What is PAL-NC ?

[Stephen]

I've recently seen PAL-NC listed in the options for multistandard PC capture
cards, in addition to PAL-N and all the other standards. Looked it up on
Google and this seems to suggest that PAL-NC is "the broadcast standard of
Argentina", which I thought was called PAL-N, 625 lines 50 fields with the
PAL subcarrier moved down to 3.58205625 MHz so it will fit into a standard
American 6 MHz channel with the sound at 4.5 MHz where the colour subcarrier
should be. It looks like what they now call PAL-N, and use in neighbouring
countries Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay, is actually PAL-B since it has the
standard 4.43361875 MHz subcarrier and 5.5 MHz sound, but still on the
American 6 MHz channel spacing which would allow only 0.5 MHz between the
sound and the next channel vision carrier, and only 0.25 MHz for the
vestigial sideband, unless they just bodge it and have overlapping channels.
Can this be right? Do they really use PAL-B in parts of South America while
calling it PAL-N? Is true PAL-N now called PAL-NC? Or have they just got the
whole thing mixed up? Does anyone know any definitive information as to what
PAL-N is, and what PAL-NC is, or where I might find it?

[Barney Wol]

I have never heard of this standard - I wonder if it is just a typo?
See the University of Surrey (England) 's web site at

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/broadcast.html

which is a pretty definitive reference.

Peter

[Paul Webster]

barne...@handbag.com (Barney Wol) wrote:

Although the footer says that it was last updated in 1999 - which
might be why it doesn't show NC (or CN). ITU-R BT.470-6 was 1998 - but
I guess that folks meddled with it (or ignored it) afterwards.

This site does - where NC is presumably Combination N - and I've seen
elsewhere as PAL-CN
http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/PAL.html

--
Rgds
Paul Webster

[Stephen Neal]

That is odd - it shows the 4.43 625/50 PAL N standard as having 7.5 IRE
set-up - which is a very odd thing that most other PALs (and Japanese NTSC)
don't have... ?

Steve

[Stephen]

"Barney Wol" <barne...@handbag.com> wrote in message
news:81d92e61.0409...@posting.google.com...

I think it's genuine. World TV Standards websites all say that PAL-N is what
I thought it was, but when it comes to TV cards for the PC there is a
different concensus. I found three different sites with datasheets for
mutistandard video encoder chips (see links below), and these are quite
clear that there are 2 different versions of PAL-N.
Firstly, there is PAL-N, also described as PAL-N (Non-Argentina), which has
the same colour subcarrier as PAL-B,G,H,I that is 4.43361875 MHz.
Secondly there is PAL-NC, also described as PAL-Nc, PAL CN, PAL-N Combo,
PAL-N Combination, PAL-N (Argentina) which has a 3.58205625 MHz PAL
subcarrier.
It looks like Argentina uses the PAL-N system described on the World TV
Standards sites, but this system is now referred to as PAL-NC by the chip
manufacturers. It looks like Uruguay and Paraguay, the "PAL-N
(Non-Argentina)" countries do something different. Quite what this is is a
mystery.
They obviously can't use 4.43 MHz colour with 4.5 MHz sound, so they would
have to change the sound subcarrier to a higher frequency for terrestrial
broadcasts. But this seems highly unlikely since it would no longer be to
the System N standard, and the sound would be within the adjacent channel
causing severe interference on vision.
The only other thing I can think, since they evidently don't use PAL 3.58,
is that they have never introduced colour on terrestrial. Perhaps they only
broadcast in colour on cable or satellite and that uses PAL 4.43? I don't
know, but it looks like something is going on that's not quite in line with
the accepted list of World TV Standards.

http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatasheet/DS278F2.pdf
http://www.electronics-lab.com/forum/attachments/SPCA711.pdf
http://www.globalunichip.com/spec/UECD-0001-DS.pdf
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon-tv-out/

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <chgeug$iuo$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen wrote:
> Firstly, there is PAL-N, also described as PAL-N (Non-Argentina), which has
> the same colour subcarrier as PAL-B,G,H,I that is 4.43361875 MHz.
> Secondly there is PAL-NC, also described as PAL-Nc, PAL CN, PAL-N Combo,
> PAL-N Combination, PAL-N (Argentina) which has a 3.58205625 MHz PAL
> subcarrier.
> It looks like Argentina uses the PAL-N system described on the World TV
> Standards sites, but this system is now referred to as PAL-NC by the chip
> manufacturers.

