I'm trying to hold back on the retuning until the last minute as I've got some radio stuff on series link at the moment.
With this particular re-tune, as it is only renumbering the channels (rather than channels moving muxes), if you don't re-tune then you still receive everything as normal, but on the old channel numbers. So in theory you should be able to re-tune at a more mutually suitable time.
I wouldn't care so much, but when I retune my PVR it forgets everything I've programmed in to record, which can be really time consuming when you have 20 items.
For the past few days every time I switch on the TV there's a great big message warning there is going to be yet another re-tuning on Sep 3 and various channels are being allocated new numbers.
Don't know what is different here, but I am not seeing any messages at all, not that I want them!
I have a TV, two PVRs and a DVD recorder and none of them are doing it.
OP I noticed something about your message that interested me. You say that some channels are 'poor quality'. I assume you mean in picture or sound, not that shows are bad.
I have a Freeview/Smart TV and all the picture and sound quality on every channel is very good indeed. I live in an area of good reception, being a bit higher up than the land around and not very far from transmitters. (It has drawbacks, e.g. water pressure is weakfish).
So I wonder if the poor quality is actually that you need a better aerial? They don't cost much, especially if all you need is a longer pole.
So I wonder if the poor quality is actually that you need a better aerial? .
Poor signal exhibits itself as break up of picture and sound, and random fragments of picture in the wrong place, poor transmission quality (owing to too low a bit rate) gives you a stable image, but lacking any detail, and fuzziness around the detail
OP I noticed something about your message that interested me. You say that some channels are 'poor quality'. I assume you mean in picture or sound, not that shows are bad.
I have a Freeview/Smart TV and all the picture and sound quality on every channel is very good indeed. I live in an area of good reception, being a bit higher up than the land around and not very far from transmitters. (It has drawbacks, e.g. water pressure is weakfish).
So I wonder if the poor quality is actually that you need a better aerial? They don't cost much, especially if all you need is a longer pole.
Not the aerials (3) it's the technical quality, programmes that have been fine on the main channels become jittery (Dave) or as on CBS Reality some programmes have 2 second gap between the sound & picture.
Broadcasters aspired to provide the best quality now it seems they want to provide the equivalent of VHS.
Not the aerials (3) it's the technical quality, programmes that have been fine on the main channels become jittery (Dave) or as on CBS Reality some programmes have 2 second gap between the sound & picture.
Broadcasters aspired to provide the best quality now it seems they want to provide the equivalent of VHS.
Dave is on the same multiplex as Sky News and CBS Reality is on the same multiplex as ITV3. so if Sky News and ITV 3 are ok there is no problem with your aerials, it's them, not you. If Sky News and ITV 3 are poor (they both can be soft but not jittery or out of lip sync) then you may well have a problem.
The channels you are complaining about are run on a budget for maximum profit, they have no pretensions of quality at all.
You're joking, right ? some of the channels are at abysmally low bit rates, and look terrible (unless you're viewing on a 3 inch screen).
BBC SD channels are OK, ITV1 C4 so so, but the only decent quality transmissions are the HD channels
Poor signal exhibits itself as break up of picture and sound, and random fragments of picture in the wrong place, poor transmission quality (owing to too low a bit rate) gives you a stable image, but lacking any detail, and fuzziness around the detail
No increase of received signal will make any difference, or make up for insufficient bit rates
I agree with a lot of what you have said, however you have omitted a 'big factor'
The TV being used and the set-top box
Most people complaining of poor picture quality are usually using a 40" Freeview TV which cost £199 from Argos, they make absurd claims of a DYNAMIC contrast ratio of 12000000000000000000 to 1, where in fact the STATIC contrast ratio is closer to 1000 to 1 (not to mention manufacturers using G2G for response times as opposed to B2W.
Then of course you have the inbuilt de-interlacing methods used on the TV or the set-top box, and the fact the pixel pitch on a 40" TV is about 4 times bigger than a 28".
Its could be the smaller channels like Tru TV trying to get more people to see them, By asking the big broadcasters to do a message on the screen for the name of public service.
Not the aerials (3) it's the technical quality, programmes that have been fine on the main channels become jittery (Dave) or as on CBS Reality some programmes have 2 second gap between the sound & picture.
Broadcasters aspired to provide the best quality now it seems they want to provide the equivalent of VHS.
Very true my dad repeatedly moans how bad Drama looks like with repeated picture breakup as they are not investing enough in it. It must be bad for him to notice but then it doesn't look much better on Sky.
There should definitely be a minimum quality level on Freeview. They could easily ditch some of the dross to improve the rest but unfortunately money talks.
They are not making way for anything new, the retune is enable a greater number of channels to be catered for within different genres.
Although as reported in another part of DS, a number of local muxes popped up yesterday, in preparation for (near) future local TV launches, so a side effect of this retune will be the addition (in those areas) of the placeholder positions of these.
TV is available on multiple services, and, phone and broadband are also available on multiple services, so that argument holds no water.
Why do people need to access high speed broadband on a mobile device.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of people browsing on handheld devices are doing at home, at work, or in a restaurant or pub or similar. Most of which have WiFi available.
People should stop being brainwashed by the mobile companies into thinking they need these faster services and thus being locked into a new more expensive contract.
This only leads the government into selling off the precious TV band, and for what?!
Many people when then use it to watch TV on a small screen at inferior quality on their phone.
4g makes more effective use of available radio spectrum. but i agree the quest for speed is ridiculous. mind you 4g is the latest privateers cash cow now the energy supply companies have been have been sorted out ...... ha! ........
dvb -t was supposed to allow large size single frequency networks ...... shame they didnt test that first .......
Comments
With this particular re-tune, as it is only renumbering the channels (rather than channels moving muxes), if you don't re-tune then you still receive everything as normal, but on the old channel numbers. So in theory you should be able to re-tune at a more mutually suitable time.
What will the 'great unwashed' do without their fix of propaganda, reality TV and soaps?
There will be riots in the street I tell you...
As others have noted.
I have a TV, two PVRs and a DVD recorder and none of them are doing it.
I have a Freeview/Smart TV and all the picture and sound quality on every channel is very good indeed. I live in an area of good reception, being a bit higher up than the land around and not very far from transmitters. (It has drawbacks, e.g. water pressure is weakfish).
So I wonder if the poor quality is actually that you need a better aerial? They don't cost much, especially if all you need is a longer pole.
You're joking, right ? some of the channels are at abysmally low bit rates, and look terrible (unless you're viewing on a 3 inch screen).
BBC SD channels are OK, ITV1 C4 so so, but the only decent quality transmissions are the HD channels
Poor signal exhibits itself as break up of picture and sound, and random fragments of picture in the wrong place, poor transmission quality (owing to too low a bit rate) gives you a stable image, but lacking any detail, and fuzziness around the detail
Extreme examples here:-
http://vimeo.com/videoschool/lesson/259/video-compression-basics
No increase of received signal will make any difference, or make up for insufficient bit rates
Not the aerials (3) it's the technical quality, programmes that have been fine on the main channels become jittery (Dave) or as on CBS Reality some programmes have 2 second gap between the sound & picture.
Broadcasters aspired to provide the best quality now it seems they want to provide the equivalent of VHS.
Dave is on the same multiplex as Sky News and CBS Reality is on the same multiplex as ITV3. so if Sky News and ITV 3 are ok there is no problem with your aerials, it's them, not you. If Sky News and ITV 3 are poor (they both can be soft but not jittery or out of lip sync) then you may well have a problem.
The channels you are complaining about are run on a budget for maximum profit, they have no pretensions of quality at all.
I agree with a lot of what you have said, however you have omitted a 'big factor'
The TV being used and the set-top box
Most people complaining of poor picture quality are usually using a 40" Freeview TV which cost £199 from Argos, they make absurd claims of a DYNAMIC contrast ratio of 12000000000000000000 to 1, where in fact the STATIC contrast ratio is closer to 1000 to 1 (not to mention manufacturers using G2G for response times as opposed to B2W.
Then of course you have the inbuilt de-interlacing methods used on the TV or the set-top box, and the fact the pixel pitch on a 40" TV is about 4 times bigger than a 28".
Cheap = poor quality
My Humax HD box doesn't retune itself, although in a way I'm glad it doesn't as every time you do, it deletes the recording schedule!
Early ones tended not to ..
but auto retune has been a part of the D book for HD devices for many years,,,
Handling recording schedules in any change is not straightforward and thus it is probably "safer" to delete them....
You could always go and help the Ebola victims if everything else seems too trivial!
Thanks for the info
Very true my dad repeatedly moans how bad Drama looks like with repeated picture breakup as they are not investing enough in it. It must be bad for him to notice
There should definitely be a minimum quality level on Freeview. They could easily ditch some of the dross to improve the rest but unfortunately money talks.
Although as reported in another part of DS, a number of local muxes popped up yesterday, in preparation for (near) future local TV launches, so a side effect of this retune will be the addition (in those areas) of the placeholder positions of these.
4g makes more effective use of available radio spectrum. but i agree the quest for speed is ridiculous. mind you 4g is the latest privateers cash cow now the energy supply companies have been have been sorted out ...... ha! ........
dvb -t was supposed to allow large size single frequency networks ...... shame they didnt test that first .......
They did BUT ... The economics of DSO was that it is cheaper for the country at large to retain the domestic grouped antennas which meant a MFN .....
At DSO 2 when antennas will need to be replaced may mean that more SFN s need to be implemented.