How can news 24 and bbc world be put together? BBC 4 and Cbbs to go
online only?
Have they not missed the point here? They need to make programmes
that people want to see and shove them on the normal channels. I
never did see the point in a rolling news channel as for years we
never had one. I suspect it is all about cutting jobs not making the
service better. Brian
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together?
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together? BBC 4 and Cbbs to go online only?
Have they not missed the point here? They need to make programmes that people want to see and shove them on the normal channels. I never did see
the point in a rolling news channel as for years we never had one. I
suspect it is all about cutting jobs not making the service better.
Brian
Similarly, the UK based presenters are sometimes clearly being
broadcast to a wider audience. Clues are things like references
to "Queen Elizabeth", and their more all-encompassing words of
welcome.
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together?
Brian Gaff wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together?
They sort-of are already overnight, I guess it'll just be a case of making it more international
Well, if some politicians get their way, there may soon be no BBC as we
know it, at all.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:25:10 +0100 "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together? BBC 4 and Cbbs to go
online only? Have they not missed the point here? They need to make programmes that people want to see and shove them on the normal
channels. I never did see the point in a rolling news channel as for
years we never had one. I suspect it is all about cutting jobs not
making the service better. Brian
Yep. BBC 3 back on, but BBC4 to be hidden away? it clearly makes no
sense whatsoever.
In article <t6q2eg$buj$1@dont-email.me>, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:25:10 +0100 "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together? BBC 4 and Cbbs to
go online only? Have they not missed the point here? They need to
make programmes that people want to see and shove them on the
normal channels. I never did see the point in a rolling news
channel as for years we never had one. I suspect it is all about
cutting jobs not making the service better. Brian
Yep. BBC 3 back on, but BBC4 to be hidden away? it clearly makes no
sense whatsoever.
I guess the 'suits' think BBC 3 will be more popular wiv da yoof.
Would be nice if putting BBC4 online-only meant they could managed to
use it to output *all* The Proms, though. But I doubt it.
Jim
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG. A daily curated list of suggested viewing, which is in effect what BBC4’s
EPG
is, brings things to your attention that you might never have considered,
and also helps cut down on the burden of too much choice. If you have to
go
hunting in an app or web page it ultimately becomes too burdensome, unless you are looking for something in particular.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:41:40 +0100
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <t6q2eg$buj$1@dont-email.me>, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:25:10 +0100 "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together? BBC 4 and Cbbs to
go online only? Have they not missed the point here? They need to
make programmes that people want to see and shove them on the
normal channels. I never did see the point in a rolling news
channel as for years we never had one. I suspect it is all about
cutting jobs not making the service better. Brian
Yep. BBC 3 back on, but BBC4 to be hidden away? it clearly makes no
sense whatsoever.
I guess the 'suits' think BBC 3 will be more popular wiv da yoof.
Would be nice if putting BBC4 online-only meant they could managed to
use it to output *all* The Proms, though. But I doubt it.
Jim
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily, the
main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a
broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
On 27/05/2022 16:52, Tweed wrote:
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG.
And you can't record programmes. You can "save" them which is dependent
on them still be available from iPlayer and of course your broadband
working so no watching an old favourite during a broadband fault.
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG.
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily, the
main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a
broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/05/2022 16:52, Tweed wrote:
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG.
And you can't record programmes. You can "save" them which is dependent
on them still be available from iPlayer and of course your broadband
working so no watching an old favourite during a broadband fault.
You can on Sky Q. Downloads get saved to the hard disk. However they do
self destruct after the period covered by rights limits.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 15:19:43 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily,
the main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a >broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
That seems rather an expensive solution to a problem that could be
solved locally with a length of ethernet cable.
Rod.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:33:58 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 15:19:43 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily,
the main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a
broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
That seems rather an expensive solution to a problem that could be
solved locally with a length of ethernet cable.
Rod.
But not everybody has a computer.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:41:40 +0100
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <t6q2eg$buj$1@dont-email.me>, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:25:10 +0100 "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together? BBC 4 and Cbbs to
go online only? Have they not missed the point here? They need to
make programmes that people want to see and shove them on the
normal channels. I never did see the point in a rolling news
channel as for years we never had one. I suspect it is all about
cutting jobs not making the service better. Brian
Yep. BBC 3 back on, but BBC4 to be hidden away? it clearly makes no
sense whatsoever.
I guess the 'suits' think BBC 3 will be more popular wiv da yoof.
Would be nice if putting BBC4 online-only meant they could managed to
use it to output *all* The Proms, though. But I doubt it.