It's probably one of those unofficial "non-standard standards" like "PAL-60"
or "NTSC-443" that is only used in closed-circuit setups between VCRs and
monitors to make the multistandard switching easier to implement. As rar as I
know, Brazil is the only country that uses PAL with anything other than
625/50/443. Channel spacing, sound/vision spacing and vestigial sidebands may
vary, but timings and frequencies of the actual video signal don't.

Rod.

[Stephen]

"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000079...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...

PAL in Brazil is 525/60/3.58 "PAL-M", and PAL in Argentina is 625/50/3.58
"PAL-N" or "PAL-NC".
Argentina definitely uses a variant of PAL, and it's different from the one
in Brazil. AFAIK all System N countries were supposed to use the 3.58 MHz
variant of 625 line PAL, since this is how System N works. It's the 625 line
system used in the smaller American TV channel which is only 6 MHz wide. In
the days of Black & White television it wasn't much of a drawback beacuse
the only difference it made was a reduction of the vision bandwidth from 5.0
MHz (System B) to 4.2 MHz (System N). But when colour came along they had to
change the subcarrier to a lower non-standard frequency. Argentina uses
this, but the mystery is that the other System N countries don't. They are
listed as using 625/50/4.43 (see links in my previous post) inspite of the
fact that this does not fit into a System N TV channel.

[marcelo.in...@gmail.com]

I know that this thread is quite old, but I would like to clarify that the PAL-NC system is used in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, but there everybody calls it PAL-N. I don't know any country that uses the PAL-N defined in the ITU-R BT.470-6

[Brian-Gaff]

I thought the whole world have gone digital by now.

Seems to me that no matter what standard is created to allow variations for
some countries, somebody comes along and uses bits of both and thus creates
yet another incompatibility. sigh.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
<marcelo.in...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebb3e240-f8c7-423d...@googlegroups.com...

[NY]

"Brian-Gaff" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n6ql4c$71q$1...@dont-email.me...

> I thought the whole world have gone digital by now.
>
> Seems to me that no matter what standard is created to allow variations
> for some countries, somebody comes along and uses bits of both and thus
> creates yet another incompatibility. sigh.

Yes, when the US had standardised on 525/30/NTSC since the 50s and Europe on
625/25/PAL (or 625/25/SECAM) since the 60s, what is the motivation for some
countries to develop hybrid PAL 3.58 or NTSC 4.33 with one or other of the
line/frame rates?

The only sensible hybrids are those used for recorder-to-TV connection when
playing "foreign" VHS tapes: later PAL VHS recorders would produce
525/30/PAL 4.33 (and maybe NTSC recorders produced 625/25/NTSC 3.58) when
playing back NTSC tapes, on the grounds that syncing with the "wrong" line
and frame rate is easier for TVs to do than to sync with the "wrong" colour
sub-carrier and colour-encoding mechanism.

I wonder if the world will ever evolve to the stage that a single digital TV
decoder (either embedded in a TV or as a set top box) can be used throughout
the world, such that it can handle both VHF and UHF, modulated as either
COFDM or ATSC, in either 525/30 or 625/25. Or will we continue forever
needing different receiving equipment in different countries? The TV itself
is not the issue: even current TVs can sync equally well at either
line/frame rate which is why DVD players connected by HDMI can play PAL and
NTSC discs with equal ease and only the lower resolution and the "funny
colour palette" giving away the game that it's an NTSC disc.

[charles]

In article <U9mdnYPhDtujiQzL...@brightview.co.uk>, NY

<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Brian-Gaff" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:n6ql4c$71q$1...@dont-email.me...
> > I thought the whole world have gone digital by now.
> >
> > Seems to me that no matter what standard is created to allow variations
> > for some countries, somebody comes along and uses bits of both and
> > thus creates yet another incompatibility. sigh.

