TxSrv writes:

I don't believe this.

It's not necessary for you to believe it. It remains true in any
case.

This proves you have no clue as to
basically the only way an analog frequency counter (meter
actually) can be fashioned, and how relatively inaccurate it is.
Nor how a digital counter works.

Frequencies, outside of pure, abstract mathematics, are things that
exist in the physical world. The physical world is an analog world,
and all systems that interact with the physical world do so using
analog equipment. Therefore the maximum accuracy attainable in any
system that interacts with the real world is determined by the maximum
accuracy of the analog instrumentation upon which it depends for that
interaction. It follows, then, that no digital system interacting
with the physical world (including navigation, audio, video, and just
about everything else except for things like corporate accounting) can
provide greater accuracy than the best analog system.

Any now in another post you say video too?

Yes. Video also interacts with the physical world, and so it is
subject to the same constraints, as I've described above.

Do you know how an all-digital, LCD flat screen TV works?

There is no such thing as an "all-digital" device that interacts with
the physical world. I do know how LCD screens work, but they are not
digital devices, they are analog interfaces.

Does picture get even better if hooked to digital cable?

There is no consistent difference between digital and analog. Either
can provide any arbitrary level of image quality. It is interesting
to note, however, that analog systems are theoretically capable of
perfection and yet never attain it, whereas digital systems can never
be perfect and yet sometimes come closer to it. I leave an
understanding of why this is so as an exercise for the reader.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.