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.

Technology Stocks : Vari-L (VARL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (600)	12/29/1997 10:48:00 PM
From: Frank Byers	Respond to of 2702

Well I guess we could argue the relative merits of digital vs. analog for the rest of the year, or longer. What I said is true, the move to digital was predicated by capacity concerns not a desire to provide subscribers with a better sounding call. Digital cellular does sound pretty good for voice, but like you said it sucks for music-on-hold, some types of voices, etc. The compression algorithyms used are a compromise because they have to work on all types of voices and accents. Therefore they aren't optimal for any one type of voice. Thus I am correct that pure analog, unmolested by noise or interference, is better than compressed digital cellular (or PCS) will ever be. Whether or not this is a relevant observation anymore is debatable, but when a PCS provider provokes me with their idiotic statements, I get spun up. It's a fault I have and I'm working on it in '98. Cheers FB