Stephanie Weil wrote:

...
At least with analog, you may get some static, but you can still pick
up what the person is saying on the other end.

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA


Delicate? Are we even looking at the same elephant? With digital there
is NO errors, errors are simply discarded. If one freq is not suitable
for xmission of the packet(s), another is computer selected and
attempted. Spread spectrum makes digital rock solid, no noise, no
errors ... these systems operating in GHz processing speed range makes
the whole thing transparent ... and all that before I even mention data
compaction ...

Regards,
JS

In article . com,
Stephanie Weil wrote:

On Aug 16, 3:46 pm, John Smith I wrote:

I really don't know, aren't we already digital voice on emergency
service? If not, we should be. However, all we need to do is do it,
problem solved.

Considering how delicate a digital signal is -- and how little the
room for error is (either you have perfect reception or you have
nothing), do you think that's a good idea for emergency comms?

At least with analog, you may get some static, but you can still pick
up what the person is saying on the other end.

The implementation of HD or DRM on short wave may leave you with the
impression that digital is more "delicate" than analog but it is really
about the same as far as robustness is concerned.

Digital or analog can be more robust by using more bandwidth for example.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California