The Dutch pull the plug on analog.

I guess I don't watch much TV. If I do, its at school or someones house. At home, we still have the old antenna, so my parents are pretty upset about the idea of having to get a satellite (since cable won't reach and) just to see some local channels. But, I guess there's really no stopping it.
 
From what I've learned doing analog and digital, digital seems to be the way everything is going. Overall it's a lot cheaper, effiecient and reliable than analog signals and circuits Once digital gets developed enough it will probably overtake analog in mostly everything.
 
Tell that to VoiP. One area will it won't be is the ability to take out precise information. Analog noise also has a very high level of noise interferience which increases everytime and you can't get rid of, but digital because of the way it works can eliminate most of it. I believe with digital you can also recieve a more detailed represenation of the data because with analog you don't have a finite represenationf or data for a period of time. All in all, it's just a matter of properly converting analog sound to digital which is already far along in it's progress.
 
I was speaking in terms of the A->D conversion. What I mean is that your voice is analog and when it gets changed into digital the original signal is not 100% accurate. BTW, any signal going through the air is not digital at all. All wireless transmissions are analog in some sense. Only difference is that a "digital" signal is either sending an "on" or "off" frequency. My "digital" cell phone can get plenty of interference.
 
Yeah, that's one of the area's I think still really needs worked on, but once the signal lost in the conversion process is made then that should make up for the noise interferience that occurs with analog. And yes every signal is analog in nature, but with digital at least there is room to move around. Since everything is represented in on/off if the amp. of the wave going in is off any then it will still be represented how it is suppose to without any implications to whatever it's doing. You can still get interferience if the difference is too great, but with analog it would probably be worse.
 
I want to know who's pockets are filled by the decision...

I see no need for signals to be switched over. My TV is "cable ready" and I am sure as heck NOT buying a digital tuner for it. If signals here go digital, I'll just watch DVDs. I don't support the local cable company anyhow.
 
Grindspine said:
I want to know who's pockets are filled by the decision...

I see no need for signals to be switched over. My TV is "cable ready" and I am sure as heck NOT buying a digital tuner for it. If signals here go digital, I'll just watch DVDs. I don't support the local cable company anyhow.

Probably the ATSC, the successor to the NTSC and any other company that deals with media and entertainment. The whole reason for going digital is because you get more bandwidth, meaning you can watch true HD. And also the extra bandwidth helps with "interacitivty." Meaning that you can access instant weather updates, sports news, etc. etc. all on your TV while watching TV.

Now personally, and Im going to assume this applies to you as well, I don't need all that except for maybe the HD signal.
 
I bought a flat screen CRT Sony Wega Trinitron television this year. It's not high-def (though the picture is nice and sharp). I don't plan on buying a new TV anytime in the future. Therefore, I could care less about HD. I'm happy as long as I can have something clear on which to play video games and watch the occasional DVD.
 
One year my family had to move into a small apartment for a few monnths while we looked for a house. Our TV had an antenna, with 3 channels, but only one came in with almost no static.

We became big fans of the show "Scrubs". :lol
 
I became a fan of Scrubs while my former roomie was viewing illegally bootlegged recordings...

They're no longer illegal now that I have purchased the hard copies... ::)
 
Back
Top