TUTV viewers in decline

135

Comments

  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    psionic wrote: »
    The more one's and zeroes obviously the better it is. Naturally higher bit-rates and bandwidth is what will make the most difference. Considering the recording and editing suites are all digital these days, there's little advantage converting stuff to analogue only for the sake of broadcast.

    But it is the bandwidth that is the problem, Channel 5 is almost unwachable, I have a DVD recorder with a analogue tuner and I was using that to record the gadget show as it was far better than watching it via digital.


    Most things are recorded at a high bandwidth, so the quality is good until it is transmitted. It don't matter how many ones and zeros, it is still in steps. High Def makes it better, but not everyone got a high def T.V and not everything is recorded in high def.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,391
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    But it is the bandwidth that is the problem, Channel 5 is almost unwachable, I have a DVD recorder with a analogue tuner and I was using that to record the gadget show as it was far better than watching it via digital.
    .

    You must live on top of a transmitter. For many of us - particularly where I live in Norfolk - analogue TV signals still bring an awful picture. For those fortunate to get a Freeview signal you can soon see a dramatic improvement.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    There was nothing wrong with my set up. The only problem with analogue is that it is not in wide screen, but it is no impossible to have widescreen in analogue.

    I think people don't see or don't want to see, you be amazed over the years how many people I know that watch analogue T.V that have ghosting and they don't notice or the set up is wrong and people are short and fat on the screen and yet they don't notice, so how on earth are they going to notice if the quality of digital is good or bad?

    You saying that DAB is superb makes me wonder if you work for the government or a broadcaster, just to brainwash us that this digital thing is a good thing after all.

    DAB is certainly awful, thankfully it will be a long time before they turn FM off. I know very few people who have dab, the one reason is because our local stations in not on it, the other is because they are still expensive, and looks ugly. The people who have got them uses the DAB part for staions they can't get on FM, FM ones they will use FM.
    If DAB is that good then why are sales so bad?
    Yes, it is sad, but digital is her to stay
    I did watch T.V, I only gave it up in December, nothing have changed since then and if it did it would be worse as no doubt they have added more useless channels and compressed everything else even more.
    I also do visit a friend a lot and she have a T.V and I do watch some stuff there.
    But you are right I don't have a Licence and I have not watch T.V in this house since the start of December. I am still shocked that I have not heard from the T.v licensing. No letter and no visit.

    Anyway, not that it bothers me, but for people who uses TUTV, I hope it don't go under.
    If your comments on analogue or digital Tv made any sense I would answer. They don't so I won't. I will just refer you to my Link. I think they know more than you:-
    http://www.digital-tv.org.uk/features/switching-to-digital-tv.htm
    Try and understand it, I know its hard.

    Re DAB, it is Superb for me and friends around here. As I said it is a good area for reception. Why does that make me a government employee:confused::rolleyes: Other areas may be bad. I accept that.

    I tell it as I see and hear it. DAB and digital TV is fine here. Why can't you accept that:confused: Nothing wrong with our setups or eyes. I am talking about views of professional people in the business. One a professional musician with a very critical ear. He raves about DAB.(Here)

    I give up with you Noise. You seem incapable of accepting that others have different views to you. I should move to an area with good reception.

    Back to the thread. So far I am happy with TUTV. Early days though. I do wonder what the future holds as they have so many refurbished boxes on offer.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jmoo wrote: »
    You must live on top of a transmitter. For many of us - particularly where I live in Norfolk - analogue TV signals still bring an awful picture. For those fortunate to get a Freeview signal you can soon see a dramatic improvement.

    Analogue is great here as long as you have a decent aerial, it is no good having a tiny thing stuck in the atic, but you also don't need a massive thing. I admit there are some parts around here, certainly in the sticks where T.V reception both analogue and digital are not great.

    The digital signal around here is pretty low and to get digital T.V around here you need a wideband aerial. A lot of people I been chatting to that still have analogue are thinking about Freesat as it is less hassle than getting another aerieal installed.

    I went for a walk yesterday around here and went down a road I have not been for years and there was a big old VHF BBC aerial stuck on a roof, I bet they won't get much with that.

