[Arny Krueger]

"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message


In sci.electronics.design Trevor wrote:

"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message
...
Good analog gear will give you almost
undistorted 10KHz square wave. What is the highest sine
wave frequency that
should be taken into the equation to make that 10KHz
square wave to even remotedly resemble the original one?

Right, but ever tried getting a 10kHz square wave from a
vinyl record? Does it REMOTELY resemble a square wave?
Obviously vinyl records are NOT "good analog gear" which
is what most people discovered decades ago.

Yep, there is no clean 10KHz square wave from vinyl, I
agree. But it is better than that abruptly cut at 22KHz.

Not true. The problem with 10 KHz from the LP is that it has considerable
inherent nonlinear distortion from geometric sources.

24/96 is way better, it covers all you can get from
analog audio perfectly, no complaints.

I use 24/96 for measurements, but for recording no one has ever proven that
44.1 KHz lacks audible fidelity.

Fight this:

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf

[Arny Krueger]

"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message


Once again -- people listen to the _music_ , not the
accurate reproduction or whatever is good on paper.

This is one reason why crappy analog tape and LPs sufficed for so many
decades. Of course, the emergence of digital alternatives settled all that
for 99+% of everybody.

If one likes unhealthy charred barbeque steak there is no
reason to persuade him steam boiled vegetables and turkey
meat is healthier

Excluded middle argument noted. Properly grilled (but not charred)
vegetables and meat can be a delicious treat.

[John Fields]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:

SoothSayer wrote:
[...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a
"carrier" with the intended "signal"..

Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean
that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there.

Time for a trigonometry refresher course:

Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves
cos A * cos B.

A basic trigonometric identity tells us this is identical to:
0.5 cos(A+B) - 0.5 cos(A-B), which is a simple linear sum of
sine waves.

In conclusion, your assertion that linear summation can't
get you a modulated waveform is wrong.

Jeroen Belleman

---
No, he's right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation


and, the pudding:


Version 4
SHEET 1 1380 680
WIRE -496 -48 -544 -48
WIRE -384 -48 -416 -48
WIRE 432 -48 272 -48
WIRE 752 -48 624 -48
WIRE -464 0 -896 0
WIRE -464 16 -464 0
WIRE 656 16 624 16
WIRE 752 16 752 -48
WIRE -624 32 -752 32
WIRE -544 32 -544 -48
WIRE -544 32 -624 32
WIRE -496 32 -544 32
WIRE 272 32 272 -48
WIRE -384 48 -384 -48
WIRE -384 48 -432 48
WIRE 432 48 400 48
WIRE -752 64 -752 32
WIRE -624 64 -624 32
WIRE -496 64 -544 64
WIRE -80 64 -320 64
WIRE 128 96 64 96
WIRE -80 128 -208 128
WIRE 128 144 128 96
WIRE -896 160 -896 0
WIRE -752 160 -752 144
WIRE -624 160 -624 144
WIRE -464 160 -464 80
WIRE -320 160 -320 64
WIRE -208 160 -208 128
WIRE 272 160 272 112
WIRE 400 160 400 48
WIRE 752 160 752 96
WIRE -896 288 -896 240
WIRE -752 288 -752 240
WIRE -752 288 -896 288
WIRE -624 288 -624 240
WIRE -624 288 -752 288
WIRE -544 288 -544 64
WIRE -544 288 -624 288
WIRE -464 288 -464 240
WIRE -464 288 -544 288
WIRE -320 288 -320 240
WIRE -320 288 -464 288
WIRE -208 288 -208 240
WIRE -208 288 -320 288
WIRE 128 288 128 224
WIRE 128 288 -208 288
WIRE 272 288 272 240
WIRE 272 288 128 288
WIRE 400 288 400 240
WIRE 400 288 272 288
WIRE 656 288 656 16
WIRE 656 288 400 288
WIRE 752 288 752 240
WIRE 752 288 656 288
WIRE -896 352 -896 288
FLAG -896 352 0
SYMBOL Opamps\\LT1007 -464 -16 R0
SYMATTR InstName U1
SYMBOL voltage -464 256 R180
WINDOW 0 24 104 Left 0
WINDOW 3 24 16 Left 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V4
SYMATTR Value 15
SYMBOL voltage -896 144 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V5
SYMATTR Value 15
SYMBOL voltage -752 144 R0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 100)
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMBOL voltage -624 144 R0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 10k)
SYMATTR InstName V3
SYMBOL res -400 -64 R90
WINDOW 0 -34 57 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 -31 57 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL res -736 160 R180
WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0
WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL res -608 160 R180
WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0
WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL SPECIALFUNCTIONS\\MODULATE -80 64 R0
WINDOW 0 37 -55 Left 0
WINDOW 3 55 119 Center 0
SYMATTR InstName A2
SYMATTR Value mark=10k space=0
SYMBOL voltage -208 144 R0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 100)
SYMATTR InstName V6
SYMBOL voltage -320 144 R0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR Value 1
SYMATTR InstName V7
SYMBOL res 112 128 R0
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL Optos\\4N25 528 16 R0
WINDOW 0 1 68 Center 0
WINDOW 3 1 98 Center 0
SYMATTR InstName U2
SYMBOL voltage 400 144 R0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR Value SINE(12 2 100)
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMBOL voltage 272 144 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V8
SYMATTR Value 15
SYMBOL res 288 128 R180
WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0
WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL voltage 752 144 R0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR Value SINE(1 1 10k)
SYMATTR InstName V9
SYMBOL res 736 0 R0
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value 10k
TEXT -880 312 Left 0 !.tran .1
TEXT -744 -120 Left 0 ;LINEAR SUMMATION
TEXT -176 -120 Left 0 ;AMPLITUDE MODULATION
TEXT 368 -128 Left 0 ;AMPLITUDE MODULATION