Jim
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily, the
main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a
broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
--
Davey.
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:41:40 +0100
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <t6q2eg$buj$1@dont-email.me>, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:25:10 +0100 "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together? BBC 4 and Cbbs to
go online only? Have they not missed the point here? They need to
make programmes that people want to see and shove them on the
normal channels. I never did see the point in a rolling news
channel as for years we never had one. I suspect it is all about
cutting jobs not making the service better. Brian
Yep. BBC 3 back on, but BBC4 to be hidden away? it clearly makes no
sense whatsoever.
I guess the 'suits' think BBC 3 will be more popular wiv da yoof.
Would be nice if putting BBC4 online-only meant they could managed to
use it to output *all* The Proms, though. But I doubt it.
Jim
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily, the
main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a
broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG. A daily curated list of suggested viewing, which is in effect what BBC4's
EPG
is, brings things to your attention that you might never have considered,
and also helps cut down on the burden of too much choice. If you have to
go
hunting in an app or web page it ultimately becomes too burdensome, unless you are looking for something in particular.
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:t6qs3h$1vm$1@dont-email.me...
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG. A
daily curated list of suggested viewing, which is in effect what BBC4's
EPG
is, brings things to your attention that you might never have considered,
and also helps cut down on the burden of too much choice. If you have to
go
hunting in an app or web page it ultimately becomes too burdensome,
unless
you are looking for something in particular.
I was about to make that very point. How do you know what to look out for
in among a large library? Maybe there needs to be an "added today / this week" list online.
Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How can news 24 and bbc world be put together?
They sort-of are already overnight, I guess it'll just be a case of
making it more international
uk> flavour by day, and more international
by night?
On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:33:58 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 15:19:43 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily,
the main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a
broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
That seems rather an expensive solution to a problem that could be
solved locally with a length of ethernet cable.
Rod.
But not everybody has a computer.
If a company calls itself a broadcaster, then it should broadcast.
Simple. I already dislike the habit of them stopping a programme near
the end, (snooker is a case in point), to be told that the rest of it it
can be watched on BBC online. That's what I pay my licence fee for, to
WATCH THE PROGRAMME ON MY TV SET.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 01:55:05 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:33:58 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 15:19:43 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless.
Luckily, the main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything
sent out by a broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
That seems rather an expensive solution to a problem that could be
solved locally with a length of ethernet cable.
Rod.
But not everybody has a computer.
You don't need one if your "upstairs TV set is connected to the
internet via a slow WiFi repeater link". You just need to connect it
better. A length of ethernet cable will do this better than a slow
WiFi repeater link. Cheaper than requiring the broadcaster to provide
a transmitter so you can receive upstairs another version of a signal
that is already available within the building.
Rod.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:49:00 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2022 01:55:05 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:33:58 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 15:19:43 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless.
Luckily, the main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything
sent out by a broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
That seems rather an expensive solution to a problem that could be
solved locally with a length of ethernet cable.
Rod.
But not everybody has a computer.
You don't need one if your "upstairs TV set is connected to the
internet via a slow WiFi repeater link". You just need to connect it
better. A length of ethernet cable will do this better than a slow
WiFi repeater link. Cheaper than requiring the broadcaster to provide
a transmitter so you can receive upstairs another version of a signal
that is already available within the building.
Rod.
Unfortunately, when they built my house about 400 years ago, they
didn't have the foresight to plan a route for an ethernet cable. The
router is against the most northerly wall of the house, on the ground
floor, the TV set in question is almost as far south as it is possible
to get, upstairs. There is no route for a cable that would pass any
test of "does it look ok?" without major construction work.
Besides, I can get the internet signal perfectly well downstairs, so it
is not as though I cannot get it at all.
If a company calls itself a broadcaster, then it should broadcast.
Simple. I already dislike the habit of them stopping a programme near
the end, (snooker is a case in point), to be told that the rest of it it
can be watched on BBC online. That's what I pay my licence fee for, to
WATCH THE PROGRAMME ON MY TV SET.
If a company calls itself a broadcaster, then it should broadcast.
The problem with I player and BBC sounds as well is that they like to try to be clever enough to suggest other content, but whatever they are doing, it certainly does not work for me, it merely clutters up what should be a
simple listing with go here and lots of other crap. Personally there are certain genres I'll not even start watching if it has no AD, since modern TV production tends to play music over actions that leave you out of the loop. Older series say like Van Der Valk almost narrated themselves without any kind of AD, so what has happened to change this?
