[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
m
On 03/13/2011 07:34 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Randy wrote in message
m
On 03/11/2011 01:10 AM, josephkk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny
wrote:

wrote in message


On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

snip

At some points in a comparison the analog signal will
be degraded to the extent that it is no longer
enjoyable, while a comparable digital signal will
still be ideal. In many locations the analog signal will
never be totally free of ghosts, while the digital
signal will be unchanged from optimal.
And at other locations the analog signal was eminently
watchable and the digital signal never receivable
(black screen with broken audio) in spite of plenty of
signal strength.

If the digital signa was at the same frequency, I'm not
sure why that would occur unless you had a multipath
problem.

The digital and analog signals were never at the same
frequency during the period when we could compare OTA
digital with analog signals for pretty obvious reasons.
In most cases the analog signal was VHF and the digital
signal was UHF.

...except when the analog signal was UHF and the digital
signal was UHF.

It turned out that in every case but one, the HDTV channels that once were
UHF analog, ended up at lower frequencies

50 went to 14
56 went to 43
62 went to 44

The exception:

38 went to 39

Actually one could still have compared the two, even if
they weren't present simultaneously, given the fact that
human beings have memory; indeed this is the scenario I
had in mind.

It is just that simultaneous comparison is easier and potentially more
accurate.


Perhaps this was the exception rather than the rule,
however - I really don't know.