---
JF

[Jeroen Belleman]

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:

SoothSayer wrote:
[...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a
"carrier" with the intended "signal"..

Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean
that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there.
Time for a trigonometry refresher course:

Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves
cos A * cos B.

A basic trigonometric identity tells us this is identical to:
0.5 cos(A+B) - 0.5 cos(A-B), which is a simple linear sum of
sine waves.

In conclusion, your assertion that linear summation can't
get you a modulated waveform is wrong.

Jeroen Belleman

---
No, he's right:

I tell you, he's wrong. What you did is not what the above
formula said.

Substitute
V2 = SINE(0 .5 10100 0 0 90)
and
V3 = SINE(0 .5 9900 0 0 -90)

and you'll see that the waveform from the adder matches that of
the modulator exactly. The spiel with the phase of the sources is
because LTspice generates sines rather than cosines, which is of
no importance to the argument.

I rest my case.

Jeroen Belleman

[Jeroen Belleman]

SoothSayer wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:

SoothSayer wrote:
[...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a
"carrier" with the intended "signal"..

Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean
that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there.
Time for a trigonometry refresher course:

Are you sure? Could it be semantics?
Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves
cos A * cos B.

Funny, I thought modulation was using one signal to control the
amplitude of another signal.

Multiplication?

Yes, multiplication. And the product can be exactly represented
by the *sum* of some number of other sine wave signals. This is
basic signal processing mathematics. Usenet isn't really the
ideal medium to teach this stuff. To much pollution. Try
Wikipedia, or perhaps gasp a book.

Jeroen Belleman

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 05:47:43 -0500, Dick Pierce
wrote:

SoothSayer wrote:
Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean
that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there.

Yes, it can, if you linearly sum the right components. If
in the example I gace, I sum a 900 Hz, 1000 Hz and 1100 Hz
sine save of the right amplitudes and phase, I will get a
signal which is identical in every respect to the non-linear
modulation of a 1 kHz carrier by a 100 Hz signal.

Yup. The complex Fourier transform of the AM signal is exactly that:
carrier plus two sidebands. So three summed sines of appropriate
amplitude and phase are exactly the same as the AM signal. Couldn't be
otherwise.

John

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 07:29:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message


OK, what is the spectrum of e.g. shattered glass sound or
a gunshot?

