And lo on Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:43:18 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> The signal to noise ratio is much better for digital. Simply because
>> they broadcast the artifacts so if you receive them correctly that is
>> within specifications. What you would have preferred is a better signal
>> to disturbance ratio, where the signal is the original uncompressed
>> signal and the disturbance is anything, noise or artifact that is in the
>> received image different from the original. These are two entirely
>> different concepts and you can not blame an advertiser to choose the one
>> that suits the paying company best.
>
>   White noise has been exchanged for mpeg artifacts. Not much of an
> improvement, IMO.
>
>   Moreover, one could argue that in areas with bad reception the  
> situation has got worse.

Yup, I'm on the very edge of the transmitor's range. The sound often  
vanishes in a se..es o. bli.s and b.ops while
parts of    the pi
cture eith   er fr
eeze or get shunte
d around the place
before settling back a second or two later. Then again here in the UK  
post-switchover the transmission power will be boosted so that should be  
an improvement. Still highly annoying on a punchline or in the middle of a  
tense scene -
"and the murderer is none o.her t..n ..ss ....le ...self."
<gasp>
"and that concludes this week's episode"
What, what?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message