[David L. Jones]

: The ones on eBay are the SAME ones you can buy in the shops for grossly
: inflated prices.

Where do these STBs on EBay come from?
Do they come from disgruntled owners, who are glad to get rid of them at
any price.

IOW are the second hand or are they brand new?

Almost all of them are brand new, and many come from offical dealers
with full Australian warranty.
Ebay is now a massive market for dealers, from one-man-bands in their
bedroom to big companies with real premesis and staff who ship
thousands of items a week.

Dave

 

[David L. Jones]

That's like asking anyone with poor hearing whether $5,000 home
enetertainment system sounds better than a $10 portable radio.

Unless the reception is really crappy to start with and hard to see for
somebody with good eyesight, digital isn't going to be a benefit for
somebody with bad eyesight and even then it's doubtful whether there'll be
an improvement.

I don't have bad eyesight myself, so can't speak for myself, but I have
bought STBs for older relatives with eyesight problems and they rave
about the clarity of the STB picture compared to what I think is pretty
darn close to an ideal analog picture. They can now see stuff in detail
without their glasses, don't get sore eyes etc. So obviously it CAN
make a difference, and obvously you have no actual experience in this
area.

Dave

 

[Who_tat_me]

Who_tat_me wrote:
Umm, how about feeding your STB into your stereo?

Most stereos have an FM receiver in them so it would seem rather pointless
doing that. In any case the cheaper STBs usually have just one set of A/V
sockets and most people feed those straight into the TV. If you want to use
the stereo it makes matters more complex than the average person is
interested in it being. Not only do you have to find/puyrchase additional
cables you end up having to use 3 remotes just to listen to the radio. Most
people like to be able to sit down, press ON and watch with one remote in
hand.

 

[Who_tat_me]

I don't have bad eyesight myself, so can't speak for myself, but I have
bought STBs for older relatives with eyesight problems and they rave
about the clarity of the STB picture compared to what I think is pretty
darn close to an ideal analog picture. They can now see stuff in detail
without their glasses, don't get sore eyes etc. So obviously it CAN
make a difference, and obvously you have no actual experience in this
area.

Obviously I have more experience than you. I have 80 year old parents with
failing eyesight and they have lots of 80 year old friends. I live in an
area with a large aged population and I run a business that originally
started as a PC support operation but has expanded into other areas. I have
quite a few aged customers who I see on a regular basis, both in a
professional and personal capacity. Not one of them has ever raved about
digital TV and yes, I have shown quite a few of them the benefits of digital
while tuning their VCRs, fixing PCs, connecting Foxtel boxes etc. In almost
every case a marked improvement has resulted from an increase in picture
size, not from making an already clear picture clearer.

 

[David L. Jones]

Obviously I have more experience than you. I have 80 year old parents with
failing eyesight and they have lots of 80 year old friends. I live in an
area with a large aged population and I run a business that originally
started as a PC support operation but has expanded into other areas. I have
quite a few aged customers who I see on a regular basis, both in a
professional and personal capacity. Not one of them has ever raved about
digital TV and yes, I have shown quite a few of them the benefits of digital
while tuning their VCRs, fixing PCs, connecting Foxtel boxes etc. In almost
every case a marked improvement has resulted from an increase in picture
size, not from making an already clear picture clearer.

The problem with your argument is that it only takes one single case to
prove you wrong. I have several visually impaired people who contradict
what you say, so the clearer STB picture CAN help some people.

Dave

 

[David L. Jones]

Most stereos have an FM receiver in them so it would seem rather pointless
doing that. In any case the cheaper STBs usually have just one set of A/V
sockets and most people feed those straight into the TV.

Wrong again.
Many of the low end STBs have SCART, A/V, and coax digital. That's 3
(count them) audio outputs.

If you want to use
the stereo it makes matters more complex than the average person is
interested in it being. Not only do you have to find/puyrchase additional
cables you end up having to use 3 remotes just to listen to the radio. Most
people like to be able to sit down, press ON and watch with one remote in
hand.

My STB is the same brand as my TV, so I can share remote. In fact the
single power button turns both sets on and off. Very nice.

Dave

 

[Chasing Kate]

plasma can never look good., poor resolution poor colour depth and poor
shade rendering.

Yet plasma is heavily promoted despite this shortcoming

 

[Chasing Kate]

Because the government manages the country and it was the government who put
in place the plans to phase in digital and phase out analogue. Since the
government's plans aren't going according to schedule it seems only logical
that they should investigate the reasons why those plans are going the way
that they want them to so that they can determine what action to take.

The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

 

[Phil Allison]

"Who_tat_me"

Most stereos have an FM receiver in them so it would seem rather pointless
doing that.

** Not pointless at all - many folk find they have poor of no FM
reception, very common with the antenna systems is blocks of units. In the
same situation, a STB supplies perfect quality, interruption free music 24
/7 - nothing like it is broadcast on the FM band at all.

