FW: [Tig] Cringely: accurate on digital vs. analog?

[Steven Bradford]

On Mar 2, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Steven Bradford wrote:

> Rob--
> Here's what I've discovered. Though our school is only a few miles 
> from the transmitter site, our analog reception is horrible, as there 
> is a rather inconveniently placed hill right in the line of sight. 
> Some network stations we can't really get at all with analog.
>
> But when we got our first set with the ATSC tuner, it brings them all 
> in, and just with a little $9.99 loop antenna. Digital SD and HD. A 
> couple of the stations it sometimes has trouble with but usually 
> moving the antenna will cause those to snap right in.
>
> Unsurprisingly, the PBS affiliate has the best digital signal, and is 
> the only one with a full HD programming schedule, and that takes the 
> most advantage of the system. During the day they re run HD shows, and

> run the childrens programming on the SD side channel. In primetime, 
> they simulcast on both. Plus they run the classical station on a third

> channel, with a slide show of arizona pictures.

Rob L Wrote:
well very interesting.  I wonder if the reception improvement has
anything to do with an increase in transmission power, or even a
different type of polarization, or is due only to the properties of the
signal (error correction?)

Rob--
I believe it's the error correction, mainly, but perhaps there are some
antenna or propagation experts out there who know specifically? Our set
has a way to view signal strength for each channel, and usually anything
above 65% gets a clear picture in digital SD or HD, though maybe with an
occasional breakup.

Steve Bradford