[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Julian Hall wrote:
One thing the brain does is adapt - but it does make a note of change so when you upgrade you go through a period of 'wow that's great' and then it becomes the norm and you notice all the things that are still wrong... that's when you have moved into an area exploited by fashion: where it doesn't get better but the continuous change gives the illusion of progress and sucks money out of suckers pockets. I heard the Which thing on the radio (4 ok bbc...) but have been expecting this for a while - those of us old enough to remember the change from 405..625..colour or even am to fm ( I haven heard anyone who thinks digital is actually an improvement yet - well maybe the odd frog). When you listen or watch to something in a lower quality then your brain has to work to decode it. The less effort it has to put in the more it can focus on other aspects - like green lines or complete lack of script and that's when the viewing/listening experience drops back to where it was before and you should realise you're no better off - or just write to the bbc and complain that you cant cope with reality and can we have the fuzz back please...tom wrote:Which have just reported that they've done some tests on the new BBC coding versus the old stuff and shown that its not got any worse. I doubt it was a double blind test for obvious reasons but it just goes to show all that glisters aint wort jack.So the hundreds who have reported actually experiencing degradation are all mistaken? I'd be interested to know what Which's test scenario was, and how realistic it was compared to conditions experienced 'in the wild'?Tom te tom te tomJulian
Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html