PBS mux on 125W moving around...preparing for changes
- Thread starter Mr Tony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 232
- Views 38K
- Status
why? All it requires is folks to get a MPEG4 receiver and they're pretty inexpensive now. Its not like they are changing to MPEG4 and the receivers are still $250 or more
True, but won't this reduce the number of PBS feeds currently available which also reduces the number of programming choices?
Last night, I was just trying to post that the microHD was coming out at the right time, when lightning hit over at the Juniper site and my internet went down. No damage here or there reported! Saw the hit and my internet was down. Tried for about 10 minutes to get it up and gave up.
No, it's reducing the number of transponders but keeping the number of channels the same. The two feeds from 12140 will be added to the 12180 mux, and everything else is getting converted to MPEG-4. The only other change is one of the sporadic SD feeds is getting upgraded to HD.
- Trip
I missed that - the first 4 times I read it...... I am so involved in electronics that even as a teenager.... ... gave up and went to bed.
nope if you look above (and trip already mentioned it) they are going to cram alot on one TP
June 18 - 26
Test MPEG4 on TX 24 (HD01-3, SD01-4)
HD1 & 2 are the E & W feeds currently on 12140
SD1-4 is the SD stuff right now on 12180 (Create, V-Me and World)
HD3 is the test feed on 12180 right now
They're just changing to MPEG4.
On the 18th 12180 will turn to MPEG4 and have 7 channels on it instead of MPEG2 and 5 channels
Something that I have learned in this hobby is that promised dates for changes or releases are rarely met, so dont be disapoint if this date is change.
Thanks Ice.I'm glad it's not going to DVB-S2, PBS is my main viewing here and the satellite is much better than Oregon Public Broadcasting. I was able to watch fashion TV when it was MPEG-4 on my Viewsat Max HD when it was in the clear so hopefully it will work on PBS too.
with PBS when they moved from 87W to 125W they pretty much met every date that they set...remember this affects pretty much every PBS station
I dont know if its going S2 or not. I hope not as it is easier to just switch to MPEG4 which allows more bandwidth
My 12060 is weaker and more hard to get than any other TP there. with over 55% in quality still some pixelations on it. I hope they are only using this TP as a temp backup till they make all the move to 12180 (similar to what they did with the CWs on 91W )
post 3 has all the info you need
so 12060 got turned on as a backup. You dont have to use 12060 as 12180 will be fine until the 18th...then on June 18th the TP (12180) turns to MPEG4
so 12060 got turned on as a backup. You dont have to use 12060 as 12180 will be fine until the 18th...then on June 18th the TP (12180) turns to MPEG4
I hope PBS goes to DVB-S2. I don't like the sound of cramming all these feeds on a single DVB-S transponder. If they ran the 4 SD feeds @ 2 Mbps MPEG-4 and the 3 HD feeds @ 10 Mbps MPEG-4 it would only be a marginal increase in the current quality and certainly not Blu-ray quality. With our luck they probably wouldn't even max out the DVB-S signal using the smartest bandwidth allocation possible and we'd get less than 10 Mbps on the HD feeds even.
If they went with DVB-S2 however they could run at 20+ Mbps MPEG-4 for the HD feeds resulting in the same Blu-ray level quality we see with NBC's network feeds.
I thought they had longterm leases for transponder space on AMC 21 until 2016 anyways. Why does PBS seem so concerned about saving tp space if it's already paid for?
Also, why is everyone here so obsessed with Montana's PBS affiliate? I've seen it mentioned a lot. Does this affiliate produce a lot of unique interesting programming or something? I can't see why anyone would be interested in it for its re-encoded, inferior quality versions of regular PBS network programming.
If they went with DVB-S2 however they could run at 20+ Mbps MPEG-4 for the HD feeds resulting in the same Blu-ray level quality we see with NBC's network feeds.
I thought they had longterm leases for transponder space on AMC 21 until 2016 anyways. Why does PBS seem so concerned about saving tp space if it's already paid for?
Also, why is everyone here so obsessed with Montana's PBS affiliate? I've seen it mentioned a lot. Does this affiliate produce a lot of unique interesting programming or something? I can't see why anyone would be interested in it for its re-encoded, inferior quality versions of regular PBS network programming.
I think the reason many of us enjoy the individual states' PBS is that those in charge of the purchase of programming may choose different things than what the National (feed) runs. A good example came in the days of the Colorado PBS being on 4DTV. They actually bought and carried "Northern Exposure" (old commercial network TV show from the 90's) commercial free, and others have programs that are either native to their state, or unavailable on our locals or the National feed. Agreed on the quality, many times the local markets don't have the quality of a National feed, but...as in ALL mediums....content is what drives an audience to view or listen.... not necessarily the medium on which it is carried!
Why would they bother putting out Blu-Ray quality HD when none of their affiliates can possibly broadcast in that quality? Not to say I wouldn't like Blu-Ray quality, but I just don't see why PBS would spend the money to provide it when the affiliates cannot use it.
As for "Why Montana PBS" or "Why OETA," I challenge you to find the Red Green show or Doctor Who on the national PBS schedules.
- Trip
As for "Why Montana PBS" or "Why OETA," I challenge you to find the Red Green show or Doctor Who on the national PBS schedules.
- Trip
besides the cool programming that is locally produced on there the fact when it was out there as DVB it was the only PBS that didnt require any extra equipment for the audio. The national PBS was AC3 audio while Montana was MPEG2. So alot of us with older receivers liked that option
Of course when they went S2 that got thrown out the window
Why would they bother putting out Blu-Ray quality HD when none of their affiliates can possibly broadcast in that quality? Not to say I wouldn't like Blu-Ray quality, but I just don't see why PBS would spend the money to provide it when the affiliates cannot use it.
As for "Why Montana PBS" or "Why OETA," I challenge you to find the Red Green show or Doctor Who on the national PBS schedules.
- Trip
Because there's no reason why they can't if they're switching to MPEG-4. It shouldn't cost that much more to arrange the feeds in a smart manner across their rented transponders to allow for maximum bitrate to each or use DVB-S2.
The reason the networks have such high quality feeds is so there's not as much quality loss when the affiliates are working with that higher source material before molesting it down to some pitiful low bitrate MPEG-2. NBC affiliates are actually looking pretty good these days because they've got that high quality source to work from. I've never seen a PBS affiliate that is anything other than a blurry macroblocked mess. PBS's current mediocre distribution feed re-encoded again by affiliates to an even further bitrate-starved MPEG-2 signal results in them having the worst picture quality of any of the networks (except ABC which is limited by it being 720p).
- Status