> Yes, when the US had standardised on 525/30/NTSC since the 50s and Europe
> on 625/25/PAL (or 625/25/SECAM) since the 60s, what is the motivation
> for some countries to develop hybrid PAL 3.58 or NTSC 4.33 with one or
> other of the line/frame rates?

In the case of Argentina, they wanted to use PAL, but the broadcast
frequency assignments did not allow sufficient bandwidth for PAL I.

--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:07:48 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>I wonder if the world will ever evolve to the stage that a single digital TV
>decoder (either embedded in a TV or as a set top box) can be used throughout
>the world, such that it can handle both VHF and UHF, modulated as either
>COFDM or ATSC, in either 525/30 or 625/25. Or will we continue forever
>needing different receiving equipment in different countries?

Does it really matter any more? It's possible to view audiovisual
material from anywhere in the world on just about any computer or
streaming box anywhere in the world, generally without even knowing
anything about the technical standards. The only incompatibilities are
those applied deliberately for business or political reasons.
Effectively we already have global standards, and will eventually
forget conventional broadcasting, as people will avoid things that are
complicated or unreliable if they have something else that just works.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:15:05 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
wrote:

>> It's possible to view audiovisual
>> material from anywhere in the world on just about any computer or
>> streaming box anywhere in the world, generally without even knowing
>> anything about the technical standards.
>

>Because computers can download any coded they happen to need for
>playing a given file. The same is not true for television sets or
>receivers. There are now incompatible versions of DVB-T across Europe
>which means that you can't buy a terrestrial receiver from one country
>and be sure that it'll work in the next door country. Worse, they're
>about to ditch the "new" terrestrial standard and introduce DVB-T2,
>rendering all receiving equipment bought in the last ~15 years obsolete
>over night.

>
>> The only incompatibilities are
>> those applied deliberately for business or political reasons.
>

>What's different to the old analogue days?

>
>> Effectively we already have global standards,
>

>No we do not. Above I was talking about Europe only which supposedly
>uses "the same" standard, but on other continents there are different
>sets of standards altogether.

In practice it amounts to the same thing. With a computer I can watch
audiovisual material that has been conveyed by various methods from
anywhere in the world without even worrying about what the technical
details are. Click the mouse on any of a huge range of audio, video or
still image files, and it will just play. Whatever the nature or
provenance of the original signal, my computer will convert it so I
can watch on my screen, so clearly *something* has been standardised,
in the sense of having been made the same. If the purveyors of the
material make changes to it, I can make changes to the software I use
to watch it. I couldn't do this with a television receiver, because if
anybody makes a change that makes something unwatchable, it stays
unwatchable.

From the point of view of a typical user, it doesn't matter whether a
variety of material is supplied with the same technical parameters and
is viewed on equipment that can only cope with material of that form
(as in conventional broadcasting), or if the material arrives in a lot
of different forms and is dealt with by equipment that can cope with
all of them, automatically detecting and switching accordingly. The
end result is that one situation has limits and the other doesn't.

Rod.

[John Williamson]

On 12/01/2016 10:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:15:05 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>

>> No we do not. Above I was talking about Europe only which supposedly
>> uses "the same" standard, but on other continents there are different
>> sets of standards altogether.
>
> In practice it amounts to the same thing. With a computer I can watch
> audiovisual material that has been conveyed by various methods from
> anywhere in the world without even worrying about what the technical
> details are. Click the mouse on any of a huge range of audio, video or
> still image files, and it will just play. Whatever the nature or
> provenance of the original signal, my computer will convert it so I
> can watch on my screen, so clearly *something* has been standardised,
> in the sense of having been made the same. If the purveyors of the
> material make changes to it, I can make changes to the software I use
> to watch it. I couldn't do this with a television receiver, because if
> anybody makes a change that makes something unwatchable, it stays
> unwatchable.
>

Only because the hardware manufacturers have decreed it to be so. All
digital audio and video is just a special purpose computer, which can,
if allowed, be reprogrammed to cope with new formats, as long as there
is enough processing capacity available.

