Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

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.

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.

over

radio

the

$$$ for

uses 8

Umm, how about feeding your STB into your stereo? All STBs have audio line out, and most these days have digital out too. No one would buy an STB just to get the radio, but it's a nice side benefit for some. Also, no one would buy an STB just for the online guides (ok, some may?), but once again it's a nice side benefit. The only sound I put through my TV speakers is my MiniDV on playback, everything else (DVD, STB, Xbox) goes through the stereo, MUCH better than the TV.

Some of the extra channels are getting used now too, although not nearly as much as they could be. Like the recent broadcast of the tennis had a channel where you could watch the tennis in a small box and the rest of the screen had real-time stats.

Dave :)

grossly

at

Almost all of them are brand new, and many come from offical dealers with full Australian warranty. Ebay is now a massive market for dealers, from one-man-bands in their bedroom to big companies with real premesis and staff who ship thousands of items a week.

Dave :)

analog

for

there'll be

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.

Dave :)

Most stereos have an FM receiver in them so it would seem rather pointless doing that. In any case the cheaper STBs usually have just one set of A/V sockets and most people feed those straight into the TV. If you want to use the stereo it makes matters more complex than the average person is interested in it being. Not only do you have to find/puyrchase additional cables you end up having to use 3 remotes just to listen to the radio. Most people like to be able to sit down, press ON and watch with one remote in hand.

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.

Leaving your other hand free for your 'other activities' hey?

see

for

have

rave

pretty

detail

this

with

an

originally

I have

about

digital

almost

picture

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.

Dave :)

pointless

A/V

Wrong again. Many of the low end STBs have SCART, A/V, and coax digital. That's 3 (count them) audio outputs.

additional

radio. Most

remote in

My STB is the same brand as my TV, so I can share remote. In fact the single power button turns both sets on and off. Very nice.

Dave :)

Yet plasma is heavily promoted despite this shortcoming

The government should never have its fingers in these sort of things...

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd do a much better job IMHO

"Who_tat_me"

** 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. ** Only those who have no stereo in the same room. ** Rot - once connected to the stereo it is left that way. ** Rot - one pair of RCA leads from STB to stereo. ** Rot - only one is needed. The STB one.

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

"Chasing Kate"

** What "things" are you mysteriously alluding to now ??

Management of the use of electromagnetic spectrum ??

That is absolutely and naturally and function of government.

** Again, you are not being specific and you have ignored all explanations supplied.

Deliberately - like any other stinking troll.

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

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

I actually tape most of the TV I watch, often in LP to fit it all in, so I gain nothing except the hassle of having to plug in an STB and figure out how to programme it to timerecord with the VCR, and sort out how to have the whole set up work with Foxtel and my DVD player as well.

If I want to watch a movie I am better off to hire it for $4 on DVD and watch the film without ads when I want to watch it.

Since the household has 2 TVs and 3 VCRs in operation it would need 5 STBs or new appliances with digital tuners just to get rid of analogue.

And that's just to get what I get now. To benefit from the improved quality and sound of HD you need STBs that cost more than $100, a widescreen TV and a surround sound applifier and speakers.

After all that if I want to watch a movie I am still better of paying $4 to hire the DVD and watch it without ads, watermarks, trailers and promos when ever I want to.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing for a lot of expense and hassle. Which is why it failed to take off.

The only place with rapid uptake of digital has been the UK where they mandated a simple low resolution medium-width picture as standard. They ensured that the STBs were compatible across Pay TV and FTA. Even then they screwed up by not having the security on terrestrial Pay strong enough.

Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were prepared to pay a lot for it. Colour TV is the most most sucessful introduction of new broadcast technology. It was also fully compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it up.

dewatf.

That is what I was alluding to?

Why should the government be in control of it and not a private independant industry body????

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.....

Legislative junking?????

Care to explain please?

What was junked by legislation?

but

Phil is quite right, you can pick up a perfectly good stb for $100. It can render a nice picture from something totally unwatchable on analogue ( ABC on Sydney northern beaches ). If you lash out like I did, you can get a stb with hard drive for $299 - so you get a noticeably better picture and no more video tapes to buy. Of course you may just be rich, and happy to share your cash around.

Regards, John.

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.

Thirdly, the wider 16:9 aspect ratio can only be appreciated on a widescreen TV set and not on an analogue one. Most movies are widescreen (although usually more than 16:9).

Fourthly, the quality of digital TV can only be appreciated on a large screen TV set. On any set less than 68 cm (diagonal) most people sit too far away to see any fine detail anyway.

F> Chas>