I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

This website will tell you what digital channels she will likely receive,
based on her location:

http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx

My guess is that with a digital TV converter box and a good HDTV antenna
such as the "Antennas Direct DB2" antenna she should get more channels than
before.

On Oct 20, 11:27*pm, metspitzer wrote:
I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. *She
is only getting 2 channels. *There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

She needs a better antenna, they are cheap, but cable boxes are not
equal, consumer reports just did a test of maybe 30 and I see 60% are
not great.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:27:03 -0400, metspitzer wrote:
I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

when it works, it'll be perfect and noise free.
when it doesn't, it'll cut in and out like a broken cable.

If you remember the transition from analog cell phones to digital,
you'll have an idea what it will be like. A difference is that you
hopefully won't be in motion and there won't be any tower handoffs.

metspitzer wrote:
I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

I just made the initial experiment -- we're on antenna w/ the three
networks plus PBS watchable w/ some snow. The digital was zilch, nada,
nothing from any of the three. What I know for sure is the closest (60
miles) is broadcasting two subchannels according to them; I'm not sure
of the others yet. What comparative broadcast strength is I also have
no data for, but it appears unless they boost their output or I do major
antenna or other upgrades we'll likely just be without. I've contacted
Engineering of the one station but no response, at least so far.

--

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:09:50 -0500, dpb wrote:

metspitzer wrote:
I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

I just made the initial experiment -- we're on antenna w/ the three
networks plus PBS watchable w/ some snow. The digital was zilch, nada,
nothing from any of the three. What I know for sure is the closest (60
miles) is broadcasting two subchannels according to them; I'm not sure
of the others yet. What comparative broadcast strength is I also have
no data for, but it appears unless they boost their output or I do major
antenna or other upgrades we'll likely just be without. I've contacted
Engineering of the one station but no response, at least so far.
Many stations are running reduced power and/or a non-optimal
transmitting antenna location during this transition phase. After
February, be sure to check again.

On Oct 20, 11:27 pm, metspitzer wrote:
I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

We live in a fringe area, and barely got reception even with a 200
mile antenna and a top quality amplifier.
since we got the digital converter box, or reception is fantastic,
more channels, flicker free, bright picture, flawless sound.
We had a bad wind storm that broke 1/3 of the radials off of the
antenna, & it didn't effect our reception at all, that would have
killed it on analog.

scorpionleather wrote:

This website will tell you what digital channels she will likely receive,
based on her location:

http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx

My guess is that with a digital TV converter box and a good HDTV antenna
such as the "Antennas Direct DB2" antenna she should get more channels than
before.

There is a bit more detailed reception analysis he
http://www.tvfool.com

Either way, after the transition, most if not all of the digital
channels will be transmitting at significantly higher power levels. Be
sure to test reception with her existing antenna before looking for any
"hdtv" antenna, since there is no such thing as an "hdtv" or "digital"
antenna. It's still the same radio frequencies and the old antenna if
it's in good shape should work fine. Of course if the old antenna hasn't
been used in some time you should check it and the downleads for damage.

Eric in North TX wrote:
....
We live in a fringe area, and barely got reception even with a 200
mile antenna and a top quality amplifier.
since we got the digital converter box, or reception is fantastic,
more channels, flicker free, bright picture, flawless sound.
We had a bad wind storm that broke 1/3 of the radials off of the
antenna, & it didn't effect our reception at all, that would have
killed it on analog.

What's your line-of-sight distance and tower height?

That's essentially the description of our situation but my initial
experiment w/ the converter box was a complete failure.

Oh, what converter box do you have? There was only one on the shelves
here when my coupon was expiring, unfortunately, having forgotten about
it...

Are you using any amp now and if so, what is it, do you recall?

--

On Oct 21, 9:37 am, dpb wrote:
Eric in North TX wrote:
...

We live in a fringe area, and barely got reception even with a 200
mile antenna and a top quality amplifier.
since we got the digital converter box, or reception is fantastic,
more channels, flicker free, bright picture, flawless sound.
We had a bad wind storm that broke 1/3 of the radials off of the
antenna, & it didn't effect our reception at all, that would have
killed it on analog.

