Re: high-def over the air
- From: "Mark A" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 01:31:49 -0500
"UCLAN" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7%Y6l.50113$an4.28798@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nit picking posts? Just because you were lambasted for claiming that HD
channels needed a 2GHz splitter, *I'm* nit-picking? You replaced a bad
1GHz splitter with a working 2GHz and it fixed a problem. So *you*
jumped to the conclusion that 2GHz was *needed*. Terrible logic on your
part, and that's not nit-picking.
And please quote back where I suggested going out and buying extra
equipment. Now you're just making things up.
I clearly stated that the old splitter was working fine, and even handled
some of the lower numbered HD channels from the cable feed. Whether or not a
2 GHz was necessary is questionable (I will admit that), but making a big
deal about a $9.00 2 GHz splitter (versus a $4.00 1 GHz splitter) is a bit
much IMO, especially since at some latter time a person may need it for
satellite, etc. So your claim that the old splitter was "bad" is a fiction
that you persist on perpetrating.
Someone else suggested that just for grins, I now purchase a 1 GHz splitter
to see if that would have worked, even though everything is working fine now
with the 2 GHz splitter. If I incorrectly attributed that to you, I
apologize. But I do think several people are taking this to an extreme and
are lacking perspective for a part that costs less than $10.00 and may
actually be needed for a future application.
Also, consider that the time and effort to replace such an item in an attic
if a 2 GHz were actually needed in the future, would justify it up front for
me.
Finally, someone remarked (maybe you?) that splitters do not always perform
as advertised (a good 1 GHz splitter may be better than a poor 2 GHz
splitter), so that a "1 GHz splitter" may not actually perform to that
frequency. That is another reason why it may be better to just get a 2 GHz
splitter if it is just a bit more expensive than a 1 GHz splitter.
You may be surprised to hear this, but some people just want to watch HD TV,
and they don't want to argue endlessly about $9.00 parts.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: high-def over the air
- From: UCLAN
- Re: high-def over the air
- From: TheWebJunkie
- Re: high-def over the air
- References:
- Re: high-def over the air
- From: Mark A
- Re: high-def over the air
- From: UCLAN
- Re: high-def over the air
- Prev by Date: Re: high-def over the air
- Next by Date: Re: high-def over the air
- Previous by thread: Re: high-def over the air
- Next by thread: Re: high-def over the air
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
