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