On Nov 16, 11:12 am, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:49:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.

You miss the point. With a distant weak broadcast that shows much
snow but is still viewable in NTSC his ability to receive that same
weak broadcast in ATSC will be less.

You're making assumptions. The OP never stated how much snow he had,
exactly how weak the signal is, or even if it's VHF, UHF or both that
he has a problem with. If he's watching just VHF, his reception
could be different going to ATSC because in most areas it's in the UHF
band, while existing major broadcasting is in VHF. And if he's got
UHF with a bit of snow, ATSC could work just fine. ATSC has error
correction, so it can produce a complete picture, even with some
signal noise, where as with NTSC it appears as snow.


ATSC will work with a lower
signal to noise ratio than NTSC but it has a minimum requirement
before it suddenly stops working.

NTSC is different. It slowly fades
into snow.

Exactly my point. If he has a picture with some snow, ATSC could
solve his problem and with the demise of NTSC, he has to do something
about it in another year anyway. Also, an amplifier is not going to
solve a signal to noise ratio problem. It just amplifies the total
signal, noise included.

What's the problem with addressing the conversion to ATSC before
screwing around with a system that is going away in a year?