Ask your friendly neighborhood FFT.

How high it goes when you strike high-hat or
ride cymbal?

Actually, cymbals are not really powerful sources of HF sound. They usually
peak in the 8-10 KHz range and roll off at something like 12 dB/octave above
that.

What is the spectral width of even 1KHz square wave?

Nearly infinite, but how is this relevant to audio?

Good analog gear will give you almost undistorted 10KHz square wave.

True. If you want very low distortion, the digital domain is where you go.

What is the highest sine
wave frequency that should be taken into the equation to
make that 10KHz square wave to even remotedly resemble
the original one?

Do you mean "sounds like" or do you mean traces on the screen of an
oscilliscope?


The lowest harmonic of a 10 KHz square wave is 30 KHz!

John

[John Fields]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:01:06 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:

SoothSayer wrote:
[...] You have to MODULATE the AMPLITUDE of a
"carrier" with the intended "signal"..

Simply seeing something that appears to be "enveloped" does not mean
that it is amplitude modulated. Linear summation does not get you there.
Time for a trigonometry refresher course:

Modulation is multiplication of two signals, e.g., for sine waves
cos A * cos B.

A basic trigonometric identity tells us this is identical to:
0.5 cos(A+B) - 0.5 cos(A-B), which is a simple linear sum of
sine waves.

In conclusion, your assertion that linear summation can't
get you a modulated waveform is wrong.

Jeroen Belleman

---
No, he's right:

I tell you, he's wrong. What you did is not what the above
formula said.

Substitute
V2 = SINE(0 .5 10100 0 0 90)
and
V3 = SINE(0 .5 9900 0 0 -90)

and you'll see that the waveform from the adder matches that of
the modulator exactly. The spiel with the phase of the sources is
because LTspice generates sines rather than cosines, which is of
no importance to the argument.

I rest my case.

Jeroen Belleman

---
You're right, thanks. :-)

---
JF

[geoff]

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
In sci.electronics.design Trevor wrote:

"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message
...
Good analog gear will give you almost
undistorted 10KHz square wave. What is the highest sine wave
frequency that
should be taken into the equation to make that 10KHz square wave to
even remotedly resemble the original one?

Right, but ever tried getting a 10kHz square wave from a vinyl
record? Does it REMOTELY resemble a square wave?
Obviously vinyl records are NOT "good analog gear" which is what
most people discovered decades ago.

Yep, there is no clean 10KHz square wave from vinyl, I agree. But it
is better than that abruptly cut at 22KHz.

Wrong. Simply wrong.

geoff

[SoothSayer]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:17:39 -0500, Dick Pierce
wrote:

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Yep, there is no clean 10KHz square wave from vinyl, I agree.

That's becasue there is no 10 kHz square wave AT
ALL from vinyl.


No. There are NO square waves at all on vinyl.

The slew rate of the leading edge of the pulse is zero. The stylus,
much less the vinyl itself cannot handle, much less accurately reproduce
it. Then, there is that instantaneous track wear issue that worsens with
each play.

Even the grossest approximation
thereof requires a minimum of a 30 kHz bandwidth.

The medium is NOT made for the source signal described. In fact,
neither are sonic transducers (speakers).

You disagree? Then show us a reproducible example
of an LP that can produce a 10 kHz square wave that's
distinguishable from a 10 kHz sine wave.

Cannot be done. It is idiocy to claim it can, and idiocy to entertain
it at all, in fact.

But it is better than that abruptly cut at 22KHz.

How is cutting off below 20 kHz better than cutting
off at 22 kHz?

Pretty funny, some of the things folks say.

[Randy Yates]

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Randy wrote in message
news
You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia
of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in
almost every way.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates]

On 03/03/2011 09:22 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
[...]
I asked a question, you answered it. I'm embarassed to say that I once knew
the answer but the fog of other battles, and all that.

Been there, done that...
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:37:01 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

On 02/27/2011 09:02 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Randy wrote in message
m...
Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic
advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops,
wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt
brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless...

Gee I sure don't!
And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either.
Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently
made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I
miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates
that IMO.