What's your line-of-sight distance and tower height?

That's essentially the description of our situation but my initial
experiment w/ the converter box was a complete failure.

Oh, what converter box do you have? There was only one on the shelves
here when my coupon was expiring, unfortunately, having forgotten about
it...

Are you using any amp now and if so, what is it, do you recall?

--

The converter box is a Digital Stream bought at Radio Shack, The
antenna is abut 30' up , no tower, just on the eve of a 2 story
I estimate my line of sight at 50 miles with near by hills to
interfere, my Amp is Winegard not sure of the model, it mounts on the
pole with a power supply in the house. I just bout the biggest DB gain
I could find.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:09:50 -0500, dpb wrote:

metspitzer wrote:
I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

I just made the initial experiment -- we're on antenna w/ the three
networks plus PBS watchable w/ some snow. The digital was zilch, nada,
nothing from any of the three. What I know for sure is the closest (60
miles) is broadcasting two subchannels according to them; I'm not sure
of the others yet. What comparative broadcast strength is I also have
no data for, but it appears unless they boost their output or I do major
antenna or other upgrades we'll likely just be without. I've contacted
Engineering of the one station but no response, at least so far.


I talked to one of the stations when I was having trouble, and they
said that my twin lead might be the trouble. I tried going with a
coax cable, which din't help, but orienting the antenna better got the
job done. I'm just glad I didn't have to fish a coax down an outside
wall. If you haven't done it yet, try adjusting antenna direction or
using coax.

Eric in North TX wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:37 am, dpb wrote:
Eric in North TX wrote:
...

We live in a fringe area, and barely got reception even with a 200
mile antenna and a top quality amplifier.
since we got the digital converter box, or reception is fantastic,
more channels, flicker free, bright picture, flawless sound.
We had a bad wind storm that broke 1/3 of the radials off of the
antenna, & it didn't effect our reception at all, that would have
killed it on analog.
What's your line-of-sight distance and tower height?

That's essentially the description of our situation but my initial
experiment w/ the converter box was a complete failure.

Oh, what converter box do you have? There was only one on the shelves
here when my coupon was expiring, unfortunately, having forgotten about
it...

Are you using any amp now and if so, what is it, do you recall?

--

The converter box is a Digital Stream bought at Radio Shack, The
antenna is abut 30' up , no tower, just on the eve of a 2 story
I estimate my line of sight at 50 miles with near by hills to
interfere, my Amp is Winegard not sure of the model, it mounts on the
pole with a power supply in the house. I just bout the biggest DB gain
I could find.

OK, thanks...about the same except no hills here...

Our closest is about 60 mi. The antenna is on a tower but it also sets
at eave height of the two-story farmhouse. Right now I'm not using an
amp although the antenna is nearly new after a big blow destroyed the
old one last year. I bought about the highest gain I could find for the
idea of this coming.

Somebody else mentioned the twin-lead--it's what Dad pulled when he
redid the house in the mid-70s so that may be a weak point but
previously a coax run directly didn't make much difference altho I've
not tried the experiment w/ the digital box.

If aiming turns out to be so critical that an average of the three
that's been adequate for analog since forever won't do I guess it's
possibly a rotor.

Whatever, it's a real pita to have to deal with when as is is just
fine...

OBTW, I did look at the signal strength map for a coarse guesstimate
based on zip code--it thinks we should have 20+ dB NM (noise margin,
however they figure it). That seems as though _should_ be adequate so
perhaps when have some time to look at it further it'll be not too bad a
fix.

--

On Oct 21, 11:22 am, Chris Hill wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:09:50 -0500, dpb wrote:
metspitzer wrote:
I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

I just made the initial experiment -- we're on antenna w/ the three
networks plus PBS watchable w/ some snow. The digital was zilch, nada,
nothing from any of the three. What I know for sure is the closest (60
miles) is broadcasting two subchannels according to them; I'm not sure
of the others yet. What comparative broadcast strength is I also have
no data for, but it appears unless they boost their output or I do major
antenna or other upgrades we'll likely just be without. I've contacted
Engineering of the one station but no response, at least so far.

I talked to one of the stations when I was having trouble, and they
said that my twin lead might be the trouble. I tried going with a
coax cable, which din't help, but orienting the antenna better got the
job done. I'm just glad I didn't have to fish a coax down an outside
wall. If you haven't done it yet, try adjusting antenna direction or
using coax.

+1, the Digital stations don't always have the same center as the
analog ones, I have a rotor, but may as well unplug it now that I've
found the sweet spot.

In article , dpb wrote:

Eric in North TX wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:37 am, dpb wrote:
Eric in North TX wrote:
...

We live in a fringe area, and barely got reception even with a 200
mile antenna and a top quality amplifier.
since we got the digital converter box, or reception is fantastic,
more channels, flicker free, bright picture, flawless sound.
We had a bad wind storm that broke 1/3 of the radials off of the
antenna, & it didn't effect our reception at all, that would have
killed it on analog.
What's your line-of-sight distance and tower height?

That's essentially the description of our situation but my initial
experiment w/ the converter box was a complete failure.

Oh, what converter box do you have? There was only one on the shelves
here when my coupon was expiring, unfortunately, having forgotten about
it...

Are you using any amp now and if so, what is it, do you recall?

--

The converter box is a Digital Stream bought at Radio Shack, The
antenna is abut 30' up , no tower, just on the eve of a 2 story
I estimate my line of sight at 50 miles with near by hills to
interfere, my Amp is Winegard not sure of the model, it mounts on the
pole with a power supply in the house. I just bout the biggest DB gain
I could find.

OK, thanks...about the same except no hills here...

Our closest is about 60 mi. The antenna is on a tower but it also sets
at eave height of the two-story farmhouse. Right now I'm not using an
amp although the antenna is nearly new after a big blow destroyed the
old one last year. I bought about the highest gain I could find for the
idea of this coming.

Somebody else mentioned the twin-lead--it's what Dad pulled when he
redid the house in the mid-70s so that may be a weak point but
previously a coax run directly didn't make much difference altho I've
not tried the experiment w/ the digital box.

If aiming turns out to be so critical that an average of the three
that's been adequate for analog since forever won't do I guess it's
possibly a rotor.

Whatever, it's a real pita to have to deal with when as is is just
fine...

OBTW, I did look at the signal strength map for a coarse guesstimate
based on zip code--it thinks we should have 20+ dB NM (noise margin,
however they figure it). That seems as though _should_ be adequate so
perhaps when have some time to look at it further it'll be not too bad a
fix.

--

Whatever you're using for lead wire, make sure you think about impedance
matching. Twin lead is 75 ohm, coax is 300 ohm IIRC. Twin lead was used
with antennas on the old screw terminal TVs, and when coax, cable, and
new TVs came along everyone had a little dongle that not only physically
mated the TV to the cable, but also performed impedance matching.

Twin lead and coax are both susceptible to deterioration in the
elements; said deterioration causes substantial changes in impedance.
So, rule of thumb, if your wire is old and your reception is poor, get
*brand new* store-bought wire.

Smitty Two wrote:
....
Whatever you're using for lead wire, make sure you think about impedance
matching. Twin lead is 75 ohm, coax is 300 ohm IIRC. Twin lead was used
with antennas on the old screw terminal TVs, and when coax, cable, and
new TVs came along everyone had a little dongle that not only physically
mated the TV to the cable, but also performed impedance matching.

Twin lead and coax are both susceptible to deterioration in the
elements; said deterioration causes substantial changes in impedance.
So, rule of thumb, if your wire is old and your reception is poor, get
*brand new* store-bought wire.

Yes, have it (impedance matching connection).

The direct-shot coax from the antenna experiment when installed new
antenna and doing the aiming, etc., didn't make any significant
difference before--I'm doubting it will now, either, but as said,
haven't done the experiment yet. That was unused coax, btw.

--

In article ,
metspitzer wrote:

What would be the chances she could get another channel
after the switch?

Pretty good, *IF* she improves her antenna.

I can't remember where I read it or about which community/area it
involved, but there was a test recently where all the broadcasters in a
given area performed the transition EARLY as a test.

I recall the biggest complaint was insufficient antenna.

I went to my barber the other day. He uses an antenna and isn't in a
particularly good place with regard to line-of-sight/obstructions and
the like.

He was using a newly-Walmart-purchased, RCA converter box. The picture
was noticeably improved. The biggest improvement I noticed was that the
captions were PERFECT. Previously, using analog, they were pretty
garbled most of the time.
--

JR

In article ,
G. Morgan wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:

Twin lead is 75 ohm, coax is 300 ohm IIRC

It's the other way around.

Thanks, I was afraid of that.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:27:03 -0400, metspitzer
wrote:

I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

If someone offers you Direct Tv, run the other way as fast as you can.
They have over 22,000 complaints in the last year alone with the BBB.
Direct TV is fricking useless!

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:57:12 -0700, Direct TV Not wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:27:03 -0400, metspitzer
wrote:

I have cable, and don't think I could live without it, but my aunt is
using an antenna.

She just dropped cable, and asked me to hook her antenna back up. She
is only getting 2 channels. There is one more channel that can barely
be seen.

What would be the chances she could get another channel after the
switch?

If someone offers you Direct Tv, run the other way as fast as you can.
They have over 22,000 complaints in the last year alone with the BBB.
Direct TV is fricking useless!

I had DirecTV until early this summer. The main reason I quit was the
VERY poor customer service.
--
64 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

the feds turned of all the banalog channels in a area of the carolinas
and discovered 20% of viewers disappeared for a variety of
reasons.........

Thisd will likely delay the turn off date by years. the whole thing
was poorly planned to begin with.

In article , Some shill from
the cable company blathered:



If someone offers you Direct Tv, run the other way as fast as you can.
They have over 22,000 complaints in the last year alone with the BBB.


Cite?

The converter box is a Digital Stream bought at Radio Shack, The
antenna is abut 30' up , no tower, just on the eve of a 2 story
I estimate my line of sight at 50 miles with near by hills to
interfere, my Amp is Winegard not sure of the model, it mounts on the
pole with a power supply in the house. I just bout the biggest DB gain
I could find.

Digital is much more sensitive to background noise than analog was. We
tolerated noise and ghosts in an analog picture, but you'll get drop-
out's or no picture at all if there's noise on a digital signal.

Unless you are distributing your signal to multiple TV's or VCR's, an
amplifier is likely to introduce more noise and distortion than the weak
signal it's trying to improve (noise is boosted along with the signal).

Also, most digital stations are currently in the UHF band, so you'll need
to make sure your amp is rated for that. Many older amps were only rated
for the VHF band.

In my case, I found my signal to noise ratio (SNR level) was actually
LOWER with a new 15db UHF rated amplifier than just running the cable
directly from the antenna.

Our closest is about 60 mi. The antenna is on a tower but it also sets
at eave height of the two-story farmhouse.

Sometimes moving left or right just a bit can make a big difference in
signal strength too. It all depends on topography and obstructions
between you and the source.

My SNR varied about 5-10 points depending on where I walked with my
antenna, and mounting the antenna outside raised my SNR about 15 points
compared to mounting in the attic. All pointed in the same direction, of
course.

Somebody else mentioned the twin-lead--it's what Dad pulled when he
redid the house in the mid-70s so that may be a weak point but
previously a coax run directly didn't make much difference altho I've
not tried the experiment w/ the digital box.

Twin-lead is out of the question, and you should be using at least RG-6
coax cable for the best shielding. I also found the cheap "crimp-on"
style of connectors let a lot more noise in than the professional
compression type of connector.

I spent about 3-4 months trying to get the best signal levels, and I'm
only 20 miles from the broadcast antennas (all in the same basic
direction). I tried a variety of antennas and locations, before settling
on a DB2 style of antenna mounted outside on the eave of our single-story
house. For now everything is working well since my digital stations are
all on the UHF band. But come February, a few of my stations are moving
back to the VHF band so I may need to get a different antenna to pick up
the lower frequencies.

Anthony

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:47:43 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , Some shill from
the cable company blathered:



If someone offers you Direct Tv, run the other way as fast as you can.
They have over 22,000 complaints in the last year alone with the BBB.


Cite?


http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/category/155/159/301/


"Over time, Direct TV lost touch when it comes to providing a better
customer-service experience. The Boston Globe now reports more than
20,000 people filed complaints with the BBB against them over the past
3 years.

The single biggest category of complaint has been the phantom contract
-- where they nail you to a contract without giving reasonable full
disclosure."

In article , Direct TV Not
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:47:43 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , Some shill from
the cable company blathered:



If someone offers you Direct Tv, run the other way as fast as you can.
They have over 22,000 complaints in the last year alone with the BBB.


Cite?


http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/category/155/159/301/


"Over time, Direct TV lost touch when it comes to providing a better
customer-service experience. The Boston Globe now reports more than
20,000 people filed complaints with the BBB against them over the past
3 years.

The single biggest category of complaint has been the phantom contract
-- where they nail you to a contract without giving reasonable full
disclosure."

OK, thanks. So it's 20,000 in three years instead of 22,000 in one year.
I wonder what their subscriber base is. If they have seven million
subscribers, that's about 1/10 of 1 percent complaint rate per year.
Probably about what any big corporation would run.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:58:51 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

OK, thanks. So it's 20,000 in three years instead of 22,000 in one year.
I wonder what their subscriber base is. If they have seven million
subscribers, that's about 1/10 of 1 percent complaint rate per year.
Probably about what any big corporation would run.

So as a CEO of a company then you would be ok with having that many
complaints against you?

Direct TV Not wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:58:51 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

OK, thanks. So it's 20,000 in three years instead of 22,000 in one year.
I wonder what their subscriber base is. If they have seven million
subscribers, that's about 1/10 of 1 percent complaint rate per year.
Probably about what any big corporation would run.

So as a CEO of a company then you would be ok with having that many
complaints against you?

Don't know where they statistics specific to DirecTV came from but from
the BBS summary for 2007
Not Unable
Industry Inquiries Rank Complaints Rank Settled Settled Pursue
Television 116894 92 16810 5 15974 788 48
- Cable, CATV
& Satellite

That would seem not inconsistent w/ the other data when those are split
up amongst however many providers there are...

--

In article , Direct TV Not
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:58:51 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

OK, thanks. So it's 20,000 in three years instead of 22,000 in one year.
I wonder what their subscriber base is. If they have seven million
subscribers, that's about 1/10 of 1 percent complaint rate per year.
Probably about what any big corporation would run.

So as a CEO of a company then you would be ok with having that many
complaints against you?

If my WAG about the subscriber base is even in the ballpark, I'd be
completely content to have that percentage.

On Oct 23, 1:34*pm, HerHusband wrote:
The converter box is a Digital Stream bought at Radio Shack, The
antenna is abut 30' up , no tower, just on the eve of a 2 story
I estimate my line of sight at 50 miles with near by hills to
interfere, my Amp is Winegard not sure of the model, it mounts on the
pole with a power supply in the house. I just bout the biggest DB gain
I could find.

Digital is much more sensitive to background noise than analog was. We
tolerated noise and ghosts in an analog picture, but you'll get drop-
out's or no picture at all if there's noise on a digital signal.


That's not true. One of the biggest advantages of any digital
transmission is that it can tolerate much higher levels of noise and
still deliver a perfect signal. On the receiving end the system only
needs to determine if a "1" or a "0" has been received, the absolute
value of the signal level doesn't effect the data. Hence, you can
tolerate a lot of noise, still be able to determine which of the two
it is, and recover the signal.

It is true that if the signal is poor enough instead of seeing a
crappy picture that you might have had with analog, you'll get no
picture. But for the vast majority of people receiving via OTA,
that is an acceptable tradeoff.




Unless you are distributing your signal to multiple TV's or VCR's, an
amplifier is likely to introduce more noise and distortion than the weak
signal it's trying to improve (noise is boosted along with the signal).

Also, most digital stations are currently in the UHF band, so you'll need
to make sure your amp is rated for that. Many older amps were only rated
for the VHF band.

In my case, I found my signal to noise ratio (SNR level) was actually
LOWER with a new 15db UHF rated amplifier than just running the cable
directly from the antenna.

Our closest is about 60 mi. *The antenna is on a tower but it also sets
at eave height of the two-story farmhouse.

Sometimes moving left or right just a bit can make a big difference in
signal strength too. It all depends on topography and obstructions
between you and the source.

My SNR varied about 5-10 points depending on where I walked with my
antenna, and mounting the antenna outside raised my SNR about 15 points
compared to mounting in the attic. All pointed in the same direction, of
course.

Somebody else mentioned the twin-lead--it's what Dad pulled when he
redid the house in the mid-70s so that may be a weak point but
previously a coax run directly didn't make much difference altho I've
not tried the experiment w/ the digital box.

Twin-lead is out of the question, and you should be using at least RG-6
coax cable for the best shielding. I also found the cheap "crimp-on"
style of connectors let a lot more noise in than the professional
compression type of connector.

I spent about 3-4 months trying to get the best signal levels, and I'm
only 20 miles from the broadcast antennas (all in the same basic
direction). I tried a variety of antennas and locations, before settling
on a DB2 style of antenna mounted outside on the eave of our single-story
house. *For now everything is working well since my digital stations are
all on the UHF band. But come February, a few of my stations are moving
back to the VHF band so I may need to get a different antenna to pick up
the lower frequencies.

Anthony

On Oct 24, 11:18�am, wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:34�pm, HerHusband wrote:

The converter box is a Digital Stream bought at Radio Shack, The
antenna is abut 30' up , no tower, just on the eve of a 2 story
I estimate my line of sight at 50 miles with near by hills to
interfere, my Amp is Winegard not sure of the model, it mounts on the
pole with a power supply in the house. I just bout the biggest DB gain
I could find.

Digital is much more sensitive to background noise than analog was. We
tolerated noise and ghosts in an analog picture, but you'll get drop-
out's or no picture at all if there's noise on a digital signal.

That's not true. �One of the biggest advantages of any digital
transmission is that it can tolerate much higher levels of noise and
still deliver a perfect signal. � On the receiving end the system only
needs to determine if a "1" or a "0" has been received, the absolute
value of the signal level doesn't effect the data. � �Hence, you can
tolerate a lot of noise, still be able to determine which of the two
it is, and recover the signal.

It is true that if the signal is poor enough instead of seeing a
crappy picture that you might have had with analog, you'll get no
picture. � �But for the vast majority of people receiving via OTA,
that is an acceptable tradeoff.





Unless you are distributing your signal to multiple TV's or VCR's, an
amplifier is likely to introduce more noise and distortion than the weak
signal it's trying to improve (noise is boosted along with the signal).

Also, most digital stations are currently in the UHF band, so you'll need
to make sure your amp is rated for that. Many older amps were only rated
for the VHF band.

In my case, I found my signal to noise ratio (SNR level) was actually
LOWER with a new 15db UHF rated amplifier than just running the cable
directly from the antenna.

Our closest is about 60 mi. �The antenna is on a tower but it also sets
at eave height of the two-story farmhouse.

Sometimes moving left or right just a bit can make a big difference in
signal strength too. It all depends on topography and obstructions
between you and the source.

My SNR varied about 5-10 points depending on where I walked with my
antenna, and mounting the antenna outside raised my SNR about 15 points
compared to mounting in the attic. All pointed in the same direction, of
course.

Somebody else mentioned the twin-lead--it's what Dad pulled when he
redid the house in the mid-70s so that may be a weak point but
previously a coax run directly didn't make much difference altho I've
not tried the experiment w/ the digital box.

Twin-lead is out of the question, and you should be using at least RG-6
coax cable for the best shielding. I also found the cheap "crimp-on"
style of connectors let a lot more noise in than the professional
compression type of connector.

I spent about 3-4 months trying to get the best signal levels, and I'm
only 20 miles from the broadcast antennas (all in the same basic
direction). I tried a variety of antennas and locations, before settling
on a DB2 style of antenna mounted outside on the eave of our single-story
house. �For now everything is working well since my digital stations are
all on the UHF band. But come February, a few of my stations are moving
back to the VHF band so I may need to get a different antenna to pick up
the lower frequencies.

Anthony- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
around north carolina all the analog signals were turned off some
months ago as a test. about 20% overall decrease in viewers who
couldnt get signals anymore.

the turn off will be delayed by years, right now we wouldnt be told so
manufacturers can use up their inventory oif digital decoders........

On Oct 24, 3:00*pm, " wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:18 am, wrote:



On Oct 23, 1:34 pm, HerHusband wrote:

The converter box is a Digital Stream bought at Radio Shack, The
antenna is abut 30' up , no tower, just on the eve of a 2 story
I estimate my line of sight at 50 miles with near by hills to
interfere, my Amp is Winegard not sure of the model, it mounts on the
pole with a power supply in the house. I just bout the biggest DB gain
I could find.

Digital is much more sensitive to background noise than analog was. We
tolerated noise and ghosts in an analog picture, but you'll get drop-
out's or no picture at all if there's noise on a digital signal.

That's not true. One of the biggest advantages of any digital
transmission is that it can tolerate much higher levels of noise and
still deliver a perfect signal. On the receiving end the system only
needs to determine if a "1" or a "0" has been received, the absolute
value of the signal level doesn't effect the data. Hence, you can
tolerate a lot of noise, still be able to determine which of the two
it is, and recover the signal.

It is true that if the signal is poor enough instead of seeing a
crappy picture that you might have had with analog, you'll get no
picture. But for the vast majority of people receiving via OTA,
that is an acceptable tradeoff.

Unless you are distributing your signal to multiple TV's or VCR's, an
amplifier is likely to introduce more noise and distortion than the weak
signal it's trying to improve (noise is boosted along with the signal).

Also, most digital stations are currently in the UHF band, so you'll need
to make sure your amp is rated for that. Many older amps were only rated
for the VHF band.

In my case, I found my signal to noise ratio (SNR level) was actually
LOWER with a new 15db UHF rated amplifier than just running the cable
directly from the antenna.

Our closest is about 60 mi. The antenna is on a tower but it also sets
at eave height of the two-story farmhouse.

Sometimes moving left or right just a bit can make a big difference in
signal strength too. It all depends on topography and obstructions
between you and the source.

My SNR varied about 5-10 points depending on where I walked with my
antenna, and mounting the antenna outside raised my SNR about 15 points
compared to mounting in the attic. All pointed in the same direction, of
course.

Somebody else mentioned the twin-lead--it's what Dad pulled when he
redid the house in the mid-70s so that may be a weak point but
previously a coax run directly didn't make much difference altho I've
not tried the experiment w/ the digital box.

Twin-lead is out of the question, and you should be using at least RG-6
coax cable for the best shielding. I also found the cheap "crimp-on"
style of connectors let a lot more noise in than the professional
compression type of connector.

I spent about 3-4 months trying to get the best signal levels, and I'm
only 20 miles from the broadcast antennas (all in the same basic
direction). I tried a variety of antennas and locations, before settling
on a DB2 style of antenna mounted outside on the eave of our single-story
house. For now everything is working well since my digital stations are
all on the UHF band. But come February, a few of my stations are moving
back to the VHF band so I may need to get a different antenna to pick up
the lower frequencies.

Anthony- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

around north carolina all the analog signals were turned off some
months ago as a test. about 20% overall decrease in viewers who
couldnt get signals anymore.

If you have any links to news stories about that, I'd be interested in
seeing them. Was it 20% decrease because they really couldn't get
the HDTV signal via antenna, or just 20% decrease? If it's the
latter, it wouldn't be very surprising because you would expect some
people who were receiving over the air would use the switchover to go
to cable, or sat.



the turn off will be delayed by years, right now we wouldnt be told so
manufacturers can use up their inventory oif digital decoders........-


I too have wondered what would happen as the date finally gets
close. I thought there might be enough bitching that the date could
be pushed out again. We'll see soon enough. Especially in this
environment, you would think Congress wouldn't want to **** too many
people off. On the other hand, the transition does seem to be going
well.

wrote:
....
If you have any links to news stories about that, I'd be interested in
seeing them.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10037052-93.html

is a very short one.

Interestingly, it is typical news making news...

