Analog Vs. Digital frequencies

[N1XDS]

Here's the first ever thread I believe that hasn't be discussed before but please keep in mind lets keep this on topic with no arguments or etc. To me I like Digital more than I do regular Analog due to the fact regular Analog sounds like real static when I hear some of the local frequencies in my area being used. For reason why I like Digital is it'll make you think you're sitting next to the person while talking to him or her.

 

[KD0OTK]

I agree, digital sounds very good. I lean towards analog because of it's simplicity.

 

[FFEMTCURRENCE]

I like Analog a little bit better because, at least with analog if you are on that fringe area yes you will hear static but at least you would be able to hear some voice, on digital its either all 100% clear or nothing. Other than that digital has a very clear voice most of the time

 

[W6KRU]

Analog is the benchmark that digital tries to achieve but falls short of frequently. Digital is especially bad when there is background audio that masks the intended voice signal.

 

[scannerboy01]

Analog would be the easiest to program for people new to scanning. I do think that you do have the potential to get unwanted interference and static from other sources. I haven't ever listened to digital, but I would like to try listening and see which type is better.

 

[W2PMX]

1) There's no such thing as an analog or digital frequency. You can run analog or digital on any frequency.

2) Digital is a representation of the voice. It can be a very accurate representation or one not so accurate. Analog is the voice. Other than face to face, analog is the closest you can get to reality.

3) When the signal goes into the noise with analog, the brain can still decode a lot of what the person is saying. If it's a call for help, that may be enough. When a signal goes into the noise with digital (a high BER), there's nothing to listen to - the receiver is quiet. Not good for public service comms. (That's why aircraft will remain AM - even if there are two planes transmitting on the same frequency at the same time, with AM there are techniques to pull either signal out of the mess. With FM there's usually only one signal there - the other one is completely masked out by the receiver.)

 

[57Bill]

Perhaps because I have a hearing impairment, I find hearing analog clearer than digital. This distinction became very clear to me when cell phones went from analog to digital. Now I'm used to the digital audio, and with nothing to compare, the digital sounds good.

 

[DickH]

Analog would be the easiest to program for people new to scanning. ...

Programming is neither analog or digital, it is programming. You program a scanner to receive frequencies. It doesn't matter if they are analog, digital, AM, FM, SSB, etc., the programming steps are exactly the same.

 

[jackj]

Analog's main advantage over digital is the fact that analog contains redundant information. You can still understand what was said if you have received about 25-30% of the info transmitted. Digital contains no redundant info (yes I know about Forward Error Correction but that isn't redundant info) so you need to receive somewhere around 80% of the info transmitted in order to decode it.

Digital's main advantage over analog is the fact that no redundant information is transmitted. This means a narrower band width which will allow the same band width used by analog to carry other things besides voice. You can have a voice channel and a mobile data terminal channel or two voice channels in the same space.

 

[W2PMX]

Digital's main advantage over analog is the fact that no redundant information is transmitted. This means a narrower band width which will allow the same band width used by analog to carry other things besides voice. You can have a voice channel and a mobile data terminal channel or two voice channels in the same space.

Another advantage of digital is that as long as you have enough correct data for decoding, you'll get 100% clean audio. (Most of the time - if the decoding is only working for scattered small packets, you get "going digital".) But that's the other side of the "at least 80%" coin. If you get 1 bit less than you need for decoding you don't hear a thing. So digital stays cleaner out to the edge of the useful area, but when you can still "decode" enough of the analog signal to understand enough, the digital signal has degraded to the point that it doesn't work.

In a properly engineered system (read: money measured by its weight in $10,000 bills), the point at which the digital signal degrades past the point of decodability is way past the area of needed coverage. In the real world, working at the edges of coverage in a dangerous situation can be deadly.