    Still nothing we can do about it, just a shame that people seem to think a high compressed digital picture/sound is better than analogue.
  • alboyalboy Posts: 245
    Forum Member
    slyfox51 wrote: »
    According to the report TUTV is in 400,000 homes.
    399,999 now that I've left;). I just couldn't put up with the high American content. But I am still left with the Thompson box, which now works wonderfully fast without the TUTV channels:confused:
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    slyfox51 wrote: »
    According to the report TUTV is in 400,000 homes.

    Subscription DTT is in 400,000 homes. The vast majority of those subscriptions will be to Setanta only.
  • stuntmasterstuntmaster Posts: 5,070
    Forum Member
    noise747 wrote: »
    Analogue is great here as long as you have a decent aerial, it is no good having a tiny thing stuck in the atic, but you also don't need a massive thing. I admit there are some parts around here, certainly in the sticks where T.V reception both analogue and digital are not great.

    The digital signal around here is pretty low and to get digital T.V around here you need a wideband aerial. A lot of people I been chatting to that still have analogue are thinking about Freesat as it is less hassle than getting another aerieal installed.

    I went for a walk yesterday around here and went down a road I have not been for years and there was a big old VHF BBC aerial stuck on a roof, I bet they won't get much with that.

    Still nothing we can do about it, just a shame that people seem to think a high compressed digital picture/sound is better than analogue.

    thats because for most you can actually see the picture,

    its like this:

    watch an analogue snowy channel5
    -OR-
    watch a slightly blocky but otherwise clear channel5.

    what would you do if you had only that choice.
  • MatterhornMatterhorn Posts: 784
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    thats because for most you can actually see the picture,

    its like this:

    watch an analogue snowy channel5
    -OR-
    watch a slightly blocky but otherwise clear channel5.

    what would you do if you had only that choice.


    but thats not what he's saying though.

    A properly configured/calibrated analogue signal will produce a superior picture to any currently broadcasted digital signal. Ask any vaguely knowledgeable tv engineer.
  • MatterhornMatterhorn Posts: 784
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jonesyboy wrote: »

    I give up with you Noise. You seem incapable of accepting that others have different views to you. I should move to an area with good reception.

    pot calling kettle....

    the joy or irony.
  • Ray CathodeRay Cathode Posts: 13,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Matterhorn wrote: »
    but thats not what he's saying though.

    A properly configured/calibrated analogue signal will produce a superior picture to any currently broadcasted digital signal. Ask any vaguely knowledgeable tv engineer.

    BBC1 at a fixed 4.5Mbps in 720x576 takes some beating although it won't be around for much longer at that quality! :D:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Matterhorn wrote: »
    but thats not what he's saying though.

    A properly configured/calibrated analogue signal will produce a superior picture to any currently broadcasted digital signal. Ask any vaguely knowledgeable tv engineer.

    Not true anymore.:p When it was first released I would have agreed with you. Ask any vaguely knowledgeable tv engineer:rolleyes:, . Or look on the net.
    http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1245329&seqNum=4

    Use your eyes. Clever things the human eyes. They notice things. Freeview has improved immensely over the past 2 years.

    Being in the business, my TV was setup by a fully qualified Tv engineer and aerial by an acredited aerial rigger. I can assure you analogue is inferior to digital now. On my setup. Now we have 720p and higher. Are you telling me that is not superior to analogue. i think not. In a few years HD will be the norm. Sky HD is already setting the pace, followed by Freesat. My Humax freesat box on SD transmissions is superb.

    Finally your comments about Pot and Kettle are way off the mark. You do not know the history of Noise's posts.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thats because for most you can actually see the picture,

    its like this:

    watch an analogue snowy channel5
    -OR-
    watch a slightly blocky but otherwise clear channel5.

    what would you do if you had only that choice.

    Give up and not bother with T.v. We are suppose to be past the days where we accept bad quality, but it seems as loing as you get your 50 channels, it don't matter how bad the quality of the mian channels are.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jonesyboy wrote: »
    Not true anymore.:p When it was first released I would have agreed with you. Ask any vaguely knowledgeable tv engineer:rolleyes:, . Or look on the net.
    http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1245329&seqNum=4

    Use your eyes. Clever things the human eyes. They notice things. Freeview has improved immensely over the past 2 years.