Even so, there is still a project called Rockbox, which is open source
and dedicated to improving the firmware of portable players.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:39:44 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>> No we do not. Above I was talking about Europe only which supposedly
>>> uses "the same" standard, but on other continents there are different
>>> sets of standards altogether.
>>
>> In practice it amounts to the same thing. With a computer I can watch
>> audiovisual material that has been conveyed by various methods from
>> anywhere in the world without even worrying about what the technical
>> details are. Click the mouse on any of a huge range of audio, video or
>> still image files, and it will just play. Whatever the nature or
>> provenance of the original signal, my computer will convert it so I
>> can watch on my screen, so clearly *something* has been standardised,
>> in the sense of having been made the same. If the purveyors of the
>> material make changes to it, I can make changes to the software I use
>> to watch it. I couldn't do this with a television receiver, because if
>> anybody makes a change that makes something unwatchable, it stays
>> unwatchable.
>>
>Only because the hardware manufacturers have decreed it to be so. All
>digital audio and video is just a special purpose computer, which can,
>if allowed, be reprogrammed to cope with new formats, as long as there
>is enough processing capacity available.

If I'm a typical TV viewer who just wants to watch programmes, I don't
know or care about any of this. I just want something that works, and
continues to work without my having to buy a new TV set every few
years in order to watch something that's no longer available. As
things stand at the moment, the traditional broadcasting philosophy of
enforcing a single set of technical standards and making all receiving
equipment the same is gradually being overtaken by the technical
free-for-all that is the internet, where material is viewed using
easily updateable software that is adaptable to cope with anything.

Once upon a time, even changing the number of lines in a TV picture
meant a major overhaul of the entire broadcasting system, and a major
redesign of the circuitry of domestic TV sets, which effectively meant
replacing them. With a modern computer, it's trivial.

>Even so, there is still a project called Rockbox, which is open source
>and dedicated to improving the firmware of portable players.

They'll have their work cut out to compete with computers, but good
luck to them.

Rod.

[NY]

"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5jn99bh8qdee5jjgm...@4ax.com...

Agreed. With computer viewing, you can watch Youtube videos and off-air or
from-DVD MPEG/MP4 files in any esoteric resolution and at a variety of frame
rates. On my monitor, which I've set for a 50 Hz (or is it 100 Hz?) refresh,
I cannot distinguish between 24, 25, and 30 fps recordings.

But dedicated TV hardware is a different matter. There are differences of
reception (VHF/UHF) and encoding standard (DVB-T, DVB-T2, ASTC etc), which
may require new hardware or firmware.

I wonder whether manufacturers will ever make a one-size-fits-all device
which has all the receivers and decoders (some of which aren't used in any
given country), which at least works anywhere in the world at the moment,
even if it's not future-proof. Do SD TVs in 525 and 625 land have different
screens with different native resolutions, or do they just have a single
high-res screen all over the world, with 525 or 625 interpolated onto this?
I've forgotten: do both "PAL"-land HD and "NTSC"-land HD use the same
resolution, with just the frame rate being different?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:08:09 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>Do SD TVs in 525 and 625 land have different
>screens with different native resolutions, or do they just have a single
>high-res screen all over the world, with 525 or 625 interpolated onto this?
>I've forgotten: do both "PAL"-land HD and "NTSC"-land HD use the same
>resolution, with just the frame rate being different?

The de facto "standards" (i.e. the commonest values) for native
resolution of modern flat screen displays are so much greater than SD
video that it hardly matters.

Everything seems to be gravitating towards 1920x1080 anyway for both
computer displays and TV displays. Even though the fundamental
requirements are still different (moving pictures at a distance versus
mostly fine detailed text close up), it's generally more than good
enough for either function. Does anybody still buy SD displays?

My TV set displays a little info panel indicating the resolution and
refresh rate every time there's a change, and depending on what source
I'm viewing, which can be a computer, a streaming box, a PVR or a
Blu-Ray player, the refesh rate can be indicated as 24Hz, 50Hz or
60Hz, but the resolution is always shown as 1920x1080, so I guess
that's what they use everywhere now, PAL-land and NTSC-land.