Our upstairs TV set is connected to the internet via a slow WiFi
repeater link, and trying to stream anything is fruitless. Luckily, the
main set downstairs is fine. I think that anything sent out by a
broadcaster should be, er, broadcast.
What I don't entirely follow is how moving BBC4 online will save
significant money. Are transmission fees for a single channel
significant?
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG.
A daily curated list of suggested viewing, which is in effect what
BBC4's EPG is, brings things to your attention that you might never have considered, and also helps cut down on the burden of too much choice. If
you have to go hunting in an app or web page it ultimately becomes too burdensome, unless you are looking for something in particular.
On 27/05/2022 16:52, Tweed wrote:
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG.
And you can't record programmes. You can "save" them which is dependent
on them still be available from iPlayer and of course your broadband
working so no watching an old favourite during a broadband fault.
In article <t6sf1m$142$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
What I don't entirely follow is how moving BBC4 online will save
significant money. Are transmission fees for a single channel
significant?
Cost per MB. So the less data you send, the lower the cost. Given the
squeeze on BBC income that means having to cut what you can. I think they have also just announced shedding a lot of staff as well.
Jim
On 27/05/2022 18:52, Tweed wrote:
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/05/2022 16:52, Tweed wrote:And you can't record programmes. You can "save" them which is dependent >>> on them still be available from iPlayer and of course your broadband
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of the EPG. >>>
working so no watching an old favourite during a broadband fault.
You can download and keep them using GetIPlayer, and invoking the
'--nopurge' option.
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:t6rhsf$2i1$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/05/2022 18:52, Tweed wrote:
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 27/05/2022 16:52, Tweed wrote:
The big problem with putting the channel online is the loss of
the EPG.
And you can't record programmes. You can "save" them which is
dependent on them still be available from iPlayer and of course
your broadband working so no watching an old favourite during a
broadband fault.
You can download and keep them using GetIPlayer, and invoking the '--nopurge' option.
What does "-nopurge" do that you can't achieve by copying the .mp4
file (and maybe .srt file) from the original download area to
wherever you store your library of recordings (whether downloaded or
recorded from Freeview/Freesat)?
Unfortunately, when they built my house about 400 years ago, they didn't
have the foresight to plan a route for an ethernet cable. The router is against the most northerly wall of the house, on the ground floor, the
TV set in question is almost as far south as it is possible to get,
upstairs. There is no route for a cable that would pass any test of
"does it look ok?" without major construction work.
Besides, I can get the internet signal perfectly well downstairs, so it
is not as though I cannot get it at all.
If a company calls itself a broadcaster, then it should broadcast.
Simple. I already dislike the habit of them stopping a programme near
the end, (snooker is a case in point), to be told that the rest of it it
can be watched on BBC online. That's what I pay my licence fee for, to
WATCH THE PROGRAMME ON MY TV SET.
It's not just this newfangled digital stuff. Following a programme in
the Archive on 4 series about Progress by comedian Joe Queenan a lady continuity announcer suggested other programmes by him "on BBC Sounds",
but there's no (successful) way to search for it, either on Sounds or
the BBC website, despite "Queenan" being an unusual name.
There is no route for a cable that would pass any test of
"does it look ok?" without major construction work.
I'm crap at DIY. But simply ran the cables along the edges of rooms under
the carpet, and though doorways having made a small nitch in the corner of >the wood across around the doorframe. Essentially invisble. Works fine.
The BBC just ran a "Composer of the (4!) week(s)" on Vaughan Williams. In >those they said all his symphonies will be broadcast this year... but
didn't bother to give the slightest hint *when*. However this isn't the >"BBC's" fault, but sloppy announcements by those making particular >programmes.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:46:28 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
There is no route for a cable that would pass any test of
"does it look ok?" without major construction work.
I'm crap at DIY. But simply ran the cables along the edges of rooms
under the carpet, and though doorways having made a small nitch in
the corner of the wood across around the doorframe. Essentially
invisble. Works fine.
That looks like an almost exact description of what I did, about a
year ago, and I wish I'd done it sooner. I'd previously used powerline adaptors and wireless bridges, which worked, mostly, but required
extra bits of powered equipment that occasionally needed rebooting to
clear faults. My ethernet cabled installation may not be the most
elegant piece of DIY you'd ever see, but it works, at full speed, all
the time, and doesn't require any extra power. In the end it's the
only proper solution.
Rod.
