Re: 24-bit on tap at Apple?

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

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

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.

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

=20

=20

ghosts,=20

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

You're a complete loon.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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

The exception:

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

Yeah, well, this one here . . . goes to eleven.