[opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage
- From: Richard Hollandsworth <holl_ands@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 17:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
If you remove the sync energy (the primary component of the video carrier), you
no longer have
an analog signal, so I can't comprehend what you think you are comparing.
Since a real analog picture is somewhat more black than white (to prevent
bloom), a "typical"
on-air signal would have a long term PAR of about 4 dB, which is 3 dB LOWER
than DTV.
Hence a 5 MW (peak) analog transmitter would be closer to 2 MW (long term)
average power.
holl_ands
================================================
[>]
The average power of a 5 MW analog transmitter
(minus the sync energy) is somewhat comparable to
the average power
of an 1 MW 8VSB transmitter.
- Follow-Ups:
- [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage
- From: Dale Kelly
- [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] VHF vs UHF coverage - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Dale Kelly
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Dale Kelly
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Cliff Benham
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Richard Hollandsworth
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Albert Manfredi
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Dale Kelly
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Tom Barry
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Richard Hollandsworth
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Dale Kelly
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Richard Hollandsworth
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Dale Kelly
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Dale Kelly
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: VHF vs UHF coverage - Dale Kelly