No analogue switch-off until equipment is 'affordable'

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

<SNIP>It's the 40something technophobe who spends their evening down the pub that will one day switch the TV on to find no picture <snip>.

I take offence to that on behalf of all 40somethings who manage to get off their backsides and do something a little more social than stare at a screen all evening......

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by ntl customer

Call me old fashioned, but I've never been a fan of this new fangled digital technology.

....

The sound quality on DAB is far from good. It might be OK for a one-weedy-speaker kitchen portable but on anything else, the over compression really shows up. Nothing beats good old FM reception IMO, provided you have a decent aerial and don't live in the shadow of a big building.

....

Some people think that Digital is a step forward, but due to the way the technology has been implemented and deployed has been a step backward in some ways when it comes to its robustness, stability and quality.

Audio compression has been used on analogue FM from day one. The use it more on the stations that they think need to be more "louder" and punchy such as radio 1. All analogue radio signals are audio compressed to some degree because there is not enough bandwidth to modulate the entire frequency range and dynamic range without clipping/overmodulation.
The trouble with using tons of audio compression is that it doesn't fair well with DAB which is only encoded at a bitrate of 128k. I'm sure there is a very good technical explanation of it somewhere but basically there just aren't enough bits. The BBC have an alternative system to audio compression called DRC (dynamic range control) which was designed specifically for DAB. For some reason, they only use it on Radio 3,4,5 but not on Radio 1 & 2 which is why, on a decent system, 3,4,5 sound so much better on DAB whereas Radio 1 & 2 sound a bit too tiring or just plain odd for one's ears compared to their FM equivalents.
It is not so much the bit rate itself (the MPEG compression) but rather the side effects of the audio processing (the AUDIO compression) that they do before they encode it to MPEG.
Digital satellite radio on the otherhand is at a bitrate of 192k and does not suffer so much from the problems of audio processing (such as audio compression).

Just thought you might like to know that

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by zoombini

Te refer back to the question about 4:3 tv's. There are a great many people that prefer to have a square shaped screen, to be able to see pictures in real size rather than compressed.

Myself, I prefer a square 28" TV to a widescreen one any day, I can see an awful lot more as the picture is bigger, superb for gaming.

Somehow I dont think that little extra at the sides that I'm supposed to get on a widescreen is worth it.

Thinking laterally () the little bit extra that you get top and bottom is even less worth sticking with 4:3.
I think the general idea of widescreen is that it is more like our natural field of view. Our eyes do not see things in 4:3. We see things in "widescreen". Nothing much happens in the extended top and bottom of our normal field of view except sky and grass (or ceiling and carpet).
Cinema has been using widescreen since before you were born so there must be some proven mileage in it. .
Put your hands to the sides of your face and make some temporary blinkers and you'll see that you start moving your head from side to side because you want to see more to the left and right. Then make some blinkers for top and bottom and you'll see that it does not really affect your view of the world too much and you need to move your head no more than you would normally do (unless you paint lamposts for a living ).
Of course, this argument only stands up if the majority of programmes are actually created in widescreen and if people have some sense of viewing discipline. I get so sick of seeing people watching a 4:3 program in "forced widescreen" mode where everyone looks short and fat headed.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

<snip>I get so sick of seeing people watching a 4:3 program in "forced widescreen" mode where everyone looks short and fat headed.

That's why I hate it so much.....

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Oi! I never said 'all OAPs are confused' - I said 'a lot of confused OAPs are going to find they have no TV' - that's completely different!

As a matter of fact Mrs T's grandfather (aged 85-ish) builds PCs for a hobby, so he certainly isn't confused. Other OAPs do find new technology to be confusing and intimidating. It is not ageist to make statements of fact like this.

I also think that a lot of the older generation probably tend to question the actual benefits over what they already have rather than just jumping on the bandwagon. I asked my elderly mother if she would like a freeview STB for her birthday but she quite rightly said that there is enough junk on TV and would not want to be subejected to more of it.
There is a life beyond tele? Apparently so.

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by orangebird

That's why I hate it so much.....

That's the operator not the technology that's at fault.

Originally Posted by Flubflow

That's the operator not the technology that's at fault.

ermmm its the TV that decides how to stretch it.