"...At noon EDT Monday, broadcasters flipped the switch to all digital
transmission. And almost immediately, TV broadcasters and the FCC
hotline were inundated with phone calls from local residents..."

It goes on (several paragraphs later, of course) --

"According to the Journal, by mid-afternoon roughly 74 calls had been
placed to two TV stations, WSFX-TV, a Fox affiliate, and WECT-TV, an NBC
affiliate. The newspaper also reported the FCC received about a hundred
calls on its toll-free help line in the first few hours..."

So, something under 200 folks apparently didn't have or know how to use
there converter boxes. Given the population of and surrounding
Wilmington, NC, I say that hardly qualifies as an "inundation".

However, given the metro nature of NC out of the mountainous regions of
W NC, it's hardly to be expected there will be many problems in actually
receiving usable signal.

....

the turn off will be delayed by years, right now we wouldnt be told so
manufacturers can use up their inventory oif digital decoders........-


I too have wondered what would happen as the date finally gets
close. I thought there might be enough bitching that the date could
be pushed out again. We'll see soon enough. Especially in this
environment, you would think Congress wouldn't want to **** too many
people off. On the other hand, the transition does seem to be going
well.

I think there's essentially zero likelihood the transition date will be
pushed back.

As for the Congress and their attitude, given a 20% approval, they
haven't seemed to care much about that recently and I don't expect that
to change, either.

Again, the transition seems to go well for those in metro areas or
relatively close to transmitters. Meanwhile, for those who aren't, "not
so much".

--

On Oct 24, 3:51�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

If you have any links to news stories about that, I'd be interested in
seeing them. �

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10037052-93.html

is a very short one.

Interestingly, it is typical news making news...

"...At noon EDT Monday, broadcasters flipped the switch to all digital
transmission. And almost immediately, TV broadcasters and the FCC
hotline were inundated with phone calls from local residents..."

It goes on (several paragraphs later, of course) --

"According to the Journal, by mid-afternoon roughly 74 calls had been
placed to two TV stations, WSFX-TV, a Fox affiliate, and WECT-TV, an NBC
affiliate. The newspaper also reported the FCC received about a hundred
calls on its toll-free help line in the first few hours..."

So, something under 200 folks apparently didn't have or know how to use
there converter boxes. �Given the population of and surrounding
Wilmington, NC, I say that hardly qualifies as an "inundation".

However, given the metro nature of NC out of the mountainous regions of
W NC, it's hardly to be expected there will be many problems in actually
receiving usable signal.

...

the turn off will be delayed by years, right now we wouldnt be told so
manufacturers can use up their inventory oif digital decoders........-

I too have wondered what would happen as the date finally gets
close. � I thought there might be enough bitching that the date could
be pushed out again. � We'll see soon enough. �Especially in this
environment, you would think Congress wouldn't want to **** too many
people off. � On the other hand, the transition does seem to be going
well.

I think there's essentially zero likelihood the transition date will be
pushed back.

As for the Congress and their attitude, given a 20% approval, they
haven't seemed to care much about that recently and I don't expect that
to change, either.

Again, the transition seems to go well for those in metro areas or
relatively close to transmitters. �Meanwhile, for those who aren't, "not
so much".

--

skyreports carried the story of the 20% decrease in viewership, i will
search my old mail for the article....

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

[snip]

That's not true. One of the biggest advantages of any digital
transmission is that it can tolerate much higher levels of noise and
still deliver a perfect signal. On the receiving end the system only
needs to determine if a "1" or a "0" has been received, the absolute
value of the signal level doesn't effect the data. Hence, you can
tolerate a lot of noise, still be able to determine which of the two
it is, and recover the signal.


That applies to individual bits, not to the picture as a whole. It
takes multiple bits, you may receive some but not others.

It is true that if the signal is poor enough instead of seeing a
crappy picture that you might have had with analog, you'll get no
picture.

Or you'll get a crappy picture. I see a lot of that here, especially
when the antenna needs to be adjusted.

But for the vast majority of people receiving via OTA,
that is an acceptable tradeoff.

I get better pictures (with digital TV) on the channels I can get OTA.

[snip]
--
61 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."