Trevor,

You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era.

Ah, nostalgia! It's not what it used to be.

d

[Randy Yates]

On 03/03/2011 10:34 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
[...]
the FFT [...]

Who said anything about the FFT? The Fourier Transform (which was
what Dick stated) is NOT equivalent to the FFT.

By the way, the "inherent periodicity" claim of the FFT is/was being
hotly debated over on comp.dsp. However, I agree with your viewpoint,
Don.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:06:28 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

On 03/03/2011 10:34 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
[...]
the FFT [...]

Who said anything about the FFT? The Fourier Transform (which was
what Dick stated) is NOT equivalent to the FFT.


Mr Upside Down mentioned the FFT in the post I was responding to.

By the way, the "inherent periodicity" claim of the FFT is/was being
hotly debated over on comp.dsp. However, I agree with your viewpoint,
Don.

Ta.

d

[Randy Yates]

On 03/05/2011 01:20 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Mr Upside Down mentioned the FFT in the post I was responding to.

Doh! I'll blame it on Thunderbird's thread graphics!
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Michael A. Terrell]

Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Randy wrote in message
news
You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia
of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in
almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so
good that I no longer get any OTA TV.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

[Trevor]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
What is the highest sine
wave frequency that should be taken into the equation to
make that 10KHz square wave to even remotedly resemble
the original one?

Do you mean "sounds like" or do you mean traces on the screen of an
oscilliscope?


The lowest harmonic of a 10 KHz square wave is 30 KHz!

Right, and as you have been repeatedly told, well above the range of the
human auditory system, and beyond the range of 99.9999% of vinyl records
ever made. Those few that do have some actual signal at 30+kHz are still
down in the noise, with distortion levels likely exceeding any actual
signal. Since nobody can hear it anyway, that last condition is fairly
irrelevant fortunately.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era.

Ah, nostalgia! It's not what it used to be.

Careful Don, Randy already called me a jackass for saying that old joke! :-)

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message
Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Randy wrote in message
news
You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia
of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique
attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is
"better" in almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In
fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.

I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog
over cable.

No surprise, digital still wins hands down. In retrospect, its surprising
that analog was as good as it was.

[ehsjr[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message

Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Randy wrote in message
news4edndYKdafAJvDQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@supernew s.com


You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia
of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique
attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is
"better" in almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In
fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.


I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog
over cable.

No surprise, digital still wins hands down.

When you cherry pick the comparison conditions.
Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV"
and does not now.

Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get
more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio),
outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog
ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv.

Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV
becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion.

So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to digital,
of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor.

Ed


In retrospect, its surprising
that analog was as good as it was.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:19:20 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era.

Ah, nostalgia! It's not what it used to be.

Careful Don, Randy already called me a jackass for saying that old joke! :-)

Trevor.

That's fine. I'm quite happy to be a jackass.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"ehsjr" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote
in message

Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Randy wrote in message
news

You've missed my point completely. I miss the
nostalgia of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique
attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is
"better" in almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In
fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.

I think the relevant comparison would be digital over
cable versus analog over cable.

No surprise, digital still wins hands down.

When you cherry pick the comparison conditions.

I'm not cherry picking, I'm just talking about what happens around here.

Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital
TV" and does not now.

Well by law all OTA TV where I live is digital. It is what it is.

Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you
get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or
audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years
of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv.

Not my particular experience. Besides, you're cherry-picking faults to
*exclude* the typical analog faults.

Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog
TV becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion.

That sounds to me like very good news!

So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to
digital, of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor.

Who is cherry picking?

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:12:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message
Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Randy wrote in message
news
You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia
of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique
attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is
"better" in almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In
fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.

I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog
over cable.

No surprise, digital still wins hands down. In retrospect, its surprising
that analog was as good as it was.

The real problem with analog TV was that it required quite a few well
trained professionals in the production and distribution stages,
making the operations quite costly.

By digitizing the analog SD component signal to Rec.601 format as
early as possible, makes it easier to use system with very minimal or
no manual maintenance by any highly trained technicians.

