XPost: rec.music.gdead, sci.electronics.design   
   From: ehsjr@nospamverizon.net   
      
   Arny Krueger wrote:   
   > "Michael A. Terrell"  wrote in   
   > message news:8P-dnbt0GpktIe_QnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@earthlink.com   
   >   
   >>Randy Yates wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On 03/03/2011 08:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>"Randy Yates"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:o4edndYKdafAJvDQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@supernews.com   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia   
   >>>>>of the era.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I suspect that for most LP lovers, this is the unique   
   >>>>attraction.   
   >>>   
   >>>Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is   
   >>>"better" in almost every way.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>  You're right.  DTV is so much better than analog.  In   
   >>fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.   
   >   
   >   
   > I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog   
   > over cable.   
   >   
   > No surprise, digital still wins hands down.   
      
   When you cherry pick the comparison conditions.   
   Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV"   
   and does not now.   
      
   Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get   
   more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio),   
   outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog   
   ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv.   
      
   Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV   
   becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion.   
      
   So you can cherry pick either way.  My vote goes to digital,   
   of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor.   
      
   Ed   
      
      
   > In retrospect, its surprising   
   > that analog was as good as it was.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)