The BBC just ran a "Composer of the (4!) week(s)" on Vaughan Williams. In those they said all his symphonies will be broadcast this year... but
didn't bother to give the slightest hint*when*. However this isn't the "BBC's" fault, but sloppy announcements by those making particular programmes.
Somewhere I still have a little card with a set of commemorative RVW
stamps, along with a similar card of BBC stamps from the last time
they shared notable anniversaries. The set of BBC stamps showed the
EMI 2001 camera, which at that time I was working with every day, and
an AXBT microphone, and a few other significant items. That was the
year Pawley's BBC Engineering book was published, and I got a copy at
staff price from the BBC shop. Happy days...
That looks like an almost exact description of what I did, about a
year ago, and I wish I'd done it sooner.
On 29/05/2022 11:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Somewhere I still have a little card with a set of commemorative RVW stamps, along with a similar card of BBC stamps from the last time
they shared notable anniversaries. The set of BBC stamps showed the
EMI 2001 camera, which at that time I was working with every day, and
an AXBT microphone, and a few other significant items. That was the
year Pawley's BBC Engineering book was published, and I got a copy at
staff price from the BBC shop. Happy days...
I think we were sent First Day Covers of the stamps?
if you routinely check the BBC shedules and use get-iplayer you then have a file to play when it suits you, just like a PVR.
I am trying to work out how to do this. But:
a) I do not NEED it upstairs, as I can do what is needed downstairs
but it would be an improvement.
b) The major problem is going to be getting the cable through walls and floors.
c) I have tried Powerline things and I don't like them, both for their unreliability of staying in communication, and for their radio signal pollution. The Wifi may be slow, but it never gives up.
d) My wife is undergoing chemotherapy, and life as a carer rather
reduces one's available hobbying hours. Today, we had both an ambulance
and a fire engine outside the house, to get her down the stairs and out
to the hospital.
Yes, but what is that cost per MB? Is it even metered, or do they simply
pay for a pipe of a given capacity to the TX? Conversely, if they expect people to access via iPlayer they will have to build and pay for more capacity there.
Walls and floors shouldn't really be a problem. Such things are bread
and butter to alarm and satellite/CCTV/aerial installers.
I think he said the building was 400 years old. If it turns out to be
grade 1 listed, putting new holes in may involve a lot of paperwork.
On 30/05/2022 12:43, David Woolley wrote:
I think he said the building was 400 years old. If it turns out to
be grade 1 listed, putting new holes in may involve a lot of
paperwork.
No-one will know about internal holes. Just put some grime down in
the area.
Bill
On Mon, 30 May 2022 14:36:38 +0100
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2022 12:43, David Woolley wrote:
I think he said the building was 400 years old. If it turns out to
be grade 1 listed, putting new holes in may involve a lot of
paperwork.
No-one will know about internal holes. Just put some grime down in
the area.
Bill
It is thought to be about 400 years old, but nobody around here
remembers it being built. It was a pub until 1937....hic...
It is thankfully not Listed, by our choice, as you can't do anything if
it is. We would not have been able to have the old horrid cement
pebbledash removed and replaced with lime mortar and pargetting, even
though it is period and location correct, without masses of paperwork
and inspections and months of delay.
I have been looking at the locations for a cable, and it should be
do-able, even if I have to drill through some brickwork. There is the
old house syndrome of beams in one room not coinciding with what looks
like the same beam in the next room, but it's not at the right height.
But as I can still get TV and ethernet signals easily downstairs, this
is not a priority, just a slow project.
"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message news:t73430$uli$1@dont-email.me...
I have been looking at the locations for a cable, and it should be
do-able, even if I have to drill through some brickwork. There is
the old house syndrome of beams in one room not coinciding with
what looks like the same beam in the next room, but it's not at the
right height. But as I can still get TV and ethernet signals easily downstairs, this is not a priority, just a slow project.
The difficulty is that an RJ45 plug needs a much larger drill that
you'd imagine for it to fit through the hole. Or else you have to
feed bare cable and then try to wire up an RJ45 on the other side -
and I've never yet managed to wire one of those up with the correct
tool because at least one of the wires fails to reach as far as the
IDC pins in the plug, or else looks as if it's OK until you wiggle
the cable slightly and the wire cheekily pops out to taunt you. Sod
that for a lark!
The other problem is if you need to feed a cable through a ceiling
from one floor to the next, while making it SWMBO-proof. The size of
the chuck on the drill means that the whole needs to be at least 3/4"
from where the wall meets the ceiling. I'm not sure how professional electrician manage to feed a cable through a hole which is flush with
the wall (and preferably in a corner) to make it less obtrusive.
