Digital TV: Why do we have to have it? - Page 9

Even many of the current PVR's have analog tuners!
I'm yet to see a DVD/HD recorder in the local shops with a digital tuner in
fact.
Copyright wars seem to be the problem.

MrT.

   You won't see one until there is a fast enough A/D converter to
handle twice the highest frequency you want to receive.

Why would you need an A/D converter to record a digital broadcast?

"Who_tat_me"
 "Michael A. Terrell"   =   straight from the  Florida  Everglades




**  Don't bother with it   -  just some Septic Tank trying to be a clever
dick.




............    Phil

???????????

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.

   Its really sad.  I've heard so much about the legendary Australian
trolls.  Is this the best you can do?  Are you back on you meds or
something?

   If you keep up this substandard trolling you will receive a written
warning which may result in the loss of your tolling learners permit.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:



Toll me more...

Apparently it was enough to get you to reply, which is the aim of a troll.
Personally I don't see Phil as a troll. An idiot? Most definitely, but not a
troll.

   Its ok, I'm bored with his juvenile attempts anyway.  I've seen
little kids do a better job at cursing anyway.  I was tired of a moron
on R.A.R+P who changes hi identity every couple days to get attention
and evade everyone's kill filters.

   I don't know what's going on with aus.electronics tonight, but only a
couple message headers for this group work tonight.  The rest don't
change when you click on them.  I guess the headers made it, but the
bodies didn't.  Take care and have some fun in electronics. :)

"Who_tat_me"


 **  Morons come to the above brain dead troll for post graduate lessons.




...........   Phil

Some (not all) STBs have timers to change channels. More useful if you have
a VCR with a "rec-link" function (e.g. JVC) so you don't have to set timers
on both machines.

cases.
just one
STBs to
Even if I

$490.

ago

Who cares how much something USED to cost?
Your case is exceptional and not relevent to the fact that for less
than $100 you can upgrade almost any TV set (and associated VCR) to
digital. 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

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.

Dave :)

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.



No it isn't. A lot of people have multiple TVs and multiple VCRs.



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.



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.



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

If theres crap on TV now with analogue not worth watching,
why watch it in digital ?

It certainly hasn't improved the quality of Television
Programming.

But just look at the huge numbers of channels of crap you can get !


Graham

Great,

1 - A program guide, for those too cheap to buy a paper
44-49 what a waste of air space and power usage.

With DTV, you get more efficient use of the existing spectrum - ie. more
channels in the same space. This opens the opportunity for more content, but
government legislation severly restricts what extra material can be
broadcast on free-to-air.

That said, from a consumer point of view, there is little benefit. Analogue
TV looks great on a properly-tuned TV, DTV doesn't necessarily look any
better, and the artefats that occur due to poor signal or poor encoding are
more noticeable

HDTV might be a great idea theoretically, but I'd argue that consumers would
have a hard time picking it from standard def pictures.

Until the content improves, I'm perfectly happy with soso quality. That
means I'm likely to be happy with it for ever.