Rod.

[NY]

"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message

news:e2t99b183orebnasg...@4ax.com...

Our TV, a Samsung flat-screen that's about 5 years old, requires my laptop
to downgrade slightly from its native resolution if I connect it by VGA or
HDMI. I forget the precise figures, but I think it uses a resolution of
somewhere around 1400x900. So maybe the native resolution of that TV is a
lot lower than 1920x1080 which is what my PC monitor is.

Sometimes with PC monitors you can get a subjectively better picture by
using the correct native resolution than by going for a lower resolution and
letting the TV interpolate. In other words, let the PC's graphics card
up-scale the text (use text size of > 100% in Windows) rather than let the
TV up-scale the pixels. For TV, you probably wouldn't notice the difference.

[John Williamson]

On 12/01/2016 12:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> My TV set displays a little info panel indicating the resolution and
> refresh rate every time there's a change, and depending on what source
> I'm viewing, which can be a computer, a streaming box, a PVR or a
> Blu-Ray player, the refesh rate can be indicated as 24Hz, 50Hz or
> 60Hz, but the resolution is always shown as 1920x1080, so I guess
> that's what they use everywhere now, PAL-land and NTSC-land.
>
>

A lot of the HD sets sold at a large. well advertised, shop chain near
me are sold as not only being able to upscale SD footage to the screen's
native 1920x1080, but also interpolate frames in real time, so that
'tween frames are generated at a rate of 100Hz or more from 24 fps
picture sources, so giving the illusion of smoother action pictures for
sports such as tennis. All this in spite of HD TV often using fewer bits
per second than SD, while using virtually the same codecs.

However, these are now on the back burner of the sales effort, with the
latest idea being 4K sets, for which there is virtually no material
available yet, but which, when broadcast, will probably have even less
bandwidth to work from.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:12:08 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>However, these are now on the back burner of the sales effort, with the
>latest idea being 4K sets, for which there is virtually no material
>available yet, but which, when broadcast, will probably have even less
>bandwidth to work from.

It looks great in the shops though, doesn't it? But then anything new
always looks good under demonstration conditions.

It's a bit like the internet - lots of fancy facilities and services
but little improvement in the infrastructure on which to run them.

Rod.

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 12/01/16 13:25, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:12:08 +0000, John Williamson
> <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> However, these are now on the back burner of the sales effort, with the
>> latest idea being 4K sets, for which there is virtually no material
>> available yet, but which, when broadcast, will probably have even less
>> bandwidth to work from.
>
> It looks great in the shops though, doesn't it? But then anything new
> always looks good under demonstration conditions.
>

Yup, memories came flooding back of my first view of HD demonstration in
John Lewis, over 10 years (gulp) ago...

Retailer Plasma/LCD HD panel demo kit lurkin'

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/uk.tech.digital-tv/gksJp7aiIFk/discussion

> It's a bit like the internet - lots of fancy facilities and services
> but little improvement in the infrastructure on which to run them.

I can now view 4K demonstrations in the comfort of an internet
downloaded USB stick.

--
Adrian C

[Vir Campestris]

On 12/01/2016 13:06, NY wrote:
> Our TV, a Samsung flat-screen that's about 5 years old, requires my
> laptop to downgrade slightly from its native resolution if I connect it
> by VGA or HDMI. I forget the precise figures, but I think it uses a
> resolution of somewhere around 1400x900. So maybe the native resolution
> of that TV is a lot lower than 1920x1080 which is what my PC monitor is.

Most likely something(1) x 768. There were a lot of 768-line sets sold
as "HD Ready" when they were ready for a standard that nobody has ever
used. I've failed to get a satisfactory answer on why they didn't make
them 720 line.

I've heard it suggested they are repurposed PC monitors. At 40 inches.

Andy
--
(1) 16 * 720 / 9 and ICBA to work it out

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <pjidmc-...@wschwanke.de>, Wolfgang Schwanke
<s...@sig.nature> writes:
[]

>Because computers can download any coded they happen to need for

Well, roughly true, though you do have to keep reasonably up-to-date
with your version of Windows (not going to enter the Linux world on
this).