From the distribution point of view, a SD program can be distributed
in 2-3 MHz OTA bandwidth, while an analog program would require 6-8
MHz (depending on country).Getting rid of NTSC/PAL also made it
possible to get rid of cross luminne/crominance errors but
unfortunately instead we got various pixelization errors in MPEG2/4:-(

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

ehsjr wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message

Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Randy wrote in message
news

You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia
of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique
attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is
"better" in almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In
fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.


I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus
analog over cable.

No surprise, digital still wins hands down.

When you cherry pick the comparison conditions.
Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV"
and does not now.

Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get
more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio),
outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog
ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv.


Ehhh.... let's relist he

1) multipath.
2) *always* low SNR unless you're getting blasted or on an
actual *good* cable connection.
3) AM noise sensitivity.
4) Going back to dinosaur days, before PLLs, vertical hold drift.
5) 400 lbs of analog filters, tubes, transformers and whatnot.
6) Keeping your left hand in your pocket at all times...
7) Antenna rotators...

Don't get me wrong, NTSC was a bloody miracle, given how it
came to be ( check the book "Tube" some time, or the PBS series
based on it, or both ) but *the* solution to digital already exists -
fiber. And it's mostly here.
http://www.amazon.com/Tube-Invention-Television-David-Fisher/dp/0788160788/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1299541953&sr=8-6

Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV
becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion.

So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to digital,
of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor.

Ed


In retrospect, its surprising that analog was as good as it was.


--
Les Cargill

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message
Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Randy wrote in message
news
You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia
of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique
attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is
"better" in almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In
fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.

I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog
over cable.


The analog service on cable is converted from digital, and it sucks.


No surprise, digital still wins hands down. In retrospect, its surprising
that analog was as good as it was.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

[[email protected]]

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

"ehsjr" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote
in message

Randy Yates wrote:

On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Randy wrote in message
news

You've missed my point completely. I miss the
nostalgia of the era.

I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique
attraction.

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is
"better" in almost every way.


You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In
fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.

I think the relevant comparison would be digital over
cable versus analog over cable.

No surprise, digital still wins hands down.

When you cherry pick the comparison conditions.

I'm not cherry picking, I'm just talking about what happens around here.

You just did.

Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital
TV" and does not now.

Well by law all OTA TV where I live is digital. It is what it is.

It is where Michael lives, too. It is what it is, except when it isn't, which
was Michael's point. He isn't alone.

Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you
get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or
audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years
of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv.

Not my particular experience. Besides, you're cherry-picking faults to
*exclude* the typical analog faults.

The typical analog fault is snow or much less often ghosting. It is still
watchable as it degrades a long way down. Digital is *far* more picky and
doesn't fail gracefully at all.

Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog
TV becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion.

That sounds to me like very good news!

Pay attention!

So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to
digital, of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor.

Who is cherry picking?

*YOU* are.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
7) Antenna rotators...

Never needed one with analog, but I could certainly use one now with digital
since one transmission tower is in a different location, and I cannot get a
decent signal on all channels. Digitals problem of failing with too much
signal as well as too little means I have to switch an attenuator in and out
if I don't want picture breakup and audio squeals. Of course some recievers
do a far better job than others, just as they did in the analog days. While
technology steadily improves, the quality delivered by some manufacturers
certainly doesn't :-(

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


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

"ehsjr" wrote in message


Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV,
you get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video
and/or audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in
ten years of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog
cable tv.

Not my particular experience. Besides, you're
cherry-picking faults to *exclude* the typical analog
faults.

The typical analog fault is snow or much less often
ghosting.

No doubt true for OTA, but for cable systems the most noticable flaw I saw
was lack of detail and slightly incorrect colors.

It is still watchable as it degrades a long
way down.

In my case analog was never excellent, even with a very good signal strength
and freedom from snow and ghosting. This was cable.

We had about 2 years of concurrent OTA analog and digital here, and I
compared the two many times.

Digital is *far* more picky and doesn't fail gracefully at all.

Digital is essentially unchanged until certain minimal standards are not
met, and then it falls apart completely. That is what it does by design.

