Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : IATV - ACTV Interactive Television -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Khaman who wrote (1171)	12/3/1997 11:15:00 PM
From: The Pope	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4748

You beat me to it, Ali. The analog signal is the pure signal. Digital is merely an approximation. The thinner the "digits" the closer you get to the original, but you can never get there (its asymptotic). Most audiophiles will tell you that an analog recording played on top quality equipment sounds better than the best digital recording. CD's are perceived to be "better" because you can get high quality sound out of relatively cheap equipment. The average Joe couldn't and wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to reproduce CD-quality sound from an analog recording. I imagine the same logic will apply to digital TV. Digital will never be the best, but dollar for dollar may be the cheapest way to get high quality. And of course, a digital signal is a lot easier to manipulate.

To: Ali Khaman who wrote (1171)	12/4/1997 12:02:00 AM
From: Buzz Mills	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4748

Digital is much better than analog because of the things that can be done with it. Show me a square analog filter. An analog signal as reproduced by a TV or a record player is an interpretation of the original signal--whereas if the original signal is digital to begin with, it can be reproduced exactly with any digital TV or digital player. I would never recommend recreating an analog signal from a digital signal. As I said, having worked in that world, I do recognize all of the advantages of going digital. Even though an analog signal is in continuous form it has to be reproduced and that is where the shortcomings arise--it is subject to considerable inherent problems. Digital does not have these problems. The thinner the "digits" Pope are you perhaps talking about the sampling rate, or are you talking about the number of bits representing the level. To reproduce an audio signal exactly as recorded would require equipment matching the electronics of the recording studio and also calibrated to the same specifications of that recording equipment, and no, not too many people would be willing to spend that much money. The same logic applies to a TV signal--but even more so--being that TV data is transmitted in frames-- and your TV has to attempt to reproduce an analog signal--it will never be as good as the original and can be much worse because of noise and a variety of other problems. With digital, you can have error correction, and reproduce the same picture transmitted despite noise, or other problems.