At least modern Cat5 (or higher) cable can now be bought as flat
ribbon rather than cylindrical cable, so it fits under the edge of
carpets and metal carpet-strips in doorways.
Our present house in L-shaped and the router needs to be near one end
of the L (in order to be in easy Ethernet reach of TV and PVR in the
living room, and computers in my study. I'd originally thought of
running a very long length of Cat5 though the loft along the two arms
of the L, connected to a wifi point somewhere need the bedrooms, but
it would have meant the dreaded cable through the ceiling problem.
Plus a little matter of drilling through a breezeblock fire-break
wall between different parts of the loft, and crawling though two
nested sets of rafters where a new roof had been built over the top
of the very old rafters of the original much smaller house.
So I went for Linksys Velop mesh repeaters instead, which works
beautifully apart from one thing: if there is a power cut and all the
Velops turn on simultaneously, some of them sit there indefinitely
trying to connect to each other. It's caused by the nodes having to
be close enough together for the 5 GHz backhaul link from child nodes
to parent node to work, and also to give reasonably seamless 5 GHz
coverage for devices, but that makes them so close that they are all
in overlapping range for 2.4 GHz, so the auto-channel-negotiation
stalls (*). If only I didn't have a few devices that *need* 2.4
because they don't speak 5 - or if only you could turn on 2.4 only at selected nodes instead of all or nothing. When we kept getting
1-second power outages several times a day for a month or so
(branches touching HV cables somewhere in the area) I was *not* a
happy bunny, having to go round and start each node in the correct
order, waiting the several minutes for it to establish the connection
before I could turn on the next one.
(*) The 2.4 GHz band desperately needs more non-overlapping channels
than the three 1, 6, 11 (or 2, 7, 12 etc).
I have been looking at the locations for a cable, and it should be
do-able, even if I have to drill through some brickwork.
The difficulty is that an RJ45 plug needs a much larger drill that you'd imagine for it to fit through the hole. Or else you have to feed bare
cable and then try to wire up an RJ45 on the other side - and I've never
yet managed to wire one of those up with the correct tool because at
least one of the wires fails to reach as far as the IDC pins in the
plug, or else looks as if it's OK until you wiggle the cable slightly
and the wire cheekily pops out to taunt you. Sod that for a lark!
The other problem is if you need to feed a cable through a ceiling from
one floor to the next, while making it SWMBO-proof. The size of the
chuck on the drill means that the whole needs to be at least 3/4" from
where the wall meets the ceiling. I'm not sure how professional
electrician manage to feed a cable through a hole which is flush with
the wall (and preferably in a corner) to make it less obtrusive.
On Mon, 30 May 2022 22:42:22 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:t73430$uli$1@dont-email.me...
snip
I have been looking at the locations for a cable, and it should be
do-able, even if I have to drill through some brickwork. There is
the old house syndrome of beams in one room not coinciding with
what looks like the same beam in the next room, but it's not at the
right height. But as I can still get TV and ethernet signals easily
downstairs, this is not a priority, just a slow project.
The difficulty is that an RJ45 plug needs a much larger drill that
you'd imagine for it to fit through the hole. Or else you have to
feed bare cable and then try to wire up an RJ45 on the other side -
and I've never yet managed to wire one of those up with the correct
tool because at least one of the wires fails to reach as far as the
IDC pins in the plug, or else looks as if it's OK until you wiggle
the cable slightly and the wire cheekily pops out to taunt you. Sod
that for a lark!
The other problem is if you need to feed a cable through a ceiling
from one floor to the next, while making it SWMBO-proof. The size of
the chuck on the drill means that the whole needs to be at least 3/4"
from where the wall meets the ceiling. I'm not sure how professional
electrician manage to feed a cable through a hole which is flush with
the wall (and preferably in a corner) to make it less obtrusive.
At least modern Cat5 (or higher) cable can now be bought as flat
ribbon rather than cylindrical cable, so it fits under the edge of
carpets and metal carpet-strips in doorways.
Our present house in L-shaped and the router needs to be near one end
of the L (in order to be in easy Ethernet reach of TV and PVR in the
living room, and computers in my study. I'd originally thought of
running a very long length of Cat5 though the loft along the two arms
of the L, connected to a wifi point somewhere need the bedrooms, but
it would have meant the dreaded cable through the ceiling problem.
Plus a little matter of drilling through a breezeblock fire-break
wall between different parts of the loft, and crawling though two
nested sets of rafters where a new roof had been built over the top
of the very old rafters of the original much smaller house.
