Posts by Nigel Whitfield.

HD is statmuxed

HD is stat-muxed at the moment, on the HD mux.

But I would imagine there are tremendous difficulties in stat-muxing together an HD service and an SD one, not least that both will be using different compression systems. If everything were in H.264 it might be straightforward, but on a mixed mux, it wouldn't be.

It's probably far easier to stat-mux SD services, and HD services, and then combine all into the transport stream to the transmitters - but that would then result in further inefficiencies, compared to having a separate T2 mux for HD only.

We weren't testing recorders

In case you didn't notice, in your desire to plug them, this was a test of set top boxes, not of PVRs.

It would have been a little peculiar to put a single recorder in there when all the others are just standard zappers, wouldn't it?

We hope to be looking at PVRs later, but they're even harder to get hold of than the set top boxes, right now.

Transcoding

Transcoding needn't necessarily add much to the cost of a box; there's a Dolby design, for example, intended for specifically this application, which can do the whole lot at - so Dolby says - a lower licensing cost than the individual components.

And it appears that some of the boxes have that design, or something similar; since the test was published, for example, Humax has confirmed to me that a firmware update for their box will add transcoding from HE-AAC. I would hope that quite a few of the boxes out there will be able to do this too, though we shall have to wait and see the response of the manufacturers.

If you have an AV system that supports multi-channel audio via HDMI, then again you should be able to get surround out of these units.

If every single programme on the HD channels actually used surround sound, and I felt that the majority of people would be connecting to a surround system, I'd have attached more weighting to the issue, and that would have altered the scores somewhat.

But as things stand, a lot of what's being broadcast right now is still only in stereo - I had to wait until appropriate programmes appeared on BBC HD to check the functionality of each box. And many people will be looking at some of those other features too, just as much as sound.

It's certainly an important issue - I'd have glossed over it if I didn't think so - but at the moment, may not affect a huge number of people. The awards are calculated based on scores, and those boxes that scored highest did so because of their other functionality, or ease of use.

Not much in it, frankly

When it comes to picture quality, I think you'd be hard pushed to spot any significant difference between these boxes, frankly. I worked through all seven of them in quick succession when I was testing the surround functionality, as well as longer periods individually, and I honestly don't think any one stood out as better or worse than the others.

In terms of picture quality, you will generally be much more at the mercy of what's being broadcast then of the performance of your box, and so when it comes to choosing between them then it will fall far more to those other points on which I concentrated.

I did point out ...

... that the results are quite acceptable in areas with normal levels of dirt, and it'll indeed do a fine job, even with cat hair and some of the other usual domestic detritus.

But had I not selflessly moved furniture and revealed the monstrous amounts of fluff lurking there, to see how well it coped with that, I'm sure someone would have been along to complain we didn't really put it through its paces.

It's not major ...

... but some of us don't have a receiver with HDMI; I have a rather older Yamaha DSP E-800, which can handle the six channel audio input for SACD, and then pass that on to my amp, or decode the optical data. And since I use a Harmony remote, it's not much of an inconvenience to have the BD player connected directly to the TV via HDMI.

The reason I think I - and some others - might like the stereo output is for when you are listening to stereo material (like CD), and want to cut one extra bit out of the chain, sending stereo direct to the pre-amp, rather than passing in through the six channel inputs of the AV processor. Admittedly that's a small thing, but since they've gone to the trouble of having the 'audio mode' that shuts down a lot of the video circuitry, it seems a shame not to go the whole hog and have a separate stereo output.

The DVD player I normally use for CD and SACD, a Samsung DVD-HD950, does manage both the six channel and stereo outputs. Perhaps if I'd never had them, I wouldn't miss them.

I'm fairly sure that, while the type of setup I have may not be that common, there will be a fair few other people who have a system that's primarily designed for stereo high, with something like the Yamaha on the front; sadly I don't think there's a modern equivalent, but it provides amplification for the rear and centre speakers, together with decoding.

Sure, a modern AV receiver with HDMI all the way would be good, but I suspect I'd have to spend an awful lot of money for something as good as my Naim stereo amp, and stereo is what I'm listening to most of the time.

Just ICQ

It's just ICQ numbers, because experience over the years of running the forum has shown that real users don't tend to enter an ICQ number when they register, whereas spammers often do.