>playing a given file. The same is not true for television sets or
>receivers. There are now incompatible versions of DVB-T across Europe
>which means that you can't buy a terrestrial receiver from one country
>and be sure that it'll work in the next door country. Worse, they're

(Although I can receive French DVB-T OK [though I'm not sure about any
audio description].)

>about to ditch the "new" terrestrial standard and introduce DVB-T2,
>rendering all receiving equipment bought in the last ~15 years obsolete
>over night.

15 years? Look into my eyes ... you _will_ buy new TVs every three to
five years, if not less ...

>
>> The only incompatibilities are
>> those applied deliberately for business or political reasons.
>

>What's different to the old analogue days?
>

>> Effectively we already have global standards,
>

>No we do not. Above I was talking about Europe only which supposedly
>uses "the same" standard, but on other continents there are different
>sets of standards altogether.
>

>> and will eventually
>> forget conventional broadcasting, as people will avoid things that are
>> complicated or unreliable if they have something else that just works.
>

>Not any time soon.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <fL-dnXXPusg8cQnL...@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<m...@privacy.net> writes:
[]

>But dedicated TV hardware is a different matter. There are differences
>of reception (VHF/UHF) and encoding standard (DVB-T, DVB-T2, ASTC etc),
>which may require new hardware or firmware.
>
>I wonder whether manufacturers will ever make a one-size-fits-all
>device which has all the receivers and decoders (some of which aren't
>used in any given country), which at least works anywhere in the world
>at the moment, even if it's not future-proof. Do SD TVs in 525 and 625
>land have different screens with different native resolutions, or do
>they just have a single high-res screen all over the world, with 525 or
>625 interpolated onto this? I've forgotten: do both "PAL"-land HD and
>"NTSC"-land HD use the same resolution, with just the frame rate being
>different?

Unlikely. I can only think of two such, both back in the analogue days:
I had (still have) a portable JVC colour TV (with radio and cassette
player too), that had switchable 5.5/6/6.5 MHz sound separation,
VHF/UHF, and PAL/NTSC (actually one of the positions, I forget which,
was "AUTO"); I _think_ that would have worked anywhere. But it was only
a 4 or 5 inch screen, with a fairly coarse shadowmask, so not really
even up to 525/625 resolution. (Come to think of it, no, it wouldn't
have worked anywhere, as it didn't AFAICR have SECAM, or handle positive
modulation (or system A).

The other one was a monochrome set: the original Sinclair tiny one, with
a 1" (or was it 1½") screen (not the one you viewed through the side of
the CRT, the one before). The first version of that was truly
multi-standard, including tuner - of course, being B/W meant it didn't
have to worry about colour standards. But it was never really popular -
maybe looked too technical, or was too expensive; when Sinclair made a
single-standard variant (still using the same tiny tube), it was
considerably more popular.

In those days, it was a combination of saving every penny or fraction
thereof (examination of the PCBs often showed unfilled areas, e. g. for
VHF tuners on UK sets), and the desire to make consumers buy more sets,
the latter still of course being the case. Manufacturers _love_ changing
standards for that reason! And with the current pace of change, they
also don't have to worry too much about reliability either: they (I
presume) just budget for a certain percentage of replacement of units
that fail, while waiting for the product to be rendered obsolete anyway
before the failure percentage becomes too high.

[Sorry if I sound cynical ... (-:]

[Brian Gaff]

Perhaps the nc stood for non consensual?
Certainly I do not remember asking the authorities to completely screw up
simple system by have bits of it on one standard and bits on another one.
Strange that.
Brian

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lCkiAbYo...@soft255.demon.co.uk...

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

[Jason Lopez]

A clarification: Pal-NC was Pal-N, and a few months ago, the American countries that used PAL already changed to ISDB-T (in our country it is compatible and we use a variant called SATVD that mixes the bonbades of the Brazilian system as Japanese in one.

Rest in peace, my great friend PAL-N.