noggin's posts, page 307

Emergency Broadcasts

Not sure I agree. My parents and my in-laws have DAB or DAB/IP radios, I have more than one (bathroom, kitchen, main bedroom). I own a couple of analogue only radios - but they are now relegated to spare room/garage duties.

Main listening is to the online 320k AAC streams in the living room via Kodi through the amp (probably the highest quality source available) - but DAB does everywhere else.

Emergency Broadcasts

Not just the bitrate. Lots of DAB stations are now mono rather than stereo to reduce bitrate yet further (commercial stations pay for every "bit" AIUI) - presumably because most people are using mono kitchen radios...

I have quite a few FM/DAB only (some with IP as well) - but every non-DAB radio I have is FM/MW/LW and some also SW.

What could have made On/ITV Digital a success?

They aren't starting from the ground up (other than UHD stuff) - they need to receive the same broadcasts as Sky HD and SD boxes - so would need to use both encryption systems in parallel (which happens a lot in Europe where platforms have merged but not replaced receivers instantly) However this isn't particularly secure.

They may have introduced a new version of VideoGuard with new controls (particularly for UHD content) in the Q boxes, which needs a new card, or the ability to stream multiple channels from a single receiver (and thus the requirement to decrypt multiple streams simultaneously) may have required new card hardware (which can simply run faster)

Non-Q boxes only require one decryption path as they only output a single decrypted stream (which is decrypted on live viewing or playback of encrypted recordings). Sky Q boxes allow you to watch one channel live or a recording (same as Sky+ SD and HD), but also allow further channels or recordings to be watched on tablets, phones etc. which will require additional decryption paths. (The same may also be the case for the Mini Box - which doesn't have a tuner - does that have a card?)

Fox News chief to be removed

According to Wikipedia she's now a producer at Thomson Reuters - after working as the PR for a group representing American Iranians.

Mrs Brown's Boys - Live

Yes - Re-Speak is one of the main technique for live subtitling these days. Computer trained to one speaker - so it doesn't have to cope with the actual sound track of a show. Also allows for the re-speak person to sub a little bit. I don't think the BBC (or Red Bee/Ericsson) use voice recognition of the actual show soundtrack - if anyone has seen YouTube doing this you'll know why not...

The original live subtitling was done using a phonetic stenographers keyboard - and there may still be live subtitles also delivered using this method.

What may confuse people is that voice recognition IS used for recorded shows - but not quite in the way people think. For recorded shows subtitling receive a script electronically which they can then use alongside speech recognition techniques to automatically tie the right bits of script to the subtitles, and in some cases allocate speaker colours (on some dramas different characters have different coloured subs). An operator can then format, check and finalise the subtitles far more quickly.

UTV sell TV business to ITV

I'd be surprised if IVC continued - though it is sometimes described as a USP of UTV in these parts - is it really a USP for the wider public?

I wouldn't bet against UTV becoming effectively an ITV Northern Ireland operation, little different to ITV Wales?

Sky News 2015 new look

Yep - multiple layers of ply or MDF, offset so that you avoid joints in multiple layers in the same place. Helps to avoid it lifting too. Will then usually be covered with a layer of lino, or other floor covering, though in some cases just a coat of paint.

London Live

I'd be less worried about putting Vinten or similar peds in, and more concerned with putting decent cameras in. DSLRs are a joke in a studio. A decent cheap 2/3" HD camera would have been a much better bet.

Oh - and they could have done with hiring an LD for a day or two rather than a DoP...

What could have made On/ITV Digital a success?

No - some of the very early boxes (first gen ITV Digital Philips and the Pace DTVA) were rendered useless by a change with something before the 8k switchover ISTR. (Think it was an EIT thing)

International News Presentation: Past and Present

Horses for courses. Big advantage is the mic is a lot closer, so in noisy environments (or where you are close to PA) you can get higher quality audio (or have the presenter mics louder in the PA mix), and they are also in a fixed position relative to the mouth (so if a presenter is turning their head either side, they aren't moving 'off-mic')

Personals (i.e. lavs) are less obtrusive, and in controlled environments and simple situations they are fine. DPA-style headsets can be great solutions, where otherwise a handheld stick would be needed, and where personal/lavs would be useless. (And a stick isn't a great solution if your presenter needs both hands free - say for holding scripts/cue cards, performing a demonstration, cooking item etc.)

They certainly don't all work on cheek contact either - lots of them have foam or rycote-style wind protection available for them that means they don't have direct contact with the skin.

AIUI many variants are effectively small, lav-style mics that are just mounted a lot closer to the sound source (i.e. the mouth) than a lapel/tie/blouse/shirt/jumper worn variety, and thus the voice is a lot louder compared to the background audio. There are high quality capsules available that are also used for musical instrument micing - so quality can be excellent too.

London Live

Staff don't grow on trees, rent for a prime location in London, depreciation of facilities?

What could have made On/ITV Digital a success?

A few issues in my mind :

1. They used 2k QAM64 at low powers. This was a very delicate modulation mode, and on early receivers which had less-good demodulators, you could get all sorts of signal break up. (2k QAM16 was better and was what the PSB muxes used until DSO, albeit at 18Mbs rather than 24Mbs as a result)

2. They squeezed too many channels into too little bandwidth, using relatively early MPEG2 encoders. This meant picture quality was lousy (not just because of interference and signal break-up). Even with a perfect signal, the compression artefacts were terrible on some content on some channels.

3. The encryption was hacked wide open, so they lost a significant amount of income, as many viewers 'knew a bloke in the pub who could sell you a dodgy card' and were watching for free...

4. They didn't have as many channels as Sky, and didn't have the 'big ticket' channels in the same way that Sky did. Sky had the more desirable line-up and content mix.