Since digital TV is UHF or high band VHF here, the physical size of an
antenna with very high gain and excellent directivity is much more managable
with digital.

The judgement call is over what you call graceful failure. Never being as
good is IMO not exactly graceful.

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message

Ehhh.... let's relist he

1) multipath.

2) *always* low SNR unless you're getting blasted or on an
actual *good* cable connection.

3) AM noise sensitivity.

4) Going back to dinosaur days, before PLLs, vertical hold drift.

5) 400 lbs of analog filters, tubes, transformers and whatnot.

6) Keeping your left hand in your pocket at all times...

7) Antenna rotators...

Don't get me wrong, NTSC was a bloody miracle, given how
it came to be ( check the book "Tube" some time, or the PBS
series based on it, or both ) but *the* solution to
digital already exists - fiber. And it's mostly here.
http://www.amazon.com/Tube-Invention-Television-David-Fisher/dp/0788160788/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1299541953&sr=8-6

I guess that would be your allusion to how inherently flakey NTSC color
actually was. We all know that NTSC stood for "Never The Same Color " and
that is how it was for several decades after introduction.

I agree - its amazing that they got it working as well as they did. The one
thing that survives from the era of analog color is the CBS color wheel
which was never accepted for the purpose but now does wonderful things in
DLP color TVs.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
In many locations the analog signal will never be totally free of ghosts,
while the digital signal will be unchanged from optimal.

Right, and in some locations you can get a picture on analog that many found
watchable, but NO picture on digital at all.
And so far no one has mentioned bit rates. The trend here unfortunately has
been to constantly lower bit rates to fit in more channels, so that what was
once a FAR better picture on digital, is often no better than analog. We
have just swapped noise for pixelation. At least we have a few more channels
to choose from however, so it's not all bad. But to make the problem worse,
we now have most of our High Definition channels broadcasting 1960's re-runs
that are obviously NOT high definition in any sense of the word, and not
even wide-screen format. What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's
people have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV channels.
Is it as bad in the USA?

And how about digital radio. Such low bit rates it's always worse than FM.
Add in real reception problems in cars where people often listen to radio,
and one is almost forced to the conclusion that there is a deliberate
conspiracy to create problems rather than solve them! The technology is
certainly not to blame, just it's implementation by non technical
politicians paid by vested interest groups :-(

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

In many locations the analog signal will never be
totally free of ghosts, while the digital signal will be
unchanged from optimal.

Right, and in some locations you can get a picture on
analog that many found watchable, but NO picture on
digital at all.

That has to be true - different frequencies is probably the major reason
why.

And so far no one has mentioned bit rates. The trend here
unfortunately has been to constantly lower bit rates to
fit in more channels, so that what was once a FAR better
picture on digital, is often no better than analog.

Your "no better than analog" claim has to be true if someone goes off the
deep end, but in practice, nobody seems to be going there.

For example the local PBS output runs 3 services, 2 16:9 HD and 1 4:3
digital format.

We have just swapped noise for pixelation.

Thats not how it works. With scalers and transcoding the distinctions are
blurred. The two 16:9 services on our PBS outlet show a clear hierarchy of
quality, but it is non trivial for me to characterize the difference. I
think they are both the same number of vertical pixels, but one has a
clearer more dynamic picture than the other. The Blu Ray palayer, the cable
box and DLP TV have scalers, so the display is always painted @ 1080i.

Just because there are pixels on the screen doesn't mean that they get the
data that is required to make them strut their stuff.

At least we have a few more channels to choose from however, so it's not
all bad. But to make the problem worse, we now have most
of our High Definition channels broadcasting 1960's
re-runs that are obviously NOT high definition in any
sense of the word, and not even wide-screen format.]

Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and
the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind.

What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people
have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV
channels. Is it as bad in the USA?

YMMV. Things are pretty good here in the city, but I've spent some time
upstate and its mixed bag. Down here the cable services are now 100%
digital with 100s of channels and with all but the local OTA channel
distribution coded. Local OTA channels are clear QAM. The actual bitrates
seem to vary all over the place. Upstate the cable system was a hodgepodge
of 100 channels both digital and analog, and the implementation of digital
was a mixture of encoded premium services and clear QAM standard services. I
believe the local OTA channels were clear QAM.

