Analoug Terestril and Terestril Digital

Muffin`

Muffin`

Muffin`

Caporegime
Joined
21 Apr 2004
Posts
33,237
Location
Bristol
Analog tele only had 5 channels but digital has so many more, why is this?
Does digital involve far less costs or have companies been hanging on for digital before they launch their channels?


edit, my Title fails, please fix :p
 
I hope 'terestril' was intentionally spelt like that :p

Analogue could be a typo, so i'll let you off there!

I think it's mainly down to the fact digital channels use less bandwidth so they can fit more in the allotted section of the wave spectrum than with analogue.
 
this thread has actually made me forget how to spell terestril properly
 
divine` said:
terrestrial


even though you were probably taking the **** :p
Click to expand...

no probably about it
charactertoff4vi.gif
 
So would then one HD digital channel be the equivalent of 1 analogue channel - in that we could probably only get 5 of them in the spectrum?
 
A good analogue signal still gives a better picture than a digital signal at the moment.

The reason for this is that broadcasters seem to have decided that digital = more channels, rather than digital = better quality pictures, so they've jammed up the available bandwidth with lots of low-quality stations instead (picture quality, not content quality, although the same could be said about the quality of the content, due to having to program for more channels!)

I would be perfectly happy to see 95% of the extra digital channels disappear, if it means we will get high-quality broadcasts. Even on an old CRT, digital channels look rubbish and you can see all the compression - I've yet to try to experience it on a HD TV!
 
divine` said:
I hope 'terestril' was intentionally spelt like that :p

Analogue could be a typo, so i'll let you off there!

I think it's mainly down to the fact digital channels use less bandwidth so they can fit more in the allotted section of the wave spectrum than with analogue.
Click to expand...

Are you the grammer police?
 
I think its been established the title is wrong... in the first post;) :p



ConfusedTA said:
A good analogue signal still gives a better picture than a digital signal at the moment.

The reason for this is that broadcasters seem to have decided that digital = more channels, rather than digital = better quality pictures, so they've jammed up the available bandwidth with lots of low-quality stations instead (picture quality, not content quality, although the same could be said about the quality of the content, due to having to program for more channels!)

I would be perfectly happy to see 95% of the extra digital channels disappear, if it means we will get high-quality broadcasts. Even on an old CRT, digital channels look rubbish and you can see all the compression - I've yet to try to experience it on a HD TV!
Click to expand...

It's not much better - I can see now why analogue signal through the TV looks far better, madness. Also that petition for Terrestrial HDTV would have been completely and utterly useless :D
 
Here's how I remember it.

older TV uses an analogue signal, similar to a sine wave, since this wave can fluctuate, and bleed into other wave on either side of it you have to put space between each signal or they will interfere with each other.

new TV uses a digital signal, i.e. 0's and 1's which are much less likely, if at all, to interfere with the next one so you don't need as much space between the different channels. you can therefore have more channels in the same space.

I hope this makes sense.

Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom