Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable,
satellite, or fiber-optic TV. With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound would survive even lower signal levels. A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed. Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has become a royal pain to tune in many channels. The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna. Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine. But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below, reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the antenna is oriented. For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time. Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly. According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice. I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions, or whether it would even work. I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far. Thanks! -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:
OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV. With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound would survive even lower signal levels. A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed. Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has become a royal pain to tune in many channels. The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna. Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine. But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below, reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the antenna is oriented. For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time. Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly. According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice. I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions, or whether it would even work. I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far. Thanks! FWIW, I've heard that most DTV transmitters are on reduced power until the transition, which may improve things.... jak -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:
[...snip] But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. [...snip] First of all, read: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037779 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=611957 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=186 Secondly, converter boxes and TVs differ on their sensitivity. Some digital TVs receive weak signals much better than others. Same story with converter boxes. A good indoor antenna and a good, sensitive converter will work wonders. Finally, it's true that *some* of the DTV channels are at reduced power now, but not all. Things will improve *somewhat* come February, but not on all channels. A good antenna and a sensitive converter box are your best bet. |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
In article , Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote: But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. You might find this thread interesting: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037779 |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
What about those of us that live 75 miles (or more) from the
transmitter? I'll damned if I'm going to pay for cable or satellite. |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Ken Layton
wrote: What about those of us that live 75 miles (or more) from the transmitter? I'll damned if I'm going to pay for cable or satellite. To a first order approximation, if you can get analog broadcast signals now then you should be able to receive the corresponding digital stations. -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
"Rich Webb" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Ken Layton wrote: What about those of us that live 75 miles (or more) from the transmitter? I'll damned if I'm going to pay for cable or satellite. To a first order approximation, if you can get analog broadcast signals now then you should be able to receive the corresponding digital stations. So far, that's not true here (Naples, FL). I'd guess the reduced power is an issue ... only time will tell. |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
(Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote in
: OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV. count me in too. apartment,2nd floor,stucco with metal mesh uunderneath,almost like a Faraday cage.I lose channels when the upstairs neighbor moves around. I use an old Gemini amplified rabbit ears with UHF disc antenna.Lost Ch.2 NBC completely(no great loss),but gained PBS Ch.15 out of Daytona Beach(55 miles away),a great benefit. With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound would survive even lower signal levels. A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed. Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has become a royal pain to tune in many channels. The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna. Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine. But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below, reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the antenna is oriented. For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time. Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly. According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice. I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions, or whether it would even work. I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far. Thanks! Google shows some homebrewed non-amplified antennas that might be interesting,BUT,they might not be accepted by the SWMBO,not "fit in with the decor" type problem. Are you in a place where you can put in an outdoor antenna? Preferably high up... (UHF antennas are pretty small and 'tolerable') or put it in the attic. then use a distribution amp and feed it to all your TVs. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Samuel M. Goldwasser writes:
OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable You and me, pal. This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. If you can fit a big outdoor antenna into the attic, just laying it on the attic floor usually works quite well. Nothing small and convenient will work very well, especially indoors. A mast and rotor outdoors are the thing to have. |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On Oct 10, 8:10*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
(Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote : OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV. count me in too. apartment,2nd floor,stucco with metal mesh uunderneath,almost like a Faraday cage.I lose channels when the upstairs neighbor moves around. I use an old Gemini amplified rabbit ears with UHF disc antenna.Lost Ch.2 NBC completely(no great loss),but gained PBS Ch.15 out of Daytona Beach(55 miles away),a great benefit. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Jim, Both of those channels have relocated their DTV transmitter sites quite a distance from their original analog sites. Chan. 2 (and chan. 55 when they were still on) broadcast analog from Orange City. Chan. 15 broadcast from west of Daytona Beach. Being a college-based station, they don't run much power or have a particularly tall tower. I get snowy, but watchable, reception on 15 in the NE suburbs of Orlando with a large rooftop Yagi. All the central Florida DTV stations have located their DTV transmitters at the antenna farms east of Orlando, where the Orlando analog TV and FM stations broadcast from. Channel 2's DTV signal is actually on Chan. 11, and Chan. 15's DTV is on either 30 or 33. Chan. 68's (college-based PBS out of Melbourne) DTV is on the other. One advantage to this is that you won't need a rotor to pick up all the available DTV stations as they are all broadcasting from the same location. The downside is that Daytona and Melbourne are at the Northern and Southern ends of the Orlando coverage area, and the analog stations gave folks in those cities a strong local PBS signal. With DTV, they will lose the local signal, and Orlando will end up with three PBS channels. Mike WB2MEP |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jim Yanik writes:
(Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote in : OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV. count me in too. apartment,2nd floor,stucco with metal mesh uunderneath,almost like a Faraday cage.I lose channels when the upstairs neighbor moves around. I use an old Gemini amplified rabbit ears with UHF disc antenna.Lost Ch.2 NBC completely(no great loss),but gained PBS Ch.15 out of Daytona Beach(55 miles away),a great benefit. With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound would survive even lower signal levels. A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed. Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has become a royal pain to tune in many channels. The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna. Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine. But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below, reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the antenna is oriented. For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time. Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly. According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice. I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions, or whether it would even work. I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far. Thanks! Google shows some homebrewed non-amplified antennas that might be interesting,BUT,they might not be accepted by the SWMBO,not "fit in with the decor" type problem. Are you in a place where you can put in an outdoor antenna? Preferably high up... (UHF antennas are pretty small and 'tolerable') or put it in the attic. then use a distribution amp and feed it to all your TVs. Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of DTVs, antennas, and other video equipment, and cable, fiber, and satellite content providers! -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
|
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On 10 Oct 2008 08:52:50 -0400, (Samuel M.
Goldwasser) wrote: OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV. I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far. There might be something of interest he http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...70#post6647470 |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Richard J Kinch wrote in
: Samuel M. Goldwasser writes: OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable You and me, pal. This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. If you can fit a big outdoor antenna into the attic, just laying it on the attic floor usually works quite well. Nothing small and convenient will work very well, especially indoors. A mast and rotor outdoors are the thing to have. that kinda screws apartment dwellers.(like me) They can't install outdoor antennas,and usually don't have access to a attic. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On Oct 11, 7:45*am, (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote:
Jim Yanik writes: (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote in : OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV. count me in too. apartment,2nd floor,stucco with metal mesh uunderneath,almost like a Faraday cage.I lose channels when the upstairs neighbor moves around. I use an old Gemini amplified rabbit ears with UHF disc antenna.Lost Ch..2 NBC completely(no great loss),but gained PBS Ch.15 out of Daytona Beach(55 miles away),a great benefit. With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. *The sound would survive even lower signal levels. A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed. Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has become a royal pain to tune in many channels. The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna. Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine. But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. *I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop antenna seems to be fine. *For a similar setup on the floor below, reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the antenna is oriented. For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time. Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly. According tohttp://www.antennaweb.org/, for most of the channels I care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice. I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions, or whether it would even work. I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far. Thanks! Google shows some homebrewed non-amplified antennas that might be interesting,BUT,they might not be accepted by the SWMBO,not "fit in with the decor" type problem. Are you in a place where you can put in an outdoor antenna? Preferably high up... (UHF antennas are pretty small and 'tolerable') or put it in the attic. then use a distribution amp and feed it to all your TVs. Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of DTVs, antennas, and other video equipment, and cable, fiber, and satellite content providers! -- * * sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/ *Repair | Main Table of Contents:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm * * * * | Mirror Sites:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. *Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sam: It might help us if we knew approximately where you live, and the directions/distances of the signals you are trying to pick up. A good antenna in the attic with a distribution amplifier as suggested earlier should work pretty well, especially if the antenna can point out the gable end of the roof, and you do not have aluminum siding. Getting a signal thru regular roofing shingles works ok when the roof is dry, but there is a lot af attenuation when the roof gets wet or snow-covered as it does here in IL where I live. Bob Hofmann |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Mike WB2MEP wrote: Jim, Both of those channels have relocated their DTV transmitter sites quite a distance from their original analog sites. Chan. 2 (and chan. 55 when they were still on) broadcast analog from Orange City. Chan. 15 broadcast from west of Daytona Beach. Being a college-based station, they don't run much power or have a particularly tall tower. I get snowy, but watchable, reception on 15 in the NE suburbs of Orlando with a large rooftop Yagi. All the central Florida DTV stations have located their DTV transmitters at the antenna farms east of Orlando, where the Orlando analog TV and FM stations broadcast from. Five Orlando FM stations were located on the Ch 55 tower in Orange City when I was a Broadcast Engineer there. They had an eight port RF combiner that could handle 50 kW per port, and a curtain antenna at about 1000 feet. One RF engineer worked for all five stations, and lived on site so things could be repaired as quickly as possible. I can't see either TV station abandoning that site, since it is the tallest tower in Central Florida. It is taller than the Ch 2 tower on the other side of Hwy. 17/92, and was the tallest at 1200 feet, prior to the Ch 55 tower's construction. Channel 2's DTV signal is actually on Chan. 11, and Chan. 15's DTV is on either 30 or 33. Chan. 68's (college-based PBS out of Melbourne) DTV is on the other. That PBS station on Ch 68 was on Ch 18, and traded allocations in exchange for Ch 68's crappy NEC transmitter. It was originally installed in Orange City, on the same 1749 foot AAT tower that Ch 55 used. BTW, Ch 55 owns the land, but not the tower. One advantage to this is that you won't need a rotor to pick up all the available DTV stations as they are all broadcasting from the same location. The downside is that Daytona and Melbourne are at the Northern and Southern ends of the Orlando coverage area, and the analog stations gave folks in those cities a strong local PBS signal. With DTV, they will lose the local signal, and Orlando will end up with three PBS channels. The analog Ch 55 signal covered all of Central Florida, all the way to the gulf, and I got one reception report from Texas. Mike WB2MEP -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy. |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On 10 Oct 2008 08:52:50 -0400, (Samuel M.
Goldwasser) wrote: So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. If that's true, then it's likely that your house is RF shielded either by chicken wire in the walls (stucco) or aluminum foil backed fiberglass insulation. If so, there's no hope for an indoor antenna. Try a cheap and simple experiment. Take a length of RG-6/u CATV coax. Strip back about 20" of the outer jacked and shield. Shove it out the window, hopefully on the side of the house that faces the TV xmitters. Crimp an F connector on the other end and connect it to the TV sets antenna connector. This is a truly attrocious TV antenna but should work in a strong signal area by moving the antenna outside of your shielded house. If it works noticably better, you might consider a better outside antenna, which should improve reception even more. If you live in an apartment complex, you might consider inspiring the landlord to resurrect the rooftop community TV antenna system, and distribute the signal to the entire building. Most CATV coax distribution system come together in some manner of utility room. It's easy enough to disconnect your coax cable from the cable company and reconnect it to a community antenna system. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:
Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! ?? This entire "DTV thing" was a way for the government (via the FCC) to raise money by selling off more of the broadcast spectrum. It is/was a "step forward" technically only for those that benefited by having a digital signal replace an analog one that was marred by video noise and signal quality issues. If you can't receive the signal, you no longer have those issues. I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of DTVs, antennas, and other video equipment, and cable, fiber, and satellite content providers! It is only a step forward for those that can receive/benefit from the SD or HDTV signal. For those that had/lost a snowy/fuzzy analog signal, hardly a step forward. Or for those companies (read: Comcast) that are using the consumers confusion/bad luck to their advantage. |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:22:31 -0400, Rich Webb
wrote: Take a look at http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/ Cute. That should work. However, such antennas are not all that expensive: http://www.antennasdirect.com/DB4_HDTV_antenna.html $50. The problem is that they're UHF TV (14-69) only. If you're trying to receive the VHF channels (2-13), then you'll need a 2nd or a different antenna. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On 10 Oct 2008 08:52:50 -0400, (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote: So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. If that's true, then it's likely that your house is RF shielded either by chicken wire in the walls (stucco) or aluminum foil backed fiberglass insulation. If so, there's no hope for an indoor antenna. Try a cheap and simple experiment. Take a length of RG-6/u CATV coax. Strip back about 20" of the outer jacked and shield. Shove it out the window, hopefully on the side of the house that faces the TV xmitters. Crimp an F connector on the other end and connect it to the TV sets antenna connector. This is a truly attrocious TV antenna but should work in a strong signal area by moving the antenna outside of your shielded house. If it works noticably better, you might consider a better outside antenna, which should improve reception even more. If you live in an apartment complex, you might consider inspiring the landlord to resurrect the rooftop community TV antenna system, and distribute the signal to the entire building. Most CATV coax distribution system come together in some manner of utility room. It's easy enough to disconnect your coax cable from the cable company and reconnect it to a community antenna system. If the wiring is owned by them, they can. Most of the apartments we served were wired by our cable company, and the contract with the owner stated they had to buy it from us, if it was to be used for anything else. The few that had existing wiring were done with either 300 twin lead, or single copper braided shield RG-59, neither of which would pass the FCC leakage requirements. Some mid band channels could interfere with aircraft communications, and others would wipe out two meter Amateur radio, or high band VHF communications. Since the cable company would have to opay the fines, they simply didn't use owner supplied wiring, if it didn't consist of new, approzed materials. Most of the buildings had locked wiring cabinets, as well. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy. |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:
OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable Add one more to your figures. [...]this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! You are too susceptible to hype. This wasn't about *better* (as we see, for many it will be WORSE); DTV is all about **more profitable**. UCLAN wrote: This entire "DTV thing" was a way for the government (via the FCC) to raise money by selling off more of the broadcast spectrum. Bingo! I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of DTVs, antennas, and other video equipment, and cable, fiber, and satellite content providers! Now you're on the beam. Those commercial interests lobbied hard for DTV: There's the subscription-based distribution industry -- Rural viewers who could previously get by with a snowy picture may now need satellite dishes to get anything and folks who weren't too bothered by multipath (with analog) may now need cable/sat. ....then there's content providers -- Digital == ***DRM-capable*** http://www.google.com/search?q=gladi...bc+drm&num=100 Of course, guys in the electronics services industries can also cash in on DTV boondoggle by getting savvy in exactly the theme of this thread: What do I, Joe Consumer, need to watch terrestrial DTV reliably? My feeling is that (very local) CATV is about to see an upswing. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...ested#25138447 The analog shutdown in Wilmington, NC will be a useful boilerplate. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...ested#25137579 The coastal plain of NC with its dearth of tall urban structures won't translate to all areas, of course. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...ested#25137331 I hadn't considered foil-backed insulation as Jeff L mentioned. That sounds like a high probability glitch for a bunch of folks. |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
: On 10 Oct 2008 08:52:50 -0400, (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote: So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. If that's true, then it's likely that your house is RF shielded either by chicken wire in the walls (stucco) or aluminum foil backed fiberglass insulation. If so, there's no hope for an indoor antenna. Try a cheap and simple experiment. Take a length of RG-6/u CATV coax. Strip back about 20" of the outer jacked and shield. Shove it out the window, hopefully on the side of the house that faces the TV xmitters. Crimp an F connector on the other end and connect it to the TV sets antenna connector. This is a truly attrocious TV antenna but should work in a strong signal area by moving the antenna outside of your shielded house. If it works noticably better, you might consider a better outside antenna, which should improve reception even more. If you live in an apartment complex, you might consider inspiring the landlord to resurrect the rooftop community TV antenna system, and distribute the signal to the entire building. Most CATV coax distribution system come together in some manner of utility room. It's easy enough to disconnect your coax cable from the cable company and reconnect it to a community antenna system. he could also put an antenna in a window facing the transmitter/antenna farm,IF he has one facing that way. Landlords will not go to the trouble or expense of CATV antennas. They don't get anything for it. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:28:16 -0700 (PDT), JeffM
wrote: I hadn't considered foil-backed insulation as Jeff L mentioned. That sounds like a high probability glitch for a bunch of folks. There are plenty of other things in the home that block RF besides chicken wire under the stucco and foil backed insulation. Some decorative wallpaper has a sheet of thin foil inside. Aluminized mylar energy efficient windows are an effective RF block. Metal window and door screens block RF. If you live in a poured concrete structure, where the inside walls are also concrete, the water in the concrete will form an RF barrier. Antennas in the attic work usually well, but if the roofing material is metalized (i.e. reflective), no RF will pass. I run into such things all the time with Wi-Fi, where barriers to 2.4GHz is more pronounced than at TV frequencies. A really good way to test for a problem is to check for indoor cellular coverage. If cellular works well outside or close to an open window, but the signal drops severely elsewhere inside, then there's metal in the walls. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jeff Liebermann writes:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:28:16 -0700 (PDT), JeffM wrote: I hadn't considered foil-backed insulation as Jeff L mentioned. That sounds like a high probability glitch for a bunch of folks. There are plenty of other things in the home that block RF besides chicken wire under the stucco and foil backed insulation. Some decorative wallpaper has a sheet of thin foil inside. Aluminized mylar energy efficient windows are an effective RF block. Metal window and door screens block RF. If you live in a poured concrete structure, where the inside walls are also concrete, the water in the concrete will form an RF barrier. Antennas in the attic work usually well, but if the roofing material is metalized (i.e. reflective), no RF will pass. I run into such things all the time with Wi-Fi, where barriers to 2.4GHz is more pronounced than at TV frequencies. A really good way to test for a problem is to check for indoor cellular coverage. If cellular works well outside or close to an open window, but the signal drops severely elsewhere inside, then there's metal in the walls. OK, some more info: House is about 90 years old without many modern upgrades. First floor stucco, second floor redwood siding. I doubt there is any sigificant insulation (that's for another group and another thread!) or anything metallic in the walls. All TVs get excellent analog reception. TV/DTV convertor box on second floor on side facing antenna farm gets decent digital reception with only old UHF loop. TV/DTV convertor box on first floor has basic Radio Shack antenna and now seems passable but not gerat. Antenna is placed on top of china closet in dining room. New Toshiba LCD DTV on opposite side of house is the main problem. (But analog reception there is so good that a casual observer might think it is a DTV signal on most channels.) I like the idea of an experiment hanging a wire outside the house to see if that helps, though it's on the wrong side to be really effective. Attic is full of junk (I bet you're not surprised), so plopping large antenna there is probably not an option, though there is a crawl space that is empty. -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:46:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: If the wiring is owned by them, they can. Most of the apartments we served were wired by our cable company, and the contract with the owner stated they had to buy it from us, if it was to be used for anything else. Good point but varies with cable company. The legal details are in the TOS at: http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber/ under: 6. Maintenance And Ownership Of Equipment - c. Inside Wiring which proclaims: "Regardless of who installed it, we consider the Inside Wiring your property or the property of whomever owns the Premises." So it is written, so it must be. The apartment buildings that I'm familiar own their own wiring, which was installed when they were built or remodeled, usually by an independent wiring contractor. Locally, the cable companies (Comcast and Charter) hire such contractors to do their major inside wiring, who bill the owner directly. The owner also supplies his own distribution amp and splitter/couplers. Comcast may have inspected the system before connecting, but I don't think so. The few that had existing wiring were done with either 300 twin lead, or single copper braided shield RG-59, neither of which would pass the FCC leakage requirements. Yep. RG-59/u sucks. Many apartment systems use "smurf tube" (Carlton Flex-Plus Blue ENT) which offer the ability to add additiona coax, fiber, CAT5, alarm, or whatever later: http://www.carlon.com/Flexible%20Raceway/FlexPlus_Intro.html Some mid band channels could interfere with aircraft communications, and others would wipe out two meter Amateur radio, or high band VHF communications. Yep. We have a local repeater output on 145.25Mhz, which is dead on the CH18 CATV video carrier. The local system leaks somewhat and I can barely hear anything. Worse, the various subcarriers are landing on other repeaters. I've complained, but haven't pushed the issue. Driving around listening to 145.25 shows that there are at least a dozen leaks along our 1 mile long branch (most caused by falling branches and trees). Since the cable company would have to opay the fines, they simply didn't use owner supplied wiring, if it didn't consist of new, approzed materials. I checked the recent FCC rulings. One fine for CATV leakage found in 2002: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-228170A1.html Otherwise, I couldn't find any fines: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/Welcome.html I know of plenty of complaints laundered through the FCC, but no fines. Most of the buildings had locked wiring cabinets, as well. Since when is a lock suppose to stop me? Around here, the pedestal has a cheap lock, that's easily picked, but not much additional security. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On 11 Oct 2008 22:48:34 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
he could also put an antenna in a window facing the transmitter/antenna farm,IF he has one facing that way. True. However, if there's metal window screening, aluminized mylar on the glass, or metal famed panes, the RF is not going to get through. That's why I wanted Sam to run the test with the antenna outside the window. The idea is not to test the effectiveness of an admittedly lousy antenna. It's to test if there's anything in the walls or windows that is preventing his existing DTV antenna from working. Landlords will not go to the trouble or expense of CATV antennas. They don't get anything for it. It depends on how it's packaged. These days, CATV wiring usually gets snuck in after a few bad experiences installing satellite dishes. Also, as part of a shared internet system, where the labor involved far exceeds the cost of the additional wiring. Some landlords don't want to spend a penny on anything that can't be immediately passed on to the tenants. Others want to use the wiring as an inducement to attract tech savvy tenants. It varies. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jim Yanik wrote:
CATV antennas. Maybe MATV antenna? or is this something new? MikeB |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:46:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: If the wiring is owned by them, they can. Most of the apartments we served were wired by our cable company, and the contract with the owner stated they had to buy it from us, if it was to be used for anything else. Good point but varies with cable company. The legal details are in the TOS at: http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber/ under: 6. Maintenance And Ownership Of Equipment - c. Inside Wiring which proclaims: "Regardless of who installed it, we consider the Inside Wiring your property or the property of whomever owns the Premises." So it is written, so it must be. For that one company. That is Comcast's way of not having to pay for any repairs. The apartment buildings that I'm familiar own their own wiring, which was installed when they were built or remodeled, usually by an independent wiring contractor. Locally, the cable companies (Comcast and Charter) hire such contractors to do their major inside wiring, who bill the owner directly. The owner also supplies his own distribution amp and splitter/couplers. Comcast may have inspected the system before connecting, but I don't think so. The few that had existing wiring were done with either 300 twin lead, or single copper braided shield RG-59, neither of which would pass the FCC leakage requirements. Yep. RG-59/u sucks. Many apartment systems use "smurf tube" (Carlton Flex-Plus Blue ENT) which offer the ability to add additiona coax, fiber, CAT5, alarm, or whatever later: http://www.carlon.com/Flexible%20Raceway/FlexPlus_Intro.html That may be true in new buildings, but some were wired in the '70s, when single shield RG-6 was the best available. Some mid band channels could interfere with aircraft communications, and others would wipe out two meter Amateur radio, or high band VHF communications. Yep. We have a local repeater output on 145.25Mhz, which is dead on the CH18 CATV video carrier. The local system leaks somewhat and I can barely hear anything. Worse, the various subcarriers are landing on other repeaters. I've complained, but haven't pushed the issue. Driving around listening to 145.25 shows that there are at least a dozen leaks along our 1 mile long branch (most caused by falling branches and trees). Tell them were the leaks are, and suggest they fix them before the FCC gets a written notice about interference to licensed radio users. We had 'sniffer' receivers in our service trucks, and the techs were required to report any radiation to their supervisor so he could investigate the cause with the spectrum analyzer & bucket truck. Since the cable company would have to opay the fines, they simply didn't use owner supplied wiring, if it didn't consist of new, approzed materials. I checked the recent FCC rulings. One fine for CATV leakage found in 2002: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-228170A1.html Otherwise, I couldn't find any fines: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/Welcome.html I know of plenty of complaints laundered through the FCC, but no fines. That is because they get a simple warning, and if the problem is corrected, they aren't written up & fined. Most of the buildings had locked wiring cabinets, as well. Since when is a lock suppose to stop me? Around here, the pedestal has a cheap lock, that's easily picked, but not much additional security. The wall cabinets we used were steel, and you would have to drill the lock, or use a cutting torch to get inside. Any physical damage could result in termination of servixce to the entire building, or even all apartment buildings belonging to the same company or individual. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy. |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On 11 Oct 2008 22:48:34 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote: he could also put an antenna in a window facing the transmitter/antenna farm,IF he has one facing that way. True. However, if there's metal window screening, aluminized mylar on the glass, or metal famed panes, the RF is not going to get through. Metal screning isn't common in Florida. Most is fiberglass. That's why I wanted Sam to run the test with the antenna outside the window. The idea is not to test the effectiveness of an admittedly lousy antenna. It's to test if there's anything in the walls or windows that is preventing his existing DTV antenna from working. Landlords will not go to the trouble or expense of CATV antennas. They don't get anything for it. It depends on how it's packaged. These days, CATV wiring usually gets snuck in after a few bad experiences installing satellite dishes. Also, as part of a shared internet system, where the labor involved far exceeds the cost of the additional wiring. Some landlords don't want to spend a penny on anything that can't be immediately passed on to the tenants. Others want to use the wiring as an inducement to attract tech savvy tenants. It varies. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy. |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On 11 Oct 2008 21:09:54 -0400, (Samuel M.
Goldwasser) wrote: First floor stucco, second floor redwood siding. Bingo. Under the stucco is probably chicken wire or galvanized metal screen. These will block RF quite nicely. TV/DTV convertor box on first floor has basic Radio Shack antenna and now seems passable but not gerat. That's because the chicken wire is in the way. See if you can move the antenna up over the edge of the stucco. Put a little coax extension on whatever indoor antenna you're using and try moving the antenna upstairs, where it doesn't have to go through the chicken wire. Antenna is placed on top of china closet in dining room. Is that above the chicken wire line? New Toshiba LCD DTV on opposite side of house is the main problem. (But analog reception there is so good that a casual observer might think it is a DTV signal on most channels.) Is the Toshiblah on the ground floor? If so, it has the same issue as the other TV. Move the antenna above the chicken wire layer. I like the idea of an experiment hanging a wire outside the house to see if that helps, though it's on the wrong side to be really effective. Just run a long length of coax cable temporarily across the house to see if it helps. We're testing the house, not the antenna. Attic is full of junk (I bet you're not surprised), so plopping large antenna there is probably not an option, though there is a crawl space that is empty. I spent my first 50 years accumulating the mess. I'm going to spend the next 50 years getting rid of it. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Samuel M. Goldwasser writes:
Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better phones. |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jeff Liebermann writes:
On 11 Oct 2008 21:09:54 -0400, (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote: First floor stucco, second floor redwood siding. Bingo. Under the stucco is probably chicken wire or galvanized metal screen. These will block RF quite nicely. TV/DTV convertor box on first floor has basic Radio Shack antenna and now seems passable but not gerat. That's because the chicken wire is in the way. See if you can move the antenna up over the edge of the stucco. Put a little coax extension on whatever indoor antenna you're using and try moving the antenna upstairs, where it doesn't have to go through the chicken wire. Antenna is placed on top of china closet in dining room. Is that above the chicken wire line? Possible. It's getting close to the top of the stucco. New Toshiba LCD DTV on opposite side of house is the main problem. (But analog reception there is so good that a casual observer might think it is a DTV signal on most channels.) Is the Toshiblah on the ground floor? If so, it has the same issue as the other TV. Move the antenna above the chicken wire layer. Should have mentioned. It is on the second floor, but on the opposite side of the house from where most of the transimtters are. I like the idea of an experiment hanging a wire outside the house to see if that helps, though it's on the wrong side to be really effective. Just run a long length of coax cable temporarily across the house to see if it helps. We're testing the house, not the antenna. Attic is full of junk (I bet you're not surprised), so plopping large antenna there is probably not an option, though there is a crawl space that is empty. I spent my first 50 years accumulating the mess. I'm going to spend the next 50 years getting rid of it. Me too, unfortunately. Thanks. -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Richard J Kinch wrote in
: Samuel M. Goldwasser writes: Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better phones. the old dial phones?? those were better? or are you referring to the crank-style phones??? -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Jim Yanik wrote:
Richard J Kinch wrote in : Samuel M. Goldwasser writes: Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better phones. the old dial phones?? those were better? or are you referring to the crank-style phones??? Did he not mean phones which work, keep on working, never have an empty battery, dont need ugly ways to pay, anybody can use their keys without a magnifying glass, dont attract thieves, even work when the mains power is off, etc etc etc........... |
#36
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Sjouke Burry wrote in
: Jim Yanik wrote: Richard J Kinch wrote in : Samuel M. Goldwasser writes: Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better phones. the old dial phones?? those were better? or are you referring to the crank-style phones??? Did he not mean phones which work, keep on working, never have an empty battery, dont need ugly ways to pay, anybody can use their keys without a magnifying glass, dont attract thieves, even work when the mains power is off, etc etc etc........... He said "GRANDparents". That's rotary-dial phone era for me. My parents had the rotary dial phone. I have one of the phones you describe. same size as the old rotary-dial phone,but with a tough-tone keypad,POTS landline. got enough extension coilcord that I can walk around my entire apartment with it! -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#37
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Richard J Kinch wrote:
Samuel M. Goldwasser writes: OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable You and me, pal. This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. If you can fit a big outdoor antenna into the attic, just laying it on the attic floor usually works quite well. Nothing small and convenient will work very well, especially indoors. A mast and rotor outdoors are the thing to have. With DTV, computer DVRs are practical - I have 4. If the rotator moves while a recorder is going, you lose it. G² |
#38
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
Sjouke Burry wrote:
Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas! Right, like cell phones were a step forward. Our grandparents had better phones. the old dial phones?? those were better? or are you referring to the crank-style phones??? Did he not mean phones which work, keep on working, never have an empty battery, dont need ugly ways to pay, anybody can use their keys without a magnifying glass, dont attract thieves, even work when the mains power is off, etc etc etc........... Uh...those are still available. I have one next to my bed, and one in the kitchen. They cost me less than $10 each, new. |
#39
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
DTV Boondoggle
On Oct 10, 7:52 am, (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote:
OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV. With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound would survive even lower signal levels. A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed. Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has become a royal pain to tune in many channels. The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna. Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine. But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal strength for the channels I care about. So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly). This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away. For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below, reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the antenna is oriented. For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time. Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly. According tohttp://www.antennaweb.org/, for most of the channels I care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice. I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions, or whether it would even work. I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far. Thanks! -- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/ Repair | Main Table of Contents:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/ +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm | Mirror Sites:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. I am so surprised that no one has mentioned the (to a bunch of people, anyway) best site for antennae information: http://www.tvfool.com/ Both analog and digital information is available along with a .png file for either, or after the February 2009 cutover. The Kw ratings and db figures are there, along with the actual and virtual channel numbers. Someone did a very good job tom walsh |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|