belong to. They certainly are not "new stations", per say, just more of
them, from the same idiots.
This is one of the reasons they "bundle" them. You might be willing to,
say.. pay for the one where House airs, but not the 6 other ones from
the same company, which show endless garbage, which you have neither the
time, inclination, or remaining brain cells, to watch. Mostly the time
though, since you would have to run 150 TVs at the same time to "watch"
all the shit they think you want. In reality, you are probably paying
for what could be condensed into *maybe* two channels, if they a) spread
it out a bit, so things where not always on at the same time, allowed
yourself on channel to record, and spent the same few hours each day
actually watching shows. I.e., 800 hours of programming, per day, when
you maybe watch 2-3? Hell. Nuke about 50% of that, including all the
sports channels, and give me, assuming it still exists, something like
the Playboy Channel, or something, if you actually want me to watch
something. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>>
> The US. Why?
I think the situation is slightly different in the UK.
But sure, I'll go with your basic premis. There's a lot of free stuff
that you used to have to pay for.
(I don't know about you, but where I am, at least 25% of the channels
have "+1" in their name. Yes, that's right. They rebroadcast the stuff
again in case you missed it the first time - even though that was in
1970 or so...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels **did**
> exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an illegal
> satellite unit, to watch them.
Maybe in the US. In the UK we only got a satellite service around 1990, and
cable TV much later which still is not popular at all. The majority of
people used terrestrial receivers to get the 4 available channels via
analogue (they added a 5th, but bandwidth problems meant a lot of people
couldn't get it properly), and recently ~50 channels via digital.
In the UK, the only channels now that existed before digital TV are the ones
that came over from Sky, like Sky News, Sky Sports News and CNN and the
imported Viva channel (can't see anymore on the listings that might have
existed earlier). All the rest (the majority) were either added as
additions to the "big 4" analogue channels or created from scratch after
digital TV came.
The channel list is here:
http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Channels
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:42:10 -0000, Patrick Elliott
<sel### [at] npgcablecom> did spake thusly:
> On 3/8/2010 9:18 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
<snip snip>
> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you
> can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only
> had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them
> with specialized HD versions.
>
> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the
> ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b)
> you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10
> channels 15 years back.
As Orphi and Scott infer and state the majority of people in this country
received the free broadcasts only. Those I know who did have satellite got
those four/five channels plus others not affiliated with those
broadcasters and complained about how crap it was.
Now those same broadcasters are trying to take a lower budget (due to the
current economic situation) and pad it out amongst more channels. The BBC
used to just have BBC1 and BBC2 plus the radio stations, now it's also got
BBC3, BBC4, CBeebies, CBBC, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, and the shifting
multi-channel Red Button. ITV runs to five channels, Channel 4 has five,
and "Five" has three; and that's not counting regional variations.
Yes some of these were coming into force during the satellite and cable
pick-up times; but it was the digital switchover that really started to
spread things thinly for the UK.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