    Being in the business, my TV was setup by a fully qualified Tv engineer and aerial by an acredited aerial rigger. I can assure you analogue is inferior to digital now. On my setup. Now we have 720p and higher. Are you telling me that is not superior to analogue. i think not. In a few years HD will be the norm. Sky HD is already setting the pace, followed by Freesat. My Humax freesat box on SD transmissions is superb.

    Finally your comments about Pot and Kettle are way off the mark. You do not know the history of Noise's posts.

    Who have 720p? Unless you got Hi Def sat, you don't get Hi-def on Freeview at the moment and you can bet your bottom dollar when it happens it will be so compressed it will not be worth bothering with.

    If you mean the so called upscaling, then that is a trick, a con. I have said this before, you can put information back in that is not there. It is not possible. Sure upscaling looks ok, but it is still not up to the quality of analogue and I* don't give a monkeys who put your system in. I know people in the video buinses I even know a BBC engineer and they all agree with me that digital is still not a patch on analogue and upscaling is a cheap trick.

    the same with DAB, again I know people who are in the music businese, in fact a mate of mine runs a small strudio and is a singer song writer and he complains like hell about Dab and how bad it is.

    I know a lot of people who are into thei video and music, I myself do video editing as a hobby.

    Even if you think digital is good now, you wait until analogue is switched off and we have no choice, they will compress as far as they can just to fit more rubbish in.

    TUTV itself must be compressing a lot as well to get the amount of data they do down to the box. the picture quality was not that great when I used it, I bet it is worse now. That is what will put people off, if people even care anymore, which going by this this thread it seems they don't.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BBC1 at a fixed 4.5Mbps in 720x576 takes some beating although it won't be around for much longer at that quality! :D:D

    BBC1 is about the only channels that is good. You are right it will all be compressed again, the same with DAB, that is why DAB is dying.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    Who have 720p? Unless you got Hi Def sat, you don't get Hi-def on Freeview at the moment and you can bet your bottom dollar when it happens it will be so compressed it will not be worth bothering with.

    If you mean the so called upscaling, then that is a trick, a con. I have said this before, you can put information back in that is not there. It is not possible. Sure upscaling looks ok, but it is still not up to the quality of analogue and I* don't give a monkeys who put your system in. I know people in the video buinses I even know a BBC engineer and they all agree with me that digital is still not a patch on analogue and upscaling is a cheap trick.

    the same with DAB, again I know people who are in the music businese, in fact a mate of mine runs a small strudio and is a singer song writer and he complains like hell about Dab and how bad it is.

    I know a lot of people who are into thei video and music, I myself do video editing as a hobby.

    Even if you think digital is good now, you wait until analogue is switched off and we have no choice, they will compress as far as they can just to fit more rubbish in.

    TUTV itself must be compressing a lot as well to get the amount of data they do down to the box. the picture quality was not that great when I used it, I bet it is worse now. That is what will put people off, if people even care anymore, which going by this this thread it seems they don't.

    You are as usual missing the point. I don't care if upscaling is a con. It works. You believe what you you like and so will I. I notice you ignore both my links. That back up my opinion. Thats all it is,;) opinion. Same as yours, even though you don't (Or should n't be) using TV.

    What I am saying is my system is properly professionally set up . I am telling you for the last time. In this area Analogue is poorer than digital. As backed up by my ignored links.Things have changed since the inception of blocky On Digital. DAB is also superb down here(As stated by a top professional musician BBC musical producer/director no less.)

    The whole thing , is personal opinion. You will never change nor will I. Goodnight and goodbye.;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 965
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jonesyboy wrote: »
    You are as usual missing the point. I don't care if upscaling is a con. It works. You believe what you you like and so will I. I notice you ignore both my links. That back up my opinion. Thats all it is,;) opinion. Same as yours, even though you don't (Or should n't be) using TV.

