On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:35 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:>On 9/23/07 7:50 PM, in article ce9ef31qda9diold7ebpffrlrhm70v2kdk@4ax.com, >"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:41:17 -0700, Joerg >> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> And then the moment of truth cometh. I am a bit concerned that the >>> chosen system could waffle under really strong multipath conditions like >>> where we live. >> >> >> Digital transmission do NOT suffer, in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, from >> multipath distortions! > >Move out to the signal fringe and check again. You missed something.There is a difference between bit error rate and multipath distortion. Big difference. With digital, and of course, the FEC that gets included, it is either ALL there or not displayable. There is NO distortion ever.
Re: Why is video inverted for transmission?
Started by ●September 24, 2007
Reply by ●September 24, 20072007-09-24
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:10:35 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:>On 9/23/07 7:50 PM, in article ce9ef31qda9diold7ebpffrlrhm70v2kdk@4ax.com, >"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:41:17 -0700, Joerg >> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> And then the moment of truth cometh. I am a bit concerned that the >>> chosen system could waffle under really strong multipath conditions like >>> where we live. >> >> >> Digital transmission do NOT suffer, in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, from >> multipath distortions! > >Move out to the signal fringe and check again. You missed something.There is a difference between bit error rate and multipath distortion. Big difference. With digital, and of course, the FEC that gets included, it is either ALL there or not displayable. There is NO distortion ever.
Reply by ●October 12, 20072007-10-12
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:16:39 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:05:46 -0800, glen herrmannsfeldt >> <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > ... > >>> The box needs an ATSC tuner, and the logic to convert the >>> result to an NTSC analog signal. Most likely with both video >>> and RF outputs. The output of the ATSC tuner is the digital >>> signal, not suitable for an analog TV, so the box needs >>> both a tuner and converter. >>> >> >> >> Which is why the item I describe IS a converter! >> >> Mainly... because it HAS ONE IN IT! > >You have a prick, therefore you are a prick? Maybe so. > >JerryTrust me, dumbshit... everyone in this thread is a prick.