In any case the cheaper STBs usually have just one set of A/V sockets and
most people feed those straight into the TV.

** Only those who have no stereo in the same room.

If you want to use the stereo it makes matters more complex than the
average person is interested in it being.

** Rot - once connected to the stereo it is left that way.

Not only do you have to find/puyrchase additional cables

** Rot - one pair of RCA leads from STB to stereo.

you end up having to use 3 remotes just to listen to the radio

** Rot - only one is needed. The STB one.




............... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Chasing Kate"

The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

** What "things" are you mysteriously alluding to now ??

Management of the use of electromagnetic spectrum ??

That is absolutely and naturally and function of government.

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

** Again, you are not being specific and you have ignored all explanations
supplied.

Deliberately - like any other stinking troll.




............. Phil

 

[dewatf]

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me
picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

I actually tape most of the TV I watch, often in LP to fit it all in,
so I gain nothing except the hassle of having to plug in an STB and
figure out how to programme it to timerecord with the VCR, and sort
out how to have the whole set up work with Foxtel and my DVD player as
well.

If I want to watch a movie I am better off to hire it for $4 on DVD
and watch the film without ads when I want to watch it.

Since the household has 2 TVs and 3 VCRs in operation it would need 5
STBs or new appliances with digital tuners just to get rid of
analogue.

And that's just to get what I get now. To benefit from the improved
quality and sound of HD you need STBs that cost more than $100, a
widescreen TV and a surround sound applifier and speakers.

After all that if I want to watch a movie I am still better of paying
$4 to hire the DVD and watch it without ads, watermarks, trailers and
promos when ever I want to.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle. Which is why it failed to take off.

The only place with rapid uptake of digital has been the UK where they
mandated a simple low resolution medium-width picture as standard.
They ensured that the STBs were compatible across Pay TV and FTA.
Even then they screwed up by not having the security on terrestrial
Pay strong enough.

In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to $ 800 = about $4000 to $ 5000 today.

Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were
prepared to pay a lot for it. Colour TV is the most most sucessful
introduction of new broadcast technology. It was also fully
compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking
of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it
up.

dewatf.

 

[Phil Allison]

"dewatf"
"Phil Allison"

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me
picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

** So fucking what ??

The same STB will supply hi-fi sound to your stereo, a DVD quality pic to
any AV equipped TV set, eliminate ghosts, eliminate noise, provide extra
channels and work perfectly from a second rate antenna or in a poor or
fringe location.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle.

** Absolute crapology.

A $100 STB will supply hi-fi sound to your stereo, a DVD quality pic to any
AV equipped TV set, eliminate ghosts, eliminate noise, provide extra
channels and work perfectly from a second rate antenna or in a poor or
fringe location.

Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were
prepared to pay a lot for it.

** A STB will supply hi-fi sound to your stereo, a DVD quality pic to any AV
equipped TV set, eliminate ghosts, eliminate noise, provide extra channels
and work perfectly from a second rate antenna or in a poor or fringe
location.

All for $100 or so - not $ 4000.

It was also fully
compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking
of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it
up.

** You are a pathetic and really stupid liar.





............. Phil

 

[Chasing Kate]

"Chasing Kate"


** What "things" are you mysteriously alluding to now ??

Management of the use of electromagnetic spectrum ??

That is what I was alluding to?

Why should the government be in control of it and not a
private independant industry body????

That is absolutely and naturally and function of government.


** Again, you are not being specific and you have ignored all explanations
supplied.

Deliberately - like any other stinking troll.

Again I meant: Why not let private industry and an independent
body to handle and run things like digital TV and who gets what
and how the frequencies are divided up.....

 

[Chasing Kate]

$100 for an STB that when plugged into my 43cm mono TV gives me
picture and sound pretty much indistinguishable from what I have now.

I actually tape most of the TV I watch, often in LP to fit it all in,
so I gain nothing except the hassle of having to plug in an STB and
figure out how to programme it to timerecord with the VCR, and sort
out how to have the whole set up work with Foxtel and my DVD player as
well.

If I want to watch a movie I am better off to hire it for $4 on DVD
and watch the film without ads when I want to watch it.

Since the household has 2 TVs and 3 VCRs in operation it would need 5
STBs or new appliances with digital tuners just to get rid of
analogue.

And that's just to get what I get now. To benefit from the improved
quality and sound of HD you need STBs that cost more than $100, a
widescreen TV and a surround sound applifier and speakers.

After all that if I want to watch a movie I am still better of paying
$4 to hire the DVD and watch it without ads, watermarks, trailers and
promos when ever I want to.

Like the vast majority of viewers digital offers me absolutely nothing
for a lot of expense and hassle. Which is why it failed to take off.

