Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#162
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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 |
#163
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#164
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#165
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#166
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#167
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#168
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#169
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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? |
#170
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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... |
#171
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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? |
#172
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#173
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#174
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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'. |
#175
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#176
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#177
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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! |
#178
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#179
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#180
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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! ;-) |
#181
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#182
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#183
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#184
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#185
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
|
#186
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#187
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#188
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#189
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#190
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#191
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#192
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#193
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:17:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: OTA reception is always a YMMV thing. You're a complete loon. |
#194
Posted to rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#195
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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 |
#196
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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 |
#197
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"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. |
#198
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
#199
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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 |
#200
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|