And how about digital radio. Such low bit rates it's
always worse than FM. Add in real reception problems in
cars where people often listen to radio, and one is
almost forced to the conclusion that there is a
deliberate conspiracy to create problems rather than
solve them! The technology is certainly not to blame,
just it's implementation by non technical politicians
paid by vested interest groups :-(

And then there are the satellite services, both TV and radio...

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Trevor" wrote in message
u

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

In many locations the analog signal will never be
totally free of ghosts, while the digital signal will be
unchanged from optimal.

Right, and in some locations you can get a picture on
analog that many found watchable, but NO picture on
digital at all.

That has to be true - different frequencies is probably the major reason
why.

WRONG!

And so far no one has mentioned bit rates. The trend here
unfortunately has been to constantly lower bit rates to
fit in more channels, so that what was once a FAR better
picture on digital, is often no better than analog.

Your "no better than analog" claim has to be true if someone goes off the
deep end, but in practice, nobody seems to be going there.

Actually, they are. Perhaps you just aren't sensitive to the digital
artifacts (or willfully ignore them).

For example the local PBS output runs 3 services, 2 16:9 HD and 1 4:3
digital format.

We have just swapped noise for pixelation.

Thats not how it works. With scalers and transcoding the distinctions are
blurred. The two 16:9 services on our PBS outlet show a clear hierarchy of
quality, but it is non trivial for me to characterize the difference. I
think they are both the same number of vertical pixels, but one has a
clearer more dynamic picture than the other. The Blu Ray palayer, the cable
box and DLP TV have scalers, so the display is always painted @ 1080i.

That may not be "how it works", but it *is* the result.

Just because there are pixels on the screen doesn't mean that they get the
data that is required to make them strut their stuff.

Whatever that means...

At least we have a few more channels to choose from however, so it's not
all bad. But to make the problem worse, we now have most
of our High Definition channels broadcasting 1960's
re-runs that are obviously NOT high definition in any
sense of the word, and not even wide-screen format.]

Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and
the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind.

Try reading.

What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people
have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV
channels. Is it as bad in the USA?

YMMV. Things are pretty good here in the city, but I've spent some time
upstate and its mixed bag. Down here the cable services are now 100%
digital with 100s of channels and with all but the local OTA channel
distribution coded. Local OTA channels are clear QAM. The actual bitrates
seem to vary all over the place. Upstate the cable system was a hodgepodge
of 100 channels both digital and analog, and the implementation of digital
was a mixture of encoded premium services and clear QAM standard services. I
believe the local OTA channels were clear QAM.

I thought you just said that "no one seems to be going there"?

And how about digital radio. Such low bit rates it's
always worse than FM. Add in real reception problems in
cars where people often listen to radio, and one is
almost forced to the conclusion that there is a
deliberate conspiracy to create problems rather than
solve them! The technology is certainly not to blame,
just it's implementation by non technical politicians
paid by vested interest groups :-(

And then there are the satellite services, both TV and radio...

Yes, and they suck too (XM less so than Dish).

[SoothSayer]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That has to be true - different frequencies is probably the major reason
why.

Dingledorf! Digital requires a minimum signal strength and needs to be
below a specific bit-error-rate (10%).

So, in many cases where the "tuner" *could* actually get and give you
the signal, it puts up a blank screen because it has decided the signal
is below its minimum acceptable strength or BER.

It has NOTHING to do with the frequency it is being transmitted on. If
anything it would improve as a result of that.

I was 50 miles from most of the broadcasters in SD and got them all
because I only needed to point my antenna in one spot.

Moving nearer to the coast at a mere 12 miles form various transmitters,
my channel count dropped because I had to actually point the antenna at
four different directions. Then, there were the nearby buildings causing
multipath issues at the main carrier level, which causes the tuner to
declare the signal to be below the threshold it set.

The signals are there. You simply need a good tuner and antenna to get
them.

