laptops with 1200 vertical resolution

[Konstantin Svist]

On 01/05/2013 11:54 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 02:20 PM, Tim wrote:
>> Tim:
>>>> I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, high 
>>>> resolution TV
>>>> has been a bit of a flop.
>> R. G. Newbury:
>>> HD will come. If you like sports you might hit on your local station to
>>> broadcast Oz footie in HD.
>> We had a sports-only HD channel, that eventually caved in and stopped
>> being sports-only.  Sports would be a good example for a need for HD,
>> with all that text on the screen, and a tiny ball in a field of players.
>> Unfortunately, most large screen TVs are LCD, and they're crap at fast
>> motion (as a camera pans across the field, the screen is really blurry -
>> some of that's the MPEG compression, a lot of that is technology of an
>> LCD screen).
>>
>> Digital TV has been the decimation of our television stations. It cost
>> an outrageous fortune to replace the transmitter, and all the production
>> equipment, and our local stations have become little more than a relay
>> of Sydney television, just with local adverts and a tabloid excuse for a
>> news service.  Two of them have left their studios to shift to mere
>> office space.  Having to change to HD, just a few years later, is
>> another expense that the stations don't want.  Analogue equipment might
>> last twenty years, and not need endless fiddling.  Digital equipment
>> needs replacing every few years, and has required daily management by
>> engineering.
>>
>> If you want to make a disaster, digitise/computerise it.
>>
>
>
> I can sympathize with this, I am not one of those people who are 
> impressed with this generation's sudden desire to go "mobile". 
> Tablets, and iPhones, along with all these other "smart" devices 
> appear as toys to me....I prefer laptops and desktops, and wired 
> connections, because to me they're more reliable than wireless. I 
> don't know that keeping TV technology in an analog state is better or 
> worse, since to me TV....is just TV. I can SEE differences when you 
> compare HD to regular television, but is there REALLY such a thing as 
> "HD RADIO"?.....as I've heard some stations proclaiming?...I 
> mean....we....as humans can only hear sounds in a specific 
> range....nothing above....nor below....so if thats the case...how can 
> you "improve" my radio experience with "high definition" radio?...I 
> dunno.....just seems like a lot fo things are more for Show & Tell 
> than anything else these days....
>

HD Radio stands for Hybrid Digital, not High Definition. The tuner 
simply uses digital signal whenever it can to reproduce audio without 
losses in quality. Unlike analog radio, though, when signal is too low, 
you don't get anything at all. The best use case is probably in a moving 
car -- driving through a dead spot becomes unnoticeable (vs. hissing 
noise of analog radio)