zlacker

>>thunde+(OP)
One inaccuracy/anachronism: this simulation has a second of static between channel changes. Analog TVs were never like that. Channel changes were near instantaneous, and there was never any static unless you tuned to a dead channel.

All those pauses and waits are an artifact of later computerized/digital technology.

>>tivert+Rq1
Perhaps this will help, there's a video demonstrating a UHF device where they switch channels to show the device output: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtRI-_A1j8

It doesn't quite show static the way the website does, but it's also not exactly what I'd call "near instantaneous."

>>jzb+LP1
> It doesn't quite show static the way the website does, but it's also not exactly what I'd call "near instantaneous."

I think that effect might be exaggerated because he's tuning across several channels in one turn (e.g. https://youtu.be/ahtRI-_A1j8?t=88) and those channels would be full of static. The device he's showing apparently spaces out its transmissions 4 channels apart.

What I meant by "near instantaneous" was that the delays were short enough that I don't recall registering them as "I'm waiting for this," and when started I using digital TVs I registered the channel-switch speed as a noticeable and annoying regression.

I guess my point is the simulation has a digitally-slow pause with static, which seems like anachronism with a coat of retro-colored paint. I may have overstated things, because I mainly watched TV after the dial era (and the 90s were definitely after the dial era).