So I went for Linksys Velop mesh repeaters instead, which works
beautifully apart from one thing: if there is a power cut and all the
Velops turn on simultaneously, some of them sit there indefinitely
trying to connect to each other. It's caused by the nodes having to
be close enough together for the 5 GHz backhaul link from child nodes
to parent node to work, and also to give reasonably seamless 5 GHz
coverage for devices, but that makes them so close that they are all
in overlapping range for 2.4 GHz, so the auto-channel-negotiation
stalls (*). If only I didn't have a few devices that *need* 2.4
because they don't speak 5 - or if only you could turn on 2.4 only at
selected nodes instead of all or nothing. When we kept getting
1-second power outages several times a day for a month or so
(branches touching HV cables somewhere in the area) I was *not* a
happy bunny, having to go round and start each node in the correct
order, waiting the several minutes for it to establish the connection
before I could turn on the next one.
(*) The 2.4 GHz band desperately needs more non-overlapping channels
than the three 1, 6, 11 (or 2, 7, 12 etc).
I agree with your comments on holes. Not long ago, I was capable of
making up the RJ45 connectors, but since then, my fingertips have
massively lost sensitivity, and I doubt that I could do that now.
But your comment on Mesh repeaters made me realise that my Fritz!box is
all ready for those, so that will be worth investigating before I start hacking the house about.
Thanks for a sensible response.
The difficulty is that an RJ45 plug needs a much larger drill thatYou can just run bare cable, and at each end terminate it onto an RJ-45
you'd imagine for it to fit through the hole.
On 30/05/2022 22:42, NY wrote:
You can just run bare cable, and at each end terminate it onto an RJ-45
The difficulty is that an RJ45 plug needs a much larger drill that
you'd imagine for it to fit through the hole.
wall socket. Requires less skill (and tools) than crimping on an RJ-45
plug.
So only a 5 or 6mm hole required
On 30/05/2022 22:42, NY wrote:
The difficulty is that an RJ45 plug needs a much larger drill that you'd imagine for it to fit through the hole. Or else you have to feed bare
cable and then try to wire up an RJ45 on the other side - and I've never yet managed to wire one of those up with the correct tool because at
least one of the wires fails to reach as far as the IDC pins in the
plug, or else looks as if it's OK until you wiggle the cable slightly
and the wire cheekily pops out to taunt you. Sod that for a lark!
Dare I suggest cutting the cable and then making a proper soldered and heat-shrunk joint?
I’ve got three tri band Linksys Velop nodes in the house and they just work. You need a bit of thought as to their location. The slave nodes need
to be between the master node and your equipment. The temptation is to put them next to your equipment. I’ve also found that suspended wooden floors are transparent to 5GHz, so nodes upstairs illuminate the ground floor
nodes below.
The other problem is if you need to feed a cable through a ceiling from
one floor to the next, while making it SWMBO-proof. The size of the chuck
on the drill means that the whole needs to be at least 3/4" from where
the wall meets the ceiling. I'm not sure how professional electrician
manage to feed a cable through a hole which is flush with the wall (and
preferably in a corner) to make it less obtrusive.
Drill through as close to the wall as you can, then use a padsaw to make a slot that reaches the wall. Make good with polyfilla.
Not as good in impedance/electrical terms as a properly crimped RJ45
plug surely? Having said that though UTP connections are amazingly
tolerant of not doing them exactly right, I have long cables (to
garage and such) which I'm sure break all sorts of rules as regards
bend radius etc. but they still do Gigabit with no problems.
On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:49:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
The BBC just ran a "Composer of the (4!) week(s)" on Vaughan Williams.
In those they said all his symphonies will be broadcast this year...
but didn't bother to give the slightest hint *when*. However this isn't
the "BBC's" fault, but sloppy announcements by those making particular >programmes.
I've got them all on CDs, tapes and gramophone records (though for many
years I've only had the means to play the CDs)
and of course these days I can call up practically any piece of music
I've ever heard of on Youtube.
I am trying to work out how to do this. But:
a) I do not NEED it upstairs, as I can do what is needed downstairs but
it would be an improvement. b) The major problem is going to be getting
the cable through walls and floors. c) I have tried Powerline things and
I don't like them, both for their unreliability of staying in
communication, and for their radio signal pollution. The Wifi may be
slow, but it never gives up. d) My wife is undergoing chemotherapy, and
life as a carer rather reduces one's available hobbying hours. Today, we
had both an ambulance and a fire engine outside the house, to get her
down the stairs and out to the hospital.