Cheap widescreen TV's dont do a good job of it, however better quality TV's do a reasonable job. In fact the only time i realise that mine is stretching the picture is when theres a ticker scrolling horizontally across the screen as it speeds up at the edges of the screen

Originally Posted by Flubflow

I also think that a lot of the older generation probably tend to question the actual benefits over what they already have rather than just jumping on the bandwagon.

Your spot on there. I wonder how many younger people will go and buy a new slim PS2 when they already have a perfectly good PS2.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by gary_580

ermmm its the TV that decides how to stretch it.

Cheap widescreen TV's dont do a good job of it, however better quality TV's do a reasonable job. In fact the only time i realise that mine is stretching the picture is when theres a ticker scrolling horizontally across the screen as it speeds up at the edges of the screen

But that's the point. My tv isn't rubbish by any means, and I see no point in buying a new one. Until everything is broadcast as widescreen, I see a perfectly legitimate reason for 4:3 tvs still being sold.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Your spot on there. I wonder how many younger people will go and buy a new slim PS2 when they already have a perfectly good PS2.

Not me - I've only just worked out which button on the joypad does what when watching a dvd...

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Don't try to wriggle out of it Chris. The statements that I quoted were ageist and should have no place on these forums. It is wrong to single out a specific group of people even though you try to justify it by playing with your words. It's like a rascist who put a notice on his bus in America some years ago that said "this bus is for whites" and tried to justify this by saying that this didn't mean that it was only for whites.

Oh get off your bike and get real.

Taking several OAPs that I know, One of them can write programs in C and is not phased by anything technical but the rest are confused by things such as the video recorder and cable TV etc. It is not slagging off old people in general. It is merely a factual observation that statisically many old people are less technically minded and are more likely to be resistent to change Mentally, the very young and the the very old prefer stability and routine. That is not ageist. It is an absolute fact. The old person who always embraces new technologies without fear or problems is a distinct minority.

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by orangebird

But that's the point. My tv isn't rubbish by any means, and I see no point in buying a new one. Until everything is broadcast as widescreen, I see a perfectly legitimate reason for 4:3 tvs still being sold.

I do respect that. I would hate anyone to tell me what I should have to like.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

Oh get off your bike and get real.

Taking several OAPs that I know, One of them can write programs in C and is not phased by anything technical but the rest are confused by things such as the video recorder and cable TV etc. It is not slagging off old people in general. It is merely a factual observation that statisically many old people are less technically minded and are more likely to be resistent to change Mentally, the very young and the the very old prefer stability and routine. That is not ageist. It is an absolute fact. The old person who always embraces new technologies without fear or problems is a distinct minority.

Being much older than most people on here I probably come into contact with more elderly people than most. I don't know where you get your statistics from but they are far from the truth. Of course SOME elderly people don't understand video recorders and cable TV but there are many people in every age range that are just the same. People don't suddenly lose their marbles when they reaach pension age.

Ageism IS discrimination but many people don't see that everyday comments that they make (such as the ones made on here) is being discriminatory. There should be no discrimination on grounds of age, gender, colour, religion, social standing, etc, but there is a lot of it about and I could quote many examples that posters on here are guilty of but don't realise that they are being discriminatory. There can be no defence of discrimination.

EDIT: Sorry to take this thread off topic to an extent, but some things get right up my nose. If anyone wants to say anything more on discrimination then I would suggest another thread may be more suitable.

[Gareth]

OK, back on topic, guys....

Back at the beginning of this thread, it was said that OAPs and those on low incomes would miss out. I think we've agreed that not all OAPs will be affected, but everyone has missed the other point raised.

I don't actually know of anyone on low income that doesn't already have a satellite dish attached to their wall (and they've all had Sky since it first came out waaaay back in the last century), to add to the old washing machine they're trying to grow in their front garden, and the knackered old car sat on bricks.

I have worked hard to not be a part of this social group, yet I didn't have Sky or NTL for many, many years and had to choose between 4 or 5 terrestrial channels. Those work-shy, good-for-nothings who are living on handouts from the state have been watching Sky Sports and Sky Movies for years!

Actually, that's not back on topic at all, is it

[SMHarman]

Actually I think Cable has a penetration than sky in the lower socio economic groups. Perhaps because there is / was no up front cost.

Though Sky have brought their up front costs right down these days.