Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding differences. However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC HD"?
> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a > simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes > delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just > that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding differences. > However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used > for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not > a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, > why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC > HD"?
Was Strictly Come Dancing delayed by 2 minutes on HD as well? It was supposed to have been live.
> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a > simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes > delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just > that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding differences. > However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used > for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not > a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, > why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC > HD"?
> -- > Jeff
As our old friend ****** *********** used to say; why use five words when one will do? -- housetrai...@hotmail.com "Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer, deserves to be." - David Thornberg
Jeff Layman wrote: > Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a > simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes > delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just > that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding differences. > However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used for > the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not a > copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, why > bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC HD"?
All programmes these days are played out from a server. In the case of BBC HD programmes, BBC 1 or 2 will receive their feed of that programme from one server port, via a downconverter, the BBC HD channel from another. Therefore the programme doesn't to be, and often isn't, *exactly* simulcast.
The BBC nations (BBC Scotland, Wales, and NI) also have direct access to the same servers, because often they timeshift programmes.
-- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
> "Jeff Layman" <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > news:hd8pue$gvp$1@news.albasani.net... >> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a >> simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes >> delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just >> that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding >> differences. However the 2 minute delay would suggest different >> recordings being used for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as >> the BBC HD channel is not a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme >> timings can vary. I so, why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not >> just "also available on BBC HD"?
> Was Strictly Come Dancing delayed by 2 minutes on HD as well? It was > supposed to have been live.
I'm not sure if this programme is live in the sense of being straight away, got a feeling it is 20mins late. Also Freesat HD of the programme not that much better than BBC 1 version, if at all. They have to put HD logo on so you know it is!
>> "Jeff Layman" <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:hd8pue$gvp$1@news.albasani.net... >>> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as >>> a simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 >>> minutes delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast >>> was just that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding >>> differences. However the 2 minute delay would suggest different >>> recordings being used for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as >>> the BBC HD channel is not a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme >>> timings can vary. I so, why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not >>> just "also available on BBC HD"?
>> Was Strictly Come Dancing delayed by 2 minutes on HD as well? It was >> supposed to have been live.
> I'm not sure if this programme is live in the sense of being straight > away, got a feeling it is 20mins late. > Also Freesat HD of the programme not that much better than BBC 1 version, > if at all. > They have to put HD logo on so you know it is!
I am assuming that my Bush FreeSat HD box is upscaling SD over the HDMI interface - it is certainly presenting itself to the TV as 1080i.
Given that, how easy is it to tell the difference between good upscaling of SD material and true HD material? Probably not as easy as telling the difference between native SD and native HD.
> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding differences. However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC HD"? > Because in the grand scheme of things, two minutes is pretty irrellevant. They are on in the same time slot , but they also can't start transmitting until the previous programs have finished so it's inevitable that there will be small differences in start time.
Yes , I know there's a schedule but a nominally 30 minute program won't always be exactly 1800 seconds and I think you are expecting too much from them.
-- Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away"
housetrained wrote: > "Jeff Layman" <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > news:hd8pue$gvp$1@news.albasani.net... >> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a >> simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes >> delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just >> that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding >> differences. However the 2 minute delay would suggest different >> recordings being used for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as >> the BBC HD channel is not a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme >> timings can vary. I so, why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not >> just "also available on BBC HD"?
>> -- >> Jeff
> As our old friend ****** *********** used to say; why use five words when > one will do?
Currently, 8 words are being used in the Radio Times - "Simulcast in HD on the BBC HD channel".
<jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a >simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes >delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just >that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding differences. >However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used for >the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not a >copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, why >bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC HD"?
1. Is it actually *claimed* to be 'Simulcast'? I haven't checked but ISTR the programmes are just listed as "also broadcast on BBC HD"
n...@address.invalid wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:12:56 -0000, "Jeff Layman" > <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a >> simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes >> delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just >> that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding >> differences. However the 2 minute delay would suggest different >> recordings being used for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as >> the BBC HD channel is not a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme >> timings can vary. I so, why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not >> just "also available on BBC HD"?
> 1. Is it actually *claimed* to be 'Simulcast'? > I haven't checked but ISTR the programmes are just listed as "also > broadcast on BBC HD"
Yes - see my reply to Housetrained above.
> 2. Does it really matter?
Probably not. I just associate "Simultaneous broadcast" with eg TV and radio having the same programme at exactly the same time (such as The Proms). I see that the term was first used in 1948! (http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/simulcast)
<jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >n...@address.invalid wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:12:56 -0000, "Jeff Layman" >> <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a >>> simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes >>> delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just >>> that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding >>> differences. However the 2 minute delay would suggest different >>> recordings being used for the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as >>> the BBC HD channel is not a copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme >>> timings can vary. I so, why bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not >>> just "also available on BBC HD"?
>> 1. Is it actually *claimed* to be 'Simulcast'? >> I haven't checked but ISTR the programmes are just listed as "also >> broadcast on BBC HD"
>Yes - see my reply to Housetrained above.
OK! I don't read Radio Times, was going by on-air references when a BBC1 programme is about to be shown on BBC HD.
>> 2. Does it really matter?
>Probably not. I just associate "Simultaneous broadcast" with eg TV and >radio having the same programme at exactly the same time (such as The >Proms). I see that the term was first used in 1948! >(http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/simulcast)
The EPG seems to set the correct times for each channel.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:12:56 -0000, "Jeff Layman" > <jmlay...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a >>simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes >>delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just >>that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding differences. >>However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used >>for >>the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not a >>copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, why >>bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC >>HD"?
> 1. Is it actually *claimed* to be 'Simulcast'? > I haven't checked but ISTR the programmes are just listed as "also > broadcast on BBC HD"
> 2. Does it really matter?
It does when you have the same progamme playing from different sources on TVs in adjacent rooms. The out-of-sync sound can be very frustrating to hear in the background.
>>>Last week there was a programme (I can't remember which) transmitted as a >>>simulcast. I was surprised to see that the HD prog was nearly 2 minutes >>>delayed compared to the SD. I'd always assumed that a simulcast was just >>>that, with perhaps only a second or two delay due to encoding >>>differences. >>>However the 2 minute delay would suggest different recordings being used >>>for >>>the transmissions. I guess it makes sense as the BBC HD channel is not a >>>copy of BBC1 or 2, and perhaps its programme timings can vary. I so, why >>>bother with the term "simulcast"? Why not just "also available on BBC >>>HD"?
>> 1. Is it actually *claimed* to be 'Simulcast'? >> I haven't checked but ISTR the programmes are just listed as "also >> broadcast on BBC HD"
>> 2. Does it really matter?
> It does when you have the same progamme playing from different sources on > TVs in adjacent rooms. The out-of-sync sound can be very frustrating to > hear in the background.
> brianf
If you receive the same channel in two rooms on different receivers the sound rarely matches.
In article <4b003ce7$0$2860$ba620...@news.skynet.be>, brianf <bk266...@skynet.be> wrote:
> It does when you have the same progamme playing from different sources > on TVs in adjacent rooms. The out-of-sync sound can be very frustrating > to hear in the background.
You'll get that with two FreeView sets. Or different types of set - many delay the sound to sync up with the delay their display introduces.
-- *Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Dave Plowman d...@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
|