Jim Lesurf wrote:
if you routinely check the BBC shedules and use get-iplayer you then
have a file to play when it suits you, just like a PVR.
But generally lower resolution ...
I think so. I've still got mine.
Drill through as close to the wall as you can, then use a padsaw to
make a slot that reaches the wall. Make good with polyfilla.
Ah! The voice of experience and common sense! Thank you. Hadn't thought
of that.
Dare I suggest cutting the cable and then making a proper soldered andNot as good in impedance/electrical terms as a properly crimped RJ45
heat-shrunk joint?
plug surely?
In article <0pg69h57p9a01dtjbmgk1s44ujobi9vh6q@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:49:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
The BBC just ran a "Composer of the (4!) week(s)" on Vaughan Williams.
In those they said all his symphonies will be broadcast this year...
but didn't bother to give the slightest hint *when*. However this isn't
the "BBC's" fault, but sloppy announcements by those making particular
programmes.
I've got them all on CDs, tapes and gramophone records (though for many
years I've only had the means to play the CDs)
I also have a number of versions of them. But the point is that versions >differ, so it is good to have new ones to hear.
and of course these days I can call up practically any piece of music
I've ever heard of on Youtube.
YT is useful as a taster and to explore. But alas, the formats they offer >tend to be poorer than 44k/16b lpcm. I've been getting some of the YT >examples the RVWSoc have as linked 'tasters' on their webpages. The results >tend to be circa 120kbs aac audio, or poorer. Not ideal when the sound >quality is important to the impact of the music.
Jim
I think so. I've still got mine.
I will still have them, just a matter of finding them!
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:17:11 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <0pg69h57p9a01dtjbmgk1s44ujobi9vh6q@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:49:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
The BBC just ran a "Composer of the (4!) week(s)" on Vaughan Williams. >>>> In those they said all his symphonies will be broadcast this year...
but didn't bother to give the slightest hint *when*. However this isn't >>>> the "BBC's" fault, but sloppy announcements by those making particular >>>> programmes.
I've got them all on CDs, tapes and gramophone records (though for many
years I've only had the means to play the CDs)
I also have a number of versions of them. But the point is that versions
differ, so it is good to have new ones to hear.
and of course these days I can call up practically any piece of music
I've ever heard of on Youtube.
YT is useful as a taster and to explore. But alas, the formats they offer
tend to be poorer than 44k/16b lpcm. I've been getting some of the YT
examples the RVWSoc have as linked 'tasters' on their webpages. The results >> tend to be circa 120kbs aac audio, or poorer. Not ideal when the sound
quality is important to the impact of the music.
If you don't already know them, you might be interested in a Youtube
channel called "Colin", and another called "AntPDC", which have lots
of (mostly) English music items to explore, and surprisingly they
don't seem to have been subject to any copyright purges. If you watch
a few of their videos, Youtube's sycophantic search algorithm will
probably offer you a few others with related content.
Unfortunately YouTube have disabled the add-ons/extensions to
Firefox/Edge that enable you easily to download them to keep (after >extracting the audio), presumably to promote their own (expensive)
Download option.
I’ve also found that suspended wooden floors
are transparent to 5GHz, so nodes upstairs illuminate the ground floor
nodes below.
I do recall there were unofficial downloader programs that would
bypass Youtube's attempts to block downloads, so maybe if you do a
search you will find these are still available?
In article <jfi91oFith1U3@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
if you routinely check the BBC shedules and use get-iplayer you then
have a file to play when it suits you, just like a PVR.
But generally lower resolution ...
True. But wrt the video not enough of a loss to bother me much usually. I
can also capture the broadcast from DVB-T/T2 but generally don't bother.
On 30/05/2022 15:22, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <jfi91oFith1U3@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
if you routinely check the BBC shedules and use get-iplayer you then
have a file to play when it suits you, just like a PVR.
But generally lower resolution ...
True. But wrt the video not enough of a loss to bother me much usually. I
can also capture the broadcast from DVB-T/T2 but generally don't bother.
Actually, 1920x1080x50p is increasingly becoming the norm for new
programmes or re-broadcasts of significant older ones. However, the
audio is still a bit crap at 128kbps, Stereo, 48kHz.
On 31/05/2022 20:50, Java Jive wrote:
Actually, 1920x1080x50p is increasingly becoming the norm for new
programmes or re-broadcasts of significant older ones. However, the
audio is still a bit crap at 128kbps, Stereo, 48kHz.
Really?
I don't think I've ever got anything better than 1280x720x50p from get_iplayer.
