In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Bruce
scribeth thus
"Tim Downie" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?


As it isn't as good as good analogue;!...

Now digital satellite does look good...

But is there any good analogue any more? Surely what we get these days
is digital converted to analogue?

And, even if you do get a 'good' analogue signal, there's a good chance
that it will be co-channel with a not-too-distant digital MUX. Even
under 'flat' propagation conditions, the SNR can be visibly impaired,
and if there's a 'lift' on, the analogue signal can be virtually
unwatchable.
--
Ian