That is just not the case.How did we lose sight of the importance of the fact that the new system does not work as well as what it is replacing?
Albert Manfredi wrote:
flyback1 wrote:Who cares about 'ghost images, snow, noise on the screen, or other such analog artifacts' when you are trying to get information about a tornado warning?The ATSC transmitters in question are sometimes no more powerful than Euro ones, about 50 KW ERP, and yet they are operating at 3.3 b/s/Hz, not 1.8 b/s/Hz.Feel free to research European DTT networks and show me where continuous coverage is ever excpected without one or often two DTT translator towers between transmitter sites as far apart as these.It's possible that you live in the fringe of both Philadelphia and Baltimore. Go to the FCC site and check the power and antenna height of the stations you're getting marginally. That might explain what's going on. This is the site:With NTSC, even a weak snowy signal with noise in the audio still allows you to get the emergency information. Not so with the digital dropouts of ATSC.Very good. You have described the realities of analog vs digital radio reception. With A-VSB, or even just E-VSB, this problem would be resolved, for those emergency situations.Bert
So, you have seen these new systems work, you have had your hands on them and know for a fact that they work everywhere under all conditions?
Or at least you know for a fact they work everywhere with the reliability of NTSC?
Tell me where the signals are coming from and where the receivers are. Regards Cliff,~who has been working daily with broadcast hardware for more than 40 years and is a good judge of what really works reliably and what does not.