The only place with rapid uptake of digital has been the UK where they
mandated a simple low resolution medium-width picture as standard.
They ensured that the STBs were compatible across Pay TV and FTA.
Even then they screwed up by not having the security on terrestrial
Pay strong enough.


Yep. Colour TV added significant utility to viewers and they were
prepared to pay a lot for it. Colour TV is the most most sucessful
introduction of new broadcast technology. It was also fully
compatable for BW viewers and didn't required the legislative junking
of billions of dollars worth of privately owned electronics to prop it
up.

dewatf.

Legislative junking?????

Care to explain please?

What was junked by legislation?

 

[John de Stigter]

************************************************ No, haven't got one. I
don't see any point in getting one because I get excellent FTA reception but
I prefer to watch Foxtel.

Cheap STBs are $80-$150
Good STBs cost at least $200

Prove otherwise

Phil is quite right, you can pick up a perfectly good stb for $100.
It can render a nice picture from something totally unwatchable on analogue
( ABC on Sydney northern beaches ).
If you lash out like I did, you can get a stb with hard drive for $299 - so
you get a noticeably better picture and no more video tapes to buy.
Of course you may just be rich, and happy to share your cash around.

Regards,
John.

 

[WDino]

Firstly, anyone who HAS to ask that question apparently cannot distinguish a
good quality TV picture from a poor one. The majority of the population are like
that. They are happy to receive any sort of TV picture. SO digital will not do
anything for them.

Secondly, they will not realise that they are actually reaping part of the
benefit of digital TV already. Since the TV stations began distributing their TV
programmes in digital, the quality of the TV signal sent out from the existing
analogue TV transmitters has improved enormously.

Thirdly, the wider 16:9 aspect ratio can only be appreciated on a widescreen TV
set and not on an analogue one. Most movies are widescreen (although usually
more than 16:9).

Fourthly, the quality of digital TV can only be appreciated on a large screen TV
set. On any set less than 68 cm (diagonal) most people sit too far away to see
any fine detail anyway.

Finally, digital TV is much more spectrum efficient. So more channels can be
fitted into the same TV frequencies. In Oz at least three Standard Definition
digital TV channels can occupy on analogue TV channel.
What does this mean to the viewer? Well, probably not much (except for the extra
TV programming) but for the stations it means that they are getting more value
for the money that they have paid out for their TV transmitting licence.
And of course. in the long term, the Government will rake in more money as they
will be able to sell more spectrum space.

 

[Phil Allison]

"WDino"

Finally, digital TV is much more spectrum efficient. So more channels can
be fitted into the same TV frequencies. In Oz at least three Standard
Definition digital TV channels can occupy one analogue TV channel.

** It is actually far better than that. Analogue TV signals cannot operate
on adjacent frequencies - there has to be a wide vacant gap equal to
another channel between any two stations. ( Chs 9 and 10 are separated by
ch 9A - which is to be used for digital ) So for the usual 4 analogue
channels to co-exist requires that another 7 or 8 channels be left vacant -
one above and one below each channel.

It is by the elimination of these vacant blocks of spectrum ( about 50 MHz
worth in each capitol) that new services will be made possible.

It is even better with the UHF band - with digital services all 41
channels can be occupied in the same area instead of the previous max of
about 20.

So, allowing 3 x SD signals per channel number results in a possible 123
digital TV channels on UHF !!!

Another benefit is how much closer stations using the same frequency can be
located - with analogue there has to be hundreds of miles of separation as
even the slightest signal from a distant same frequency transmitter produces
a visible image on the screen. With digital, the significantly stronger
signal wins out and no sign of the weaker one is seen.




.............. Phil

 

[Who_tat_me]

The government should never have its fingers in
these sort of things...

Leave it all to private industry to handle. They'd
do a much better job IMHO

You really don't understand how things work do you?

You have to have one overall control and monitoring body or you'd have
anarchy.

 

[Who_tat_me]

That is what I was alluding to?

Why should the government be in control of it and not a
private independant industry body????





Again I meant: Why not let private industry and an independent
body to handle and run things like digital TV and who gets what
and how the frequencies are divided up.....

Because there would be anarchy.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Chasing Kate"

That is what I was alluding to?

Why should the government be in control of it and not a
private independant industry body????

** Because the EM spectrum is an extremely valuable public resource -
you utterly mad cow.

Again I meant: Why not let private industry and an independent
body to handle and run things like digital TV and who gets what
and how the frequencies are divided up.....

** Because the Australian Government OWNS the frequency spectrum and MUST
administer it for the public benefit.

All users ( commercial or not) of the EM spectrum are licensed so that they
can be made to operate in a way that does not interfere with other users nor
is contrary to the public interest.

Private industry has self interest and greed as its only driving forces -
if you have not noticed.





............ Phil