    What I am saying is my system is properly professionally set up . I am telling you for the last time. In this area Analogue is poorer than digital. As backed up by my ignored links.Things have changed since the inception of blocky On Digital. DAB is also superb down here(As stated by a top professional musician BBC musical producer/director no less.)

    The whole thing , is personal opinion. You will never change nor will I. Goodnight and goodbye.;)

    I have a TV with freeview built in and the picture is very good, my aerial was installed by a cai certified installer, the aerial was set up for optimum freeview reception not analogue, after all who cares about analogue when its being turned off :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    azimo wrote: »
    I have a TV with freeview built in and the picture is very good, my aerial was installed by a cai certified installer, the aerial was set up for optimum freeview reception not analogue, after all who cares about analogue when its being turned off :confused:
    I must admit i find it hard to understand why anybody would bother with Analogue anymore. All that snow and interference. it's going:D Thank god.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Deleted
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jonesyboy wrote: »
    You are as usual missing the point. I don't care if upscaling is a con. It works. You believe what you you like and so will I. I notice you ignore both my links. That back up my opinion. Thats all it is,;) opinion. Same as yours, even though you don't (Or should n't be) using TV.


    shows how easy it is for people to get conned

    What I am saying is my system is properly professionally set up . I am telling you for the last time. In this area Analogue is poorer than digital. As backed up by my ignored links.Things have changed since the inception of blocky On Digital. DAB is also superb down here(As stated by a top professional musician BBC musical producer/director no less.)

    I read them. someone from the BBC would say DAB is great or most of them will anyway because they are trying to force us to dab. Thankfully DAB is dying and maybe we can get rid of it once and for all. It was out of date when it was introduced, but then so was our digital T.V system.

    This bloke I knoiw says the BBC and broadcasters know how bad DAB and Freeview is, but they just like brainwashing people.

    the below copied from Wikipedia.

    , listening tests carried out by experts in the field of audio have shown that the audio quality on DAB is lower than on FM (given a perfect reception) in the UK for stationary receivers, due to 98% of stereo stations using a bit rate of 128 kbit/s with the MP2 audio codec,

    I suppose most DAb radios are small kitchen units, try a decent one on a decent hi-fi and you notice the difference. I listen to Classic Fm and dab is not a patch on Fm and Classic FM have one of the higher bit rates.

    Chucked my DAb radio months ago.


    The whole thing , is personal opinion. You will never change nor will I. Goodnight and goodbye.;)

    You are correct, I will never change my opinion, well not unless a miracle happens like we get more bandwidth or they get rid of some of the channels.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,252
    Forum Member
    noise747 wrote: »
    Thankfully DAB is dying and maybe we can get rid of it once and for all. It was out of date when it was introduced, but then so was our digital T.V system.
    Our Digital TV system was far from 'out of date' when it was setup.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    azimo wrote: »
    I have a TV with freeview built in and the picture is very good, my aerial was installed by a cai certified installer, the aerial was set up for optimum freeview reception not analogue, after all who cares about analogue when its being turned off :confused:

    What on earth is optimum Freeview reception? People seem to forget that with digital you get a signal or you don't. If it is too low you get break up, but even a mid range signal will get you a stable picture.

    Digital is different to analogue it don't get problems with ghosting because of its nature. My aerial was put up by my brother ( I don't like heights) The signal is pretty strong on digital and I don't get any problems when cars go past which is what so people have.

    It is like someone down the road had a call from some bloke who said they needed a digital aerial for switch over, we don't switch until 2011. thankfully they contacted me before they spent out money. after telling them there was nothing wrong with their aerial as it was wideband anyway, (they would not be able to get all the channels they get otherwise) and there is no such thing as a digital aerial.


    This person who called on them wanted £200 to stick a aerial up and put new co-ax.

    This is what we are going to get now, some cdon artists are going to come around and tell people they need a digital aerial and people will believe them.

    So a optimum freeview reception is just another con. the only thing that would go against that is if your transmitter have not be switched onto digital and the aerial is facing a transmitter which is at a further distancethat is switched on for digital.