[SoothSayer]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and
the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind.

"MacKenna's Gold".

Wait! What is it... Oh!

"How The West Was Won"

That is exactly what you refer to (except for the tax part).

Check out the BluRay release.

Your brain taxes your grasp of what is going on with HD screen arrays.
Hopefully, this thread taxes your brain. Maybe it will wake up.

[SoothSayer]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The actual bitrates
seem to vary all over the place.


SOURCE.

There are several "channels" on cable that are about as poorly
compressed as it gets. So it most certainly depends entirely on the
channel.

Cable companies are not what they once were.
They used to care about the quality of what got delivered. Now, they
don't give a fat flying **** at all. Half of them can't even keep their
heads ends up to snuff. I have seen it take ten minutes for them to
re-align a fouled dish position.

Cross posting retards are even worse when the dumb asses add more
groups.

[SoothSayer]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:59:07 -0800, SoothSayer
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and
the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind.

"MacKenna's Gold".

Wait! What is it... Oh!

"How The West Was Won"

That is exactly what you refer to (except for the tax part).

Check out the BluRay release.

Your brain taxes your grasp of what is going on with HD screen arrays.
Hopefully, this thread taxes your brain. Maybe it will wake up.

Not to mention 2001: A Space Oddessey

[Trevor]

"SoothSayer" wrote in message
...
The signals are there. You simply need a good tuner and antenna to get
them.

Right, and often a far better tuner/antenna/mast/cable etc. than people are
used to, or expect.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Your "no better than analog" claim has to be true if someone goes off the
deep end, but in practice, nobody seems to be going there.

They certainly are here unfortunately.

We have just swapped noise for pixelation.

Thats not how it works. With scalers and transcoding the distinctions are
blurred.

As is the picture at very low bit rates!

The two 16:9 services on our PBS outlet show a clear hierarchy of quality,
but it is non trivial for me to characterize the difference. I think they
are both the same number of vertical pixels, but one has a clearer more
dynamic picture than the other. The Blu Ray palayer, the cable box and DLP
TV have scalers, so the display is always painted @ 1080i.

Whilst you may get whatever scale your box outputs and/or your TV accepts,
the way compression systems work is that the lower the bit rate, the bigger
average block size. Some systems can interpolate and reduce the block size
sure, but they cannot increase the resolution back to what a higher bit rate
would give. Hence we now get 1960's TV show re-runs broadcast on OTA Hi-Def
channels that actually have lower resolution than what good analog TV was
capable of. Truly sad given what the technology can really manage.
You are indeed lucky if that does not happen in the USA.


Just because there are pixels on the screen doesn't mean that they get the
data that is required to make them strut their stuff.

Exactly.

Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and
the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind.

I was talking about 1960's TV shows, but unfortunately not all old movie
transfers are done well either, even if the original prints might still be
capable of it. A lot of the old movies broadcast here are simply taken from
DVD, even when broadcast on the so called Hi-Def channels, and there are
plenty of appalling examples of bad digital transfer IME. Simply upscaling
that video to Hi-Def scan rates does NOT make the picture "High Definition"
IMO. It simply allows them to advertise it as such.


What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people
have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV
channels. Is it as bad in the USA?

YMMV. Things are pretty good here in the city, but I've spent some time
upstate and its mixed bag.

Well I'm in a major city, and things are pretty diabolical at the moment.
They were far better when they first started digital TV broadcasting, but
things have gotten progressivley worse, except for the number of channels.


Down here the cable services are now 100%

Right, it seems to be a ploy to force you onto cable, whether you want to
pay it or not.

And then there are the satellite services, both TV and radio...

Right, I don't want or need those either.

Trevor.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:30:58 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"SoothSayer" wrote in message
.. .
The signals are there. You simply need a good tuner and antenna to get
them.

Right, and often a far better tuner/antenna/mast/cable etc. than people are
used to, or expect.

Trevor.


I never said anything about a mast.

Indoor, desktop (set top) antenna with pre-amp.

Crappy old first year tuner from US Digital.

The drop out point is what the user needs access to the threshold of.