Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce Never ascribe to malice that which be explained by ignorance and stupidity. |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce Never ascribe to malice that which be explained by ignorance and stupidity. So true |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce Never ascribe to malice that which be explained by ignorance and stupidity. Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." Best, R.E.F. -- Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
"Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
DGDevin wrote:
"Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. One program that we enjoy every week is CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood. We used to record the program by VCR and have now changed to DVR. Sunday Morning finally switched to an hi-def format last year. Castle and The Good Wife are excellent drama programs this year, IMHO. And Glee is pretty interesting too -- just about the only show we watch on Fox. We also enjoyed Raising the Bar on TNT until it was abruptly canceled. I'm a college football fan and really enjoyed the games in HD. We are looking forward to the Winter Olympics in February. PBS has some fine programming, but you have to pick and choose carefully. Bill |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote: "Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. "Vast wasteland" was Newton Minnow, after he stepped down from the chair of the FCC. Of course, back then a big market (like L.A. and NY) had three network channels and maybe three or four independents. And most of the programming was pablum. He said it in 1961. I've been in the entertainment business most of my life--my dad was a TV producer/writer/director. I've seen a lot of things change since 1961. For my taste, there's a lot of fun stuff to watch besides sports and movies. Love Burn Notice and Leverage, and think Castle is smart writing and fine acting. My guilty pleasures include NCIS and a couple of other "action" shows. As for reception quality, I love my DirecTV and my 70" Samsung and when I'm out and about, say a bar with a TV showing sports, if it's an old set with a downcoverter, it's almost painful to watch. Best, R.E.F. -- Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
DGDevin wrote:
"Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. I keep DTV for reasons. 1 - To watch my alma mater's football games. The very few other shows that I care to see I can usually get off the internet. 2- My wife watches stuff and would kill me if I canceled it. :-) also, OTA reception is terrible where we live. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
A Watcher wrote:
DGDevin wrote: "Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. I keep DTV for reasons. 1 - To watch my alma mater's football games. The very few other shows that I care to see I can usually get off the internet. 2- My wife watches stuff and would kill me if I canceled it. :-) also, OTA reception is terrible where we live. I meant DirecTV when I wrote DTV. |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:56:01 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote: "Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. I remember 1961 and tv was a lot better then. |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
I remember 1961 and tv was a lot better then.- Hide quoted text - Yeah I prefer the really old shows. RTN is showing some. its carried on a OTA sub channel here |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
In article ,
mm wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:56:01 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote: "Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. I remember 1961 and tv was a lot better then. Well, the good news is you can get a load of that stuff on DVD. Best, R.E.F. -- Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity. |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
mm wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:56:01 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote: "Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. I remember 1961 and tv was a lot better then. Hey, I was a lot better in 1961, too. vbg Bill |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:33:43 -0500, mm wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:56:01 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote: "Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. I remember 1961 and tv was a lot better then. you're ****ing insane. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
mm wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:56:01 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote: "Raymond Feist" wrote in message ... Robert A. Heinlein from Napoleon's, "Never attribute to malice what can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." That's better, I knew the version I had seen had "incompetence" in there. 1) Is there anything that happens today which doesn't instantly generate a conspiracy theory to explain it? 2) How does anyone find enough programming worthwhile enough to care about reception quality? If I were only able to watch a few hours of TV a week that would probably be fine, just so long as This Old House and a couple of other shows were on the list. Most of the rest lives up to the old "vast wasteland" description the chairman of the FCC used so appropriately in 1961. I remember 1961 and tv was a lot better then. It was a bit more intelligent and polite then. We also were not so particular. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On 1/15/2010 22:33, mm wrote:
I remember 1961 and tv was a lot better then. Yeah, stuff like the Flintstones doing cigarette commercials. |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
|
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Jan 13, 9:45*am, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce I hadn't heard that, but it is disturbing. I get great reception with my converter box, in what had formerly been a fringe area. I have been toying with buying a 52" Samsung LCD, but if it would be a step backwards, I'll continue with my 36" CRT. |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Jan 13, 9:41*am, Eric in North TX wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:45*am, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce I hadn't heard that, but it is disturbing. I get great reception with my converter box, in what had formerly been a fringe area. I have been toying with buying a 52" Samsung LCD, but if it would be a step backwards, I'll continue with my 36" CRT. I'm also in a fringe area. I recently replaced my work shop TV, a 20+ year old 19" CRT with a converter, with a Sanyo LCD. The Sanyo works just fine. FWIW the signal strength meter is in the same range (high 60s to low 80s, depending on the channel) as the meter of the converter box. Just make sure the store you buy the LCD from has a return policy. When I first connected the converter to the old CRT I got a much better picture than I'd ever seen with analog broadcasts. I believe that the problems associated with the analog to digital conversion has less to do with technology than geography. I'm not sure that the