[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.

I never said anything about a mast.

Right, I did.

Indoor, desktop (set top) antenna with pre-amp.
Crappy old first year tuner from US Digital.

Which might work well for you where you live. Consider yourself lucky. Many
others aren't.

Trevor.

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

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

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

"MacKenna's Gold".

The only part of this movie that I remember was Julie Newmar as some Indian
maiden swimming naked.

Thanks!
Rich

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

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,

A visibly flawed if not unenjoyable if not unwatchable signal.

it puts up a blank screen
because it has decided the signal is below its minimum
acceptable strength or BER.

Dooohhh.

You seem to have forgotten that the comparison is digital versus analog.

So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and place?

Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.


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.

SD being what, San Diego?

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.

Sounds like San Deigo. Been there, done that and you're not going to pull
the wool over my eyes.

SD is like SF - due to the rugged terrain and the widely distributed
residential areas, OTA is exceedingly variable for both analog and digital.
Always has been, always will be. The SD area is a poster child for cable
and satellite. And satellite can be iffy if you are on the wrong side of the
mountain.


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

A good antenna can't pick up a signal that isn't there or is highly
corrupted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" wrote in message

"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.

The results are not classic pixelation but rather a decrease in resolution.
Pixelation implies sharp edges.

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 you didn't say that.

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.

Agreed. One can see numerous formats and quality levels within the same TV
show. Especially true for news, but also true in other kinds of progamming.

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.

There seems to be more channels than good high quality programming. But who
is surprised?

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.

I've been on cable since the 70s.

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

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

If you want the IP, you're going to pay. The only question is which
currency.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A visibly flawed if not unenjoyable if not unwatchable signal.

You obviously have no clue about how MPEG-2 works.

Just so you know, it is ALL MPEG-2 streams.

Also, bone up on FEC.

Since all you have ever seen is the blank screen the tuner delivers, you
wouldn't know.

I worked at GI, the company that made the hardware that the cable
companies and channel content providers ALL use. I HAVE seen what types
of drop-outs occur.

You are just an idiot that talks out of you ass because you mouth knows
better.

SOME of what you guess at has correctness in it, but very little, and
particularly as this thread turned to talk about video.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and place?

Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.

No it isn't since it is no longer being broadcast.

But that is not all that is wrong with your declaration either.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sounds like San Deigo. Been there, done that and you're not going to pull
the wool over my eyes.

You're a total retard. You have NOT "been there", and you have not
"done that". You are a total ****ing retard. Hell, you can't even spell
it.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And satellite can be iffy if you are on the wrong side of the
mountain.

You're an idiot.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A good antenna can't pick up a signal that isn't there or is highly
corrupted.

Got any more gems of truth, Dingledorf?

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A visibly flawed if not unenjoyable if not unwatchable
signal.

You obviously have no clue about how MPEG-2 works.

That would be a joke on you.

Just so you know, it is ALL MPEG-2 streams.

Doooh!

Also, bone up on FEC.

AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

Since all you have ever seen is the blank screen the
tuner delivers, you wouldn't know.

No need to make yourself look stupid.

I worked at GI, the company that made the hardware that
the cable companies and channel content providers ALL
use. I HAVE seen what types of drop-outs occur.

I take it that with your obvious personality flaws, GI kept you away from
paying customers?

Too bad an IQ test is not required for internet access...

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and
place?

Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.

No it isn't since it is no longer being broadcast.

You've got a problem with people who remember what was happening say 18
months ago?

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
The results are not classic pixelation but rather a decrease in
resolution. Pixelation implies sharp edges.

Call it what you want. How sharp the block edges are simply depends on your
equipment, but the resolution is always lower for lower bit rates.

I was talking about 1960's TV shows,

But you didn't say that.

In fact I did. Or at least "1960's *RE-RUNS* that are obviously NOT high
definition in any sense of the word, and NOT even WIDESCREEN" certainly
implies it rather than the cinerama movies etc. you assumed, which obviously
ARE widescreen!
Not that all digital transfers of widescreen movies are even made to
widescreen format (or HD). IME many DVD movies are still 4:3 because they
have simply used an old video transfer. And then they are shown on TV. You
are not going to claim that a movie originally transferred to video tape
then to DVD, is somehow going to be HIGH DEFINITION just because it's
transmitted on a Hi-Def channel I hope?


There seems to be more channels than good high quality programming. But
who is surprised?

