You'd think... But then my first flat in London barely
managed to get analogue... I actually got a digital box in
the first place because it offered a better picture! A clear
picture that broke up once every 90 seconds was preferable to
watching fuzz and snow.
Interesting you should say that, I was thinking about this whilst watching
the footie on the TV the other day - our analogue reception is awful (and we
don't have a roof aerial where we are at the moment, so it's bunny ears all
round) and whilst the picture is awful, bar a few moments of static the
audio is quite fine. The contiguousness of the audio also helps with
tolerance - I can quite happily tolerate a poor quality video feed if the
audio's fine. Same goes for cinema - people seem to put up with awful
quality video so long as the sound's good (odd really, a strange
psychological thing which must have some link with the way our brains
interpret natural sound, and the way it introduces its aural coping
mechanisms when our eyes are starved of sufficient input).
Personally I'd rather have naff analogue with continuous audio where I can
gist the few words I miss, rather than have a lossy (moreso than analogue,
arguably) digital signal with squelchy audio and dropouts every so often. I
put up with it on my PC's freeview receiver, but I still find myself
wandering into the kitchen to tune in on the analogue set.
I think I'm a bit strange.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