And now, we have a note on the registration form that says "NB If you enter a website or ICQ no during registration, your account may be deleted as a suspected spammer"

The scripts that spammers use to automate forum signups, or the stupid people who do it for them, always miss that bit. Since the forum's for a product that's only usable in some countries, we also patched phpBB to require admin approval for people whose IP addresses don't appear to be in EU countries, OZ or NZ.

That got me a lovely ranting email from someone sulking because he had to be approved, telling me it was like "killing all babies, in case some of them turn out to be criminals."

Ease of use

Many RegHardware readers will probably find the features in these sets far too restricted for them, but some people might find a niche. For example, if the other half doesn't want the bedroom cluttered up with gadgets, a DLNA-compatible set means you could still have easy access to the porn collection. Pressing a button and selecting 'media server' to view the photos your clever partner's popped on the NAS is pretty simple to get to grips with.

Just as some people prefer a built in Freeview or Freesat tuner to what they feel as unnecessary wrestling with AV inputs and multiple remotes, even when that makes recording simple, so some will find even a limited built in set of functions simpler to get to grips with.

I would imagine that's a scenario familiar to any RegHardware reader who's tried to explain over the telephone to a less technically aware relative how to get the picture from their digibox to appear. Of course these aren't perfect, but there may well be some people for whom they'll do the job.

Analogue receivers are dirt cheap; it's probably easier to leave them in pan-european models, and some people out there will still be using devices connected via RF.

Over your specs

All the glasses that I've seen at the various technology demos are big enough to fit over ordinary specs.

Of course, that's also why they end up looking like something that an early 70s futurist might have come up with.

Ummm, no...

This particular box can't timeshift.

But the HD spec does specifically allow for recorders, and there have been quite a few announced over recent weeks (and a few on display at this morning's launch down at C4).

There are specific requirements, and more testing for recorders to get the FreeviewHD+ certification (and testing seems more rigorous in general for HD, perhaps because of experiences with poorly performing ultra-cheap kit in the past).

There will be recorders, including one from Humax, and they will be able to record HD. What's at issue so far is whether or not there will be the content protection included in the EPG data, which will allow broadcasters to prevent copying to other high definition media, such as Blu-ray; it's not a blanket ban on copying, but pretty much the same system that's already in place on Freesat.

Narrow beam

Narrow beam capacity is one issue for Channel 4 on Freesat, and indeed delayed the full ITV channel for a while, too.

The other, of course, is the persistent rumour that they receive some funding from a well known satellite broadcaster towards their HD service, and that that funding has strings attached. But in the absence of hard facts, it's just a rumour.

Old plates

The plates on my old DS are black with silver lettering; I've never had a ticket, despite the odd flash, but perhaps I've just been lucky and they don't have film in the cameras round these parts.

To begin at the beginning

or as in "spring, moonless night in the small town, starless and bible-black" ?

Orange

Orange has just introduced various bundles - see a story here recently. The best value is the business roaming data bundle, at £7 per day (plus VAT) for up to 50Mb in most Europe. In theory, once it's added to your account, then that's all you'll pay for any day when you use data, up to the 50Mb, when the usual price applies. So if you use the whole amount, it's 14p/Mb, and as long as you use more than about 3Mb, you should be better off than usual.

That's the theory; however, it's such a new option that when I used it last month, their billing system completely screwed up and charged me for 51Mb of data over 3 days at the full price, instead of just £7 per day - around £110 plus VAT more than it should have done.

If you think you've found a good deal on mobile data, check your bills carefully...

USB port

"For future use" is the official line; there's nothing I can add to that, I'm afraid.

No they're not

Sorry - there may be sets that can do HD in the RoI, but they cannot work with the UK system.

These are the first Panasonic sets released with the DVB-T2 tuner necessary for FreeviewHD.

They're alright

Quite; rural areas will likely never been popular targets for private investment, so all the Tory talk of competitive pressure will come to naught. They'll score their cheap points by getting BT to do something they would have done anyway. A few people in nice houses will get faster broadband, and everyone in unattractive areas will be stuck in the same situation.

But, hey, at least we'll be saved £6 a year each, eh? If we'd used that to provide services to people in poor or rural areas, they'd probably only have looked at porn or something.