Jump to content

hrh

Members
  • Content Count

    378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About hrh

  • Rank
    250+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
    here
  • Country
    Australia
  • First Name
    your

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To make a slight digression, the tech isn't the dud part rather, it's the way in which it is being used and presented to the listener, ie bandwidth and bitrates, better than FM but that is a whole 'nother can of worms which has been done past the point of death. I think that because it isn't the main method of promulgation - as far as the broadcasters who also have a presence on the FM and/or AM band go - they are not monitoring their digital off air as much as they could so they are not particularly perturbed if it goes awry. And because the number of listeners is far less than the other methods (AM, FM) the number of listeners complaining is also far less, if there is any at all (complaining that is). The other thing is that some of them at least make it very difficult to talk to someone or to place a complaint with regard to technical issues. As for the issue with regard to the initial post and then the follow up of the second it sounds like a transmitter problem. So do you complain to TXA or BA or whoever it is that looks after the actual site or do you try to submit a complaint to one of the stations using the facility?
  2. What is the plot of Dr Who for it to be lost? Is there a "Real Dr Who"? They/it regenerates to another body so the only part that can be called real is their memory surely. The physical body is just the carrier for that essence which is The Doctor.
  3. Yep. In all seriousness if it really is that much of a problem then call the station and make a complaint.
  4. Probably just part of the graphics program and seeing as it is in a very obscure out of the way place and that most screens would be set to their default over scan it won't be seen by most everybody. Stuff like that is just not seen to be significant or worth trying to do anything about it. If it is part of the graphics program, then to do something about it would most likely require a new program or a rewrite of an existing program both of which will be far more trouble as far as both time and expense than it is worth. (Think licencing costs for commercially used programs as well as the cost to buy -- they don't "just download them" wink wink nudge nudge) If it were, you'd have it there all the time wouldn't you - on every channel on every service and every input.
  5. Nup. Comes from the studio at TCN. The same signal gets sent to all the network transmitters. I could see it here in Perth off air. That's VITC and other code (teletext, supertext/subtitles and wide screen signalling plus other stuff) in the first twenty something or so lines of the picture that you shouldn't normally see.
  6. I've had a look and can say that it is part of the graphics overlay. I've seen what they call the clean feed and it isn't there so is in the graphics. As for the difference between the SD and HD, it should still be there on the SD but as I suggested maybe your TV is set to scan slight differently for SD or a few lines are stripped out in the down conversion for the SD. I haven't viewed the SD off air. On a similar theme you may notice that when the ABC does their supers on stories that the picture becomes cropped on the sides for the duration of the super. It is very noticeable when you have a screen that is not set to overscan.
  7. It could be something in the graphics overlay that has changed, which of course only gets used during Today and during pretty much the entire program but of course not the commercial breaks or other programs. I'll have a look tomorrow morning too. But having said that it seems strange that it would be only on the HD feed, as it is downconverted at the transmitter then fed out for the SD feed. Unless the downconverter strips some of the lines from the picture. VITC is what that is called. Vertical Interval Time Code. As you said it is very rare to see that now. It shouldn't be seen on a fully digital signal path unless the original material is/was on tape and the blanking didn't work the way it should. The digital signal chain should delete that from the viewable area. I'll stand (or sit) to be corrected.
  8. Perth too for the above. EON has been off for a while and MMM Classic has been on for a couple or few weeks.
  9. You don't want to "ration" the aspect. A slight typo? I think you'll find the aspect is 16:9, what you mean is select one of the scan/over scan settings so that is it is no longer visible. The dot will still be there, just not in the viewable picture. But none of this answers the question. As I recall STW used to have something similar when doing productions (news) from their studio in Dianella. It is just a characteristic of the camera(s) and is only seen when the viewing monitor/TV is set to under scan or full picture scan, ie not overscanning. If this "dot" has only just appeared, maybe they have changed something in their cameras or changed the cameras, both unlikely. Or maybe it has been there and you've only just noticed. The other thing is it may be there on the SD service too but your TV has a different scan setting for SD versus HD (and the various inputs) - mine does. And of course the other question, have you only recently started to watch the HD service rather than the SD one? Also, is it only the studio shots that have it? What about any of the outside or remote locations such as when they do crosses to reporters or the weather?
  10. The spin doctors are doing their usual, with the above quote from Mitch Fifield, not to be confused with the gentleman quoted below. A quote from tonight's Mediawatch; And Field also argues that the government’s claim of spectrum being needed to test 4K signals is a furphy: MATTHEW FIELD: There are currently no tests planned … The reality is that if we are switched off in December then our spectrum, which is mandated to be used for TV broadcasting, will remain vacant for a number of years.” — Matthew Field, General Manager Channel 31, Statement to Media Watch, 30 June, 2017
  11. I think that gets back to the Dolby versus non-Dolby discussions had on other threads. I have gone into the menu of mine (TV) and tweaked the various levels so that there is very little noticeable difference between the HD Dolby and the MPEG or other of the SD. Otherwise if left to the default settings the Dolby tends to be lower in level. But this is getting off topic.
  12. I have noticed that even between "stations" or is it services there is a very noticeable difference in volume levels apart from the digital/analog difference, and it isn't because of compression/limiting to provide the proverbial wall of sound - although it may have a bearing. I have noted it particularly when swapping between the local ABC to 6PR, but then it could just be a rubbish receiver .
  13. hrh

    Sound quality

    An excellent analogy methinks. We all have complained (haven't we?) about the varying quality of the TV broadcasts that some networks have palmed off as HD, and there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the use of MPEG2 versus MPEG4 for same. It matters not what the encoding is, if the bandwidth given to it is insufficient then the end result is going to show those limitations. The hardware used for the encoding can also play a part, but the greatest player is the bandwidth. I haven't as yet heard anyone suggest that the actual receiver is the culprit or is subtracting from the quality. I know of people who couldn't tell the difference between SD and HD, or even if the picture they are looking at is 4:3 stretched to fill a 16:9 screen and therefore the wrong aspect ratio (you may scoff as did I, but they exist). So too it is with the broadcast system that only gives us the sound without pictures there are those who would not be able to tell the difference between a good high bandwidth audio sound versus a bandwidth starved one with the ensuing shortcomings being presented in the end result. I listened to a broadcast a couple of months ago on one of the services which has a 48K bandwidth (therefore somewhat less for the actual program material) and could immediately hear the obvious lack of bandwidth in the high frequencies. I very quickly sourced my CD of the same track and it was so much better. Now that maybe a no brainer with that service using only 48K but it is still showing that the lack of bandwidth was detracting from listenability of the program. I would assume that the source of that particular track used for broadcast was also the same commercially available CD recording as I have and would therefore be a very valid comparison. I freely admit to my hearing shortcomings in that I can no longer hear very much above 14KHz or so (could be less as I haven't checked it lately), however I can still tell something that is crap from that which is not.
  14. Ahhh... yes I see it there. And as pointed out it is in the Digital TV section, nothing to do with digital radio. I was incorrectly assuming that the reference to was talking about this post on DRM, not a different old post on DRM. Very easy to confuse when there is no qualification of posts. Now, if we can only get a response to
  15. True and point taken, but to say that it is posted in a section which does not exist nor did it when posted is erroneous at the least - but I seemingly on par.
×
×
  • Create New...