    Still nothing we can do about it now, the government decided that we will all have digital if we like it or not, greed, just greed.
  • psionicpsionic Posts: 20,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    shows how easy it is for people to get conned




    I read them. someone from the BBC would say DAB is great or most of them will anyway because they are trying to force us to dab. Thankfully DAB is dying and maybe we can get rid of it once and for all. It was out of date when it was introduced, but then so was our digital T.V system.

    This bloke I knoiw says the BBC and broadcasters know how bad DAB and Freeview is, but they just like brainwashing people.

    the below copied from Wikipedia.

    , listening tests carried out by experts in the field of audio have shown that the audio quality on DAB is lower than on FM (given a perfect reception) in the UK for stationary receivers, due to 98% of stereo stations using a bit rate of 128 kbit/s with the MP2 audio codec,


    You are correct, I will never change my opinion, well not unless a miracle happens like we get more bandwidth or they get rid of some of the channels.

    Actually on this point I entirely agree. DAB is usually transmitted at too low a bandwidth and not even in stereo in some cases! FM with perfect reception is far superior in this case. :(
  • jam2000jam2000 Posts: 3,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    shows how easy it is for people to get conned




    I read them. someone from the BBC would say DAB is great or most of them will anyway because they are trying to force us to dab. Thankfully DAB is dying and maybe we can get rid of it once and for all. It was out of date when it was introduced, but then so was our digital T.V system.

    This bloke I knoiw says the BBC and broadcasters know how bad DAB and Freeview is, but they just like brainwashing people.

    the below copied from Wikipedia.

    , listening tests carried out by experts in the field of audio have shown that the audio quality on DAB is lower than on FM (given a perfect reception) in the UK for stationary receivers, due to 98% of stereo stations using a bit rate of 128 kbit/s with the MP2 audio codec,


    You are correct, I will never change my opinion, well not unless a miracle happens like we get more bandwidth or they get rid of some of the channels.

    Yes but how many get perfect 100% FM reception! you need one decent outdoor FM aerial in order to do this. So in the vast majority of cases DAB will be better. As you can pick up DAB in a small wire aerial internally.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jam2000 wrote: »
    Yes but how many get perfect 100% FM reception! you need one decent outdoor FM aerial in order to do this. So in the vast majority of cases DAB will be better. As you can pick up DAB in a small wire aerial internally.
    Which is exactly what I am doing. In spite of what Noise says(Oh the iriny of the name):p:p, my DAB is crystal clear and far superior to any FM radio in the house.

    The same as digital TV. people can bandy about theories till the cows come home. The same applies to analogue TV. How many people have a perfect TV signal. Not many. In every TV I have seen recently Digital TV provides a far superior picture. I mentioned yesterday about 720p on HD only for Noise to try his usual putdown. Sky HD is taking off so it is in common use.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 965
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    What on earth is optimum Freeview reception? People seem to forget that with digital you get a signal or you don't. If it is too low you get break up, but even a mid range signal will get you a stable picture.

    Digital is different to analogue it don't get problems with ghosting because of its nature. My aerial was put up by my brother ( I don't like heights) The signal is pretty strong on digital and I don't get any problems when cars go past which is what so people have.

    It is like someone down the road had a call from some bloke who said they needed a digital aerial for switch over, we don't switch until 2011. thankfully they contacted me before they spent out money. after telling them there was nothing wrong with their aerial as it was wideband anyway, (they would not be able to get all the channels they get otherwise) and there is no such thing as a digital aerial.


    This person who called on them wanted £200 to stick a aerial up and put new co-ax.

    This is what we are going to get now, some cdon artists are going to come around and tell people they need a digital aerial and people will believe them.

    So a optimum freeview reception is just another con. the only thing that would go against that is if your transmitter have not be switched onto digital and the aerial is facing a transmitter which is at a further distancethat is switched on for digital.

    Still nothing we can do about it now, the government decided that we will all have digital if we like it or not, greed, just greed.

    The aerial was aligned for the optimum/strongest digital signal, the cai installer used a professional digital meter to align the aerial, strapping an aerial on the roof and turning it until you get a clear picture on 1 to 5 or using the meter within a freeview box/pvr is not the same thing as using a digital signal meter that cost £2000;)
Sign In or Register to comment.