Not a problem, I just wish there was SOME actual Hi-Def programs still being
transmitted here. They were when we first got digital broadcasting.


I've been on cable since the 70s.

Lucky you, I have never missed it (or paying for it) until I bought a large
screen TV, and they stopped screening HD material on our HD channels.

If you want the IP, you're going to pay. The only question is which
currency.

Our TV channels are still making a LARGE amount from advertising, just as
they always did. And they got BIG taxpayer funding to convert to digital
equipment. And even our *taxpayer* funded government owned channel now
screens ONLY news on it's HD channel, preferring to show all the wonderful
BBC documentaries that were once on it's HD channel, but now solely in SD
(no not San Diego :-)

So yes, my taxes and advertising dollars are still paying, but now I am
being short changed!

Trevor.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:24:28 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Don't feed the troll. Look up his IP address and you'll see he is
near SD. Here are some of his ignorant sock puppets:

You're a goddamned idiot, boy!

Mike Terrell is a Usenet troll of the worst kind.

A self righteous utter retard. One of the worst examples of a "civil
human being" in existence.

**** off and DIE, Mike Terrell.

I hope your jaw hurts like a mother****er.

Just be glad I am not the mother****er coming to make it hurt.

My nyms ignore nothing.

The group should ignore your utter stupidity, however.

**** Off And DIE, Mike Terrell.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Also, bone up on FEC.

AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

Wrong again, dip****.

ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.


I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply stay the ****
out of the electronic groups.

Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and added electrical
tape to hook up van speakers.

I used soldered connections. That is the difference between me and
you. You observe something with layman's eyes, then guess at what it is
about. I LEARN about something via research and careful, scientific
observation and KNOW what it is about.

PS. a.k.a. is not capitalized. So much for what you know about 'the
civilized universe'.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:31:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:30:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


So what is analog doing at the same channel, time and
place?

Trust me, it is not delivering a perfect picture.

No it isn't since it is no longer being broadcast.

You've got a problem with people who remember what was happening say 18
months ago?


Touchy little bitch, eh?

It was not 'delivering a perfect picture" then, nor at any other time
it was operational, ya ****in' Luddite twit.

[SoothSayer]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:32:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Thank you. He gets old, fast.

And dopes like you prove yourself as braindead even faster.

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Also, bone up on FEC.

AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

Wrong again, dip****.

ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
of magnetic cores.

I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply
stay the **** out of the electronic groups.

You would seem to qualify.

Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and
added electrical tape to hook up van speakers.

I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was not practical. But,
I've probably built more electronic equipment that is still in use by
accident than you ever dreamed could exist.

I used soldered connections.

If they were up to your intrapersonal and technical skills, then they were
all cold joints.

That is the difference
between me and you. You observe something with layman's
eyes, then guess at what it is about.

I guessed very well then, as they gave me an engineering degree, probably
while your dad's only hands-on sex life involved Playboy.

I LEARN about
something via research and careful, scientific
observation and KNOW what it is about.

Which is why you have no clue about ECC and actually think that its done by
RAM chips as a rule.

LOL!

[SoothSayer]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was not practical. But,
I've probably built more electronic equipment that is still in use by
accident than you ever dreamed could exist.


Wiring up speakers with wire nuts?!

Yeah, you're a real pro, dumbass.

[JW]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500 "Arny Krueger" wrote
in Message id: :

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Also, bone up on FEC.

AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

Wrong again, dip****.

ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
of magnetic cores.

You're talking to the guy who thinks DRAM doesn't use capacitors for
storage, or didn't until I crammed that fact down his miserable throat and
he dropped the thread. We call him AlwaysWrong (among other things). He'll
never admit when he wrong.

I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply
stay the **** out of the electronic groups.

You would seem to qualify.

Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and
added electrical tape to hook up van speakers.

I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was not practical. But,
I've probably built more electronic equipment that is still in use by
accident than you ever dreamed could exist.

I used soldered connections.

If they were up to your intrapersonal and technical skills, then they were
all cold joints.

Not true, some were solder shorts.

[Arny Krueger]

"JW" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500 "Arny Krueger"
wrote in Message id:
:

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Also, bone up on FEC.

AKA as ECC in much of the civilized universe.

Wrong again, dip****.

ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.

You're talking to the guy who thinks DRAM doesn't use
capacitors for storage, or didn't until I crammed that
fact down his miserable throat and he dropped the thread.

Ouch.

A real brain trust, eh?

We call him AlwaysWrong (among other things). He'll never
admit when he wrong.