On 31/05/2022 21:34, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 31/05/2022 20:50, Java Jive wrote:
Actually, 1920x1080x50p is increasingly becoming the norm for new
programmes or re-broadcasts of significant older ones. However, the
audio is still a bit crap at 128kbps, Stereo, 48kHz.
Really?
I don't think I've ever got anything better than 1280x720x50p from
get_iplayer.
In the last month or few ...
Art That Made Us
Beauty Of Maps
Gilbert & Sullivan - The Gondoliers
Scotland's Sacred Islands
... all 1920 x 1080 x 50p, but audio only 128kbps, Stereo, 48kHz - the latter would be a bit of a bummer for Proms TV broadcasts.
You almost certainly need the latest, or at least a very recent,
version, I'm using v3.29, and you may have to experiment with the new --tv-quality setting, which replaced IIRC the old --tv-mode setting, for example ...
--type tv --tv-quality fhd,hd,sd
... would give you the highest resolution available from ...
Full HD: 1920 x 1080 x 50p
(almost) HD: 1280 x 720 x 50p
SD: 960 x 540 x 50p
It usually works, but sometimes there are gremlins, for example
attempting to download Blue Planet II in fhd just downloads the audio as
if it were the entire mp4. No idea why that should be.
You almost certainly need the latest, or at least a very recent, version,
I'm using v3.29, and you may have to experiment with the new --tv-quality
setting, which replaced IIRC the old --tv-mode setting, for example ...
--type tv --tv-quality fhd,hd,sd
... would give you the highest resolution available from ...
Full HD: 1920 x 1080 x 50p
(almost) HD: 1280 x 720 x 50p
SD: 960 x 540 x 50p
It usually works, but sometimes there are gremlins, for example
attempting to download Blue Planet II in fhd just downloads the audio as
if it were the entire mp4. No idea why that should be.
Thanks.
Ah, I didn't know about --tv-quality, which seems to be what's needed to
get 1920x1080.
Unfortunately YouTube have disabled the add-ons/extensions to
Firefox/Edge that enable you easily to download them to keep (after extracting the audio), presumably to promote their own (expensive)
Download option.
On 31/05/2022 21:34, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 31/05/2022 20:50, Java Jive wrote:
Actually, 1920x1080x50p is increasingly becoming the norm for new
programmes or re-broadcasts of significant older ones. However, the
audio is still a bit crap at 128kbps, Stereo, 48kHz.
Really?
I don't think I've ever got anything better than 1280x720x50p from get_iplayer.
In the last month or few ... Art That Made Us Beauty Of Maps Gilbert & Sullivan - The Gondoliers Scotland's Sacred Islands ... all 1920 x 1080
x 50p, but audio only 128kbps, Stereo, 48kHz - the latter would be a
bit of a bummer for Proms TV broadcasts.
You almost certainly need the latest, or at least a very recent,
version, I'm using v3.29, and you may have to experiment with the new --tv-quality setting, which replaced IIRC the old --tv-mode setting, for example ... --type tv --tv-quality fhd,hd,sd ... would give you the
highest resolution available from ... Full HD: 1920 x 1080 x 50p
(almost) HD: 1280 x 720 x 50p SD: 960 x 540 x 50p
Actually, 1920x1080x50p is increasingly becoming the norm for new
programmes or re-broadcasts of significant older ones. However, the
audio is still a bit crap at 128kbps, Stereo, 48kHz.
It would be much easier if its quality dropdown had a list of
resolutions and frame rates - or even used standard terms like "SD/HD"
rather than "good/better/best".
It's a shame also that the video files that it downloads (ie that the
BBC provide) have the subtitles in a separate .srt file rather than
embedding them in the .ts file, DVB style, as they would be if you
recorded the programme off-air.
It's a shame also that the video files that it downloads (ie that the
BBC provide) have the subtitles in a separate .srt file rather than embedding them in the .ts file, DVB style, as they would be if you
recorded the programme off-air.
Yes. I can see that would be better.
In article <jfpvqlF65soU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
It's a shame also that the video files that it downloads (ie that the
BBC provide) have the subtitles in a separate .srt file rather than
embedding them in the .ts file, DVB style, as they would be if you
recorded the programme off-air.
Yes. I can see that would be better.
VLC seems to have a 'use subtitle file' option when playing. But I've never experimented with it so have no idea how it works.
I also wonder if ffmpeg would 'fix' this for people that need/want by combining the subtitles file into a .ts or equivalent. However as above,
I've never tried anything like this.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:16:24 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,023 |