Re: re Digital TV !!!OFF TOPIC!!!

["Andy Laurence" <andylaurence@xxxxxxx>]

> True. Digital Terrestrial is CAPABLE of really high quality.
> False. Digital Terrestrial currently gives a superior picture to
analogue.

.... ultimately.  It depends on how good the signal is in your area I
expect.
I get a *much* better picture with digital and as such never use analogue.

> Because most of the UHF spectrum is taken up with High Power
transmitters
> for the 4 main analogue channels (note Channel 5 is also very low
power in
> many areas), they have only been able to allocate 6 frequencies (or
MUXES)
> to each transmitter area for the digital transmissions.
>
> In a vain attempt to give viewers access to extra channels of crap,
the
> amount of bandwidth assigned to the channels is mostly inadequate for
a
> decent quality picture so even fairly minor changes in a picture can
result
> in pixelisation of the image.

I only notice pixellation on dark scenes.

> Another side effect of the extra compression is that the reduced data
rate
> leaves little room  for error correction and because of the limited
> information transmitted in the first place, the slightest interference
will
> cause horrendous breakup in picture and sound.

I have to say that the aerial/leads are very important.  I have a shared
aerial (until I finally move into my new house), and rarely get to watch
channels 31-37.  Reception is normally fine in summer though.

Andy
--
PC-Based Multimedia System
http://www.andylaurence.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pcbmms


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/