I see no evidence that weakens your claim.

I wish the retarded, cross-posting retards would simply
stay the **** out of the electronic groups.

You would seem to qualify.

Hey krug****, I'll bet you twisted wires together and
added electrical tape to hook up van speakers.

I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was
not practical. But, I've probably built more electronic
equipment that is still in use by accident than you ever
dreamed could exist.

I used soldered connections.

If they were up to your intrapersonal and technical
skills, then they were all cold joints.

Not true, some were solder shorts.

Ouch! ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
of magnetic cores.

Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common in the 1970's,
but I have not stumbled into core memories with ECC.

When semiconductor memory companies like Intel, tried to enter the
main memory business with 4 Kib, 8 Kib (partially faulty 16 Kib) and
16 Kib chips, which suffered from package alpha radiation, they had to
use ECC in order to reach similar reliability compared to parity
protected core memories.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.

Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common
in the 1970's, but I have not stumbled into core memories
with ECC.

IBM was pretty consistent about using ECC in 7030, 7090 and 360/85, which
were among the last top-of-the-line mainframes with core.


http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-ibm-stretch.html

"IBM 7302 - IBM 7030 Core Storage (16384 - 72-bit words: 64 data bits & 8
ECC bits).

"The 7090 core memory was a direct takeoff of the 7030 core memory. The
memory bus provided the 7090 with 2 36 bit words at a time instead of one 64
bit plus 8 ECC bits word or 8 bytes and 1 byte ECC so the effective 7090
memory size was 32768 36 bit words."

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360...Char_Jun68.pdf

Several references to an "ECC switch".

When semiconductor memory companies like Intel, tried to
enter the main memory business with 4 Kib, 8 Kib
(partially faulty 16 Kib) and 16 Kib chips, which
suffered from package alpha radiation, they had to use
ECC in order to reach similar reliability compared to
parity protected core memories.

Intel also made 4 K chips that were split in half and connected with a
fusable link, so either half could be used by itself if only half were bad.

They made add-on storage devices that were based on these, and added hot
spare banks of RAM that could be automatically swapped in if an existing
bank was getting too much ECC action. Microprocessors, I think 8086s,
supervised the whole operation.

Intel unfortunately discovered that chips that were a half defective when
first made, had vastly degraded reliability down the road.

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was
not practical. But, I've probably built more electronic
equipment that is still in use by accident than you ever
dreamed could exist.

Wiring up speakers with wire nuts?!

Yeah, you're a real pro, dumbass.

Keep talking sucker, your inexperience is showing.

[SoothSayer]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not true, some were solder shorts.

Ouch! ;-)

It is fun to watch you children in your utter retardation.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:58:03 +0200, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no ECC. It just provides
some extra bits that are used by the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually all RAM was made out
of magnetic cores.

Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common in the 1970's,
but I have not stumbled into core memories with ECC.

Mainly due to the FACT that he is an utter idiot.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:00:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've long been a believer in wirenuts when soldering was
not practical. But, I've probably built more electronic
equipment that is still in use by accident than you ever
dreamed could exist.

Wiring up speakers with wire nuts?!

Yeah, you're a real pro, dumbass.

Keep talking sucker, your inexperience is showing.


Your total retardation is glaring like the ass crack of a fat slob
bitch with low waistline pant on.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:58:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.

Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common
in the 1970's, but I have not stumbled into core memories
with ECC.

IBM was pretty consistent about using ECC in 7030, 7090 and 360/85, which
were among the last top-of-the-line mainframes with core.

That's why he's known around here as "DimBulb" and "AlwaysWrong". He calls
himself over a hundred nyms (he's also known as "Nymbecile") but his scat
fetish is easy to spot.

http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-ibm-stretch.html

"IBM 7302 - IBM 7030 Core Storage (16384 - 72-bit words: 64 data bits & 8
ECC bits).

"The 7090 core memory was a direct takeoff of the 7030 core memory. The
memory bus provided the 7090 with 2 36 bit words at a time instead of one 64
bit plus 8 ECC bits word or 8 bytes and 1 byte ECC so the effective 7090
memory size was 32768 36 bit words."

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360...Char_Jun68.pdf

Several references to an "ECC switch".

When semiconductor memory companies like Intel, tried to
enter the main memory business with 4 Kib, 8 Kib
(partially faulty 16 Kib) and 16 Kib chips, which
suffered from package alpha radiation, they had to use
ECC in order to reach similar reliability compared to
parity protected core memories.

Intel also made 4 K chips that were split in half and connected with a
fusable link, so either half could be used by itself if only half were bad.

They made add-on storage devices that were based on these, and added hot
spare banks of RAM that could be automatically swapped in if an existing
bank was getting too much ECC action. Microprocessors, I think 8086s,
supervised the whole operation.

Intel unfortunately discovered that chips that were a half defective when
first made, had vastly degraded reliability down the road.

IBM did similar things but didn't see such degradation.

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
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.

[Arny Krueger]

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not true, some were solder shorts.

Ouch! ;-)

It is fun to watch you children in your utter
retardation.

It is very appropriate that the above is so stupid it is undecipherable.

So tell me Sooth, how many of your kids have PhDs and are working in
scientific research? If so, please provide links to their recent papers.

[Arny Krueger]

"TheQuickBrownFox"
wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:58:03 +0200,
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


ECC is a type of RAM, dumbass.

Absolutely and totally wrong. ECC RAM in fact does no
ECC. It just provides some extra bits that are used by
the ECC circuitry in the memory controller.

I was working on computers with ECC RAM when virtually
all RAM was made out of magnetic cores.

Core memory with an extra parity plane was quite common
in the 1970's, but I have not stumbled into core
memories with ECC.

Mainly due to the FACT that he is an utter idiot.

Doesn't make the independent supporting references that I provided go away.

[Arny Krueger]

"josephkk" wrote in message

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:36:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
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.

Exactly. So you can't make up a rule that says that digital is on the
average less useful. OTA reception is always a YMMV thing.

[JW]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:44 -0500 "Arny Krueger" wrote
in Message id: :

"SoothSayer" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not true, some were solder shorts.

Ouch! ;-)

It is fun to watch you children in your utter
retardation.

It is very appropriate that the above is so stupid it is undecipherable.

Yep, and that's another thing about him. His Usenet posts are barely
discernable as being authored by someone who has digits that oppose.

I'd feel sorry for him, but he's such a little prick I can't quite manage
that.

[SoothSayer]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:17:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

OTA reception is always a YMMV thing.


You're a complete loon.

[SoothSayer]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:29:18 -0500, JW wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:15:44 -0500 "Arny Krueger" wrote
in Message id: :

"SoothSayer" wrote in message
m
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:05:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not true, some were solder shorts.

Ouch! ;-)

It is fun to watch you children in your utter
retardation.

It is very appropriate that the above is so stupid it is undecipherable.

Yep, and that's another thing about him. His Usenet posts are barely
discernable as being authored by someone who has digits that oppose.

I'd feel sorry for him, but he's such a little prick I can't quite manage
that.


May a funny black man blow strange yellow powder in your face, and you
be declared dead and be buried... yet alive.

Well, you wouldn't survive the autopsy or the embalmment anyway.

[Randy Yates]

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. If you are talking
about early ATSC, many receivers had limited ability to fight
multipath. But if you had a bad multipath problem, you'd have seen
it in the analog signal too.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates]

On 03/12/2011 08:40 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
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. If you are talking
about early ATSC, many receivers had limited ability to fight
multipath. But if you had a bad multipath problem, you'd have seen
it in the analog signal too.

PS: At least some stations have changed frequency when going to digital;
if that is the case, there could be any combination of the following
to account for your observation:

1. Your antenna has less gain at the new frequency that the
old frequency.

2. Your antenna has a wider pattern (and thus is more susceptible
to multipath) at the new frequency than the old frequency.

3. The new frequency would have different multipath characteristics
that could significantly degrade the quality of the signal before it
ever hit the receiver.

--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" 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.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:34:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

In most cases the analog signal was VHF and the digital
signal was UHF.

As if your knowledge of the difference was anything more than that of a
layman.

You're lucky that you know they are different frequencies, but I have
serious doubts that you know anything more about their differences, much
less anything about how transmissible or receivable either is.

The biggest indicator is the very fact that you bring it up as if it is
a factor to begin with.

[Randy Yates]

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.

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.

Perhaps this was the exception rather than the rule, however - I really
don't know.
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[MrTallyman]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:59:46 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:

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.

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.

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


I remember the signals in Cincinnati were just as good, if not better
in the analog days.

I think that was at an even lower wattage on the UHF side.

No comparison now, as the transmitter antennas are different regardless
of what band they are on.

You may see local individual channels appear as well. But they will be
digital.