Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Amplitude Modulation of NTSC requires a LOT of signal to be noise free since
even a small amount of noise is visible.

We have no basis for comparison with ATSC other than by level, since we
don't have a way to discern between multipath, power line noise, deliberate
or any other kind of interference. How are we supposed to point the
antenna? With a stupid meter that takes 10 seconds to average? All I can
think of is to put it on a rotor and nudge it 2 degrees every 10 seconds
until the picture pops in. It is amazing what gets left out in the rush to
market.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice
picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital
signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

JB wrote:
... All I can
think of is to put it on a rotor and nudge it 2 degrees every 10 seconds
until the picture pops in. It is amazing what gets left out in the rush to
market.


Sounds to me you are approaching the real focus of the problem ...
especially that "rust to market" part ... ahhh, capitalism and its'
little annoyances. chuckle

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Sounds to me you are approaching the real focus of the problem ...
especially that "rust to market" part ... ahhh, capitalism and its'
little annoyances. chuckle

Regards,
JS

That "rust" thing, make it rush ...

Must have been a Freudian slip, and reflects the speed we can expect
improvements at ... LOL

Regards,
JS

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice
picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital
signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Digital: No lock and no indication of trying to lock (which is provided on
some receivers)

Analog: Recognizable signal, possibly with sound, probably with no color
and so much snow as to be unwatchable.

For the analog experiance, I am relying on bench tests I did with a TV
servicing generator. For baseline, I advanced the RF amplitude just to the
point where I had a snow-free picture. Next, I added 10 dB attenuators and
noted the results with each addition.

One: observable snow, no big deal
Two: Objectionable snow, this ain't good
Three: horrible snow, I can't watch this.
Four: Is there even a picture?

Sal M. Onella wrote:

...
Digital: No lock and no indication of trying to lock (which is provided on
some receivers)

Analog: Recognizable signal, possibly with sound, probably with no color
and so much snow as to be unwatchable.

For the analog experiance, I am relying on bench tests I did with a TV
servicing generator. For baseline, I advanced the RF amplitude just to the
point where I had a snow-free picture. Next, I added 10 dB attenuators and
noted the results with each addition.

One: observable snow, no big deal
Two: Objectionable snow, this ain't good
Three: horrible snow, I can't watch this.
Four: Is there even a picture?

Sal:

Forgive me, please; but, for a minute there, your words provided me with
a psychic vision ... grin

All these "youngsters" growing up around the internet and DVDs and MP3s,
expect perfect communications. Perhaps their homes did not even possess
a broadcast capable TV!

And, to them, the "quality of TV signal" we grew up with is horrifying,
indeed, too scary and mentally damaging to view!

Maybe it will just take them a bit of time to go through their denial
and be able to look upon such "ugly-ness" as a snowy picture with,
really, only usable audio as being "OK", and finally allow us to view
it? (I know, they will probably see us as being able to view childporn
in allowing such visual images to ACTUALLY enter our eyes! DEEP-FROWN
) HUGE-chuckle, and a grin

Perhaps then, they will finally allow such a digital signal though to
the circuitry? Ya' never know, ya' just never know ... blank-stare

Anyway ... this is a much more valid argument than that of an analog
signal EVER being more desirable to a digital one ...

Regards,
JS

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:18:39 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

All these "youngsters" growing up around the internet and DVDs and MP3s,
expect perfect communications. Perhaps their homes did not even possess
a broadcast capable TV!

Yep, it's a problem. I have two working record players and some vinyl
left over from my mis-spent youth. When the kids complain about
assorted digital audio oddities, I play a 78 rpm record for them. The
usual reaction is "What that hiss" or maybe "did you really listen to
that"? A few of the older kids have seen VCR quality, which they seem
to tolerate. However, the same kids will go ballistic if there are
any artifacts on their shinny new HDTV screen, their MP3 player
trashes a tune, or their streaming audio/video skips a beat. We have
raise a generation of connoisseurs.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:32:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
-snip- However, the same kids will go ballistic if there are
any artifacts on their shinny new HDTV screen, their MP3 player
trashes a tune, or their streaming audio/video skips a beat.

We have raise a generation of connoisseurs.

s/connoisseurs/whiners/

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice
picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital
signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Digital: No lock and no indication of trying to lock (which is provided
on
some receivers)

Analog: Recognizable signal, possibly with sound, probably with no color
and so much snow as to be unwatchable.

For the analog experiance, I am relying on bench tests I did with a TV
servicing generator. For baseline, I advanced the RF amplitude just to
the
point where I had a snow-free picture. Next, I added 10 dB attenuators and
noted the results with each addition.

One: observable snow, no big deal
Two: Objectionable snow, this ain't good
Three: horrible snow, I can't watch this.
Four: Is there even a picture?

This is my experience too. 36 db S/N gives you a decent picture, 55-60db
S/N gives you a good fade margin for analog and a perfect picture (if
convergence and purity are capable)

For digital, 30 db S/N gives you a "perfect" picture if it is 1080i, or no
better and maybe worse if it is only 480i but you still need at least 50 db
S/N for fade margin or everything will break up when there is a 5-20 db
fade. At least with the Analog signal, you will still have audio during
deep fades.

Smith makes sense in light of consumers who only complain about what they
see. Most people won't be doing TV DXing. Tough luck for those who do.
There is a real big point about all the extra connectors as the
entertainment system grows. Lots of people needed to have someone hook it
up for them, and now complain about having to punch too many buttons on too
many remotes to get their picture and sound.

As a ham, I like to be able to do things the kids and consumers might not
want to be bothered with. If only ARRL would consider this concept. Ham
radio will never be a mainstream consumer product unless it ceases to be ham
radio completely.