BBC Innovation

124

Comments

  • chrisjrchrisjr Posts: 33,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    that is slanderous nonsense. go read what i acrually said before exhibiting such ignorant stupidty.
    I know exactly what was said because I participated in several of those debates.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    BiB - That looks similar to the bits that he has posted here concerning Nicam, especially as each nugget of information is posted separately and some minutes apart (as if he is searching for negative views to paraphrase or copy&paste)

    I wonder if he actually understands any of it .......

    i fully understand how nicam works. it is a patticular adaptation of a pre existing compresson technique. used for the reasons i explained.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    back to dolby

    <off-topic meanderings removed>
    WHY????


    This is a BROADCASTING thread about BBC Innovation. Posting off-topic (rubbish) is not helping your case.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    the transient distortion of nicam made it useless for many things. ...... of course it was dropped along with analogue tv .....
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    ..... but the engineering claims are largely flimflam ......
    spiney2 wrote: »
    because people are fooled by money driven publicity machines
    I am not paid by the BBC or any contractor to the BBC to post here ....

    I do not take, without question, the statements of public relations operations or similar

    I report my own experience

    and continue to be insulted here.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    WHY????


    This is a BROADCASTING thread about BBC Innovation. Posting off-topic (rubbish) is not helping your case.

    no. completey relvant. anoter case of most people being entirely clueless.

    if you watch freeview with 2.0 sound, that is the sq system !

    pro logic refers fo decoder gating only.
  • dynamicsdynamics Posts: 905
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    the transient distortion of nicam made it useless for many things. ...... of course it was dropped along with analogue tv .....

    Except of course for distribution of audio to tx and to the home prior to DTT.

    This is comical:D
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dan's Dad wrote: »
    I am not paid by the BBC or any contractor to the BBC to post here ....

    I do not take, without question, the statements of public relations operations or similar

    I report my own experience

    and continue to be insulted here.

    what have i said that is factually wrong?

    if u made a huge technical innovation then lets hear about it ......
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    no. completey relvant. anoter case of most people being entirely clueless.

    if you watch freeview with 2.0 sound, that is the sq system !

    pro logic refers fo decoder gating only.

    You are posting off-topic again.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    im quite happy to discuss the facts. so far the only response has been name calling .....
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    autocue !
    if anyone wants to explain this response to me ........................
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    You are posting off-topic again.

    it is a comparable case so entirely relevant. if people think i got anythingwrong about dolby then they are utterly mistaken. the bbc is different because thats a large number of different unrelated things .....
  • dynamicsdynamics Posts: 905
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    im quite happy to discuss the facts. so far the only response has been name calling .....

    You dont seem to have a good handle on the facts and are taking things off topic.
  • dynamicsdynamics Posts: 905
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    it is a comparable case so entirely relevant. if people think i got anythingwrong about dolby then they are utterly mistaken. the bbc is different because thats a large number of different unrelated things .....

    No its completely off topic. Can you stop please?
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MattFilton wrote: »
    From German Wiki - As the program of the television station "Paul Nipkow" was broadcast on VHF, it was only receivable in the Berlin area. The range of the transmitter was 60 to 80 kilometres. Television sets were already, since 1930, in the trade, but still by hand and only in small numbers were produced. The devices, which were already equipped with a Braun tube cost between 2,500 and 3,600 Reichsmark. There were almost only in the homes of high Nazi party officials and high broadcasting Manager private devices. A private device such as Joseph Goebbels, Eugen Hadamovsky, Secretary of State owned except the above mentioned TV Director Walther Funk, the Chief Engineer of the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft and Ernst Augustin, Reich Youth leader Baldur von Schirach , Nazi air Minister Hermann Göring.

    yeah quite so. the bbc was in fact the 1st general tv service .....
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    it is a comparable case so entirely relevant. if people think i got anythingwrong about dolby then they are utterly mistaken. the bbc is different because thats a large number of different unrelated things .....
    Dolby is nothing to do with BBC Innovation.

    Simple as that.

    Yes, I mentioned Dolby Surround as Nicam 728 allowed the BBC and other UK broadcasters to transmit Dolby Surround encoded audio (BBC technology was the enabler). But no-one is interested in your totally off-topic dolby meanderings in this thread. So take them elsewhere.
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    im quite happy to discuss the facts. so far the only response has been name calling .....
    In a post you made yesterday, which has been removed, did you or did you not imply that the BBC somehow inhibited 'innovation' elsewhere?

    If you did, what is your case?
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dynamics wrote: »
    You dont seem to have a good handle on the facts.

    everytihng i have said is factually correct. i understand how all these things work in some detail. anf the history of telecom and how they originally invented ......

    audio range compression was a standard textbook technique well before nicam
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i am happy to discuss fact but so far its just name calling ......
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dan's Dad wrote: »
    In a post you made yesterday, which has been removed, did you or did you not imply that the BBC somehow inhibited 'innovation' elsewhere?

    If you did, what is your case?

    as far as i recall i sad that bbc innovation was zero. this is essentially correct.

    i didnt say the research dept did nothing. lets be accurate huh ?
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    if you made a
    huge technical innovation then lets hear about it ......
    only in the oddest mind does 'innovation' equate to 'huge technical innovation'.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    the mods are letting me post but it seems a waste of time. nobody is actually arguing on matters of fact.

    i will wait until they do. thereis absolutely no point in just namecalling. waste of everyones time. i will not respond to posts that just say "you have posted only rubbish" with no details.
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    as far as i recall i sad that bbc innovation was zero. this is essentially correct.
    this is essentially nonsense;

    you also implied that your perception of BBC behaviour inhibited 'innovation' elsewhere -

    this is what I asked you to present the case for -

    you have avoided doing so.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Dolby is nothing to do with BBC Innovation.

    Simple as that.

    Yes, I mentioned Dolby Surround as Nicam 728 allowed the BBC and other UK broadcasters to transmit Dolby Surround encoded audio (BBC technology was the enabler). But no-one is interested in your totally off-topic dolby meanderings in this thread. So take them elsewhere.

    i never said it was. you seem very mixed up.

    2.0 sound is essentally the sq system. whether analogue or digital or with/without various types of noise reduction and audo compression.
  • NilremNilrem Posts: 6,939
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    ranging was an established compression technique well before the bbc "invented" nicam.

    the tv version was only possible because of lsi chips. NOT designed by the bbc !..
    You are aware that a standard and method has to be around before a chip can be designed...

    IE you work out how to do it (preferably testing it, if possible with off the shelf parts*), before you make an IC for commercial production...
    Indeed it's one of the reasons things do get smaller, they work out how to put more parts onto a single IC

    It's one of the reasons there are so many patent pools and FRAND agreements these days, often a single chip can involve using tech from dozens of companies, ranging from entire sub sections of the chip (IE putting a graphics chip into the main chip), to small circuits..

    Indeed there are companies who design chips but never actually make them themselves, but rather licence their designs out for use either "as is" or for incorporation into larger designs.
    IIRC there is a UK company** who do pretty much nothing but design the main chips used in a very large percentage of the worlds smart phones (from memory pretty much every modern apple Idevice is built around their core chip design).

    So yes, a chip possibly made NICAM possible for home use, but almost certainly mainly due to the reduced cost, but it would have required the BBC's work to make it possible to design the chip... (you look at the specs published, at the design used in the lab, then adapt it for mass production).

    *Even discrete components like transistors, smaller IC;s (things like discrete NE555 chips) etc.

    **I think it was originally an offshoot of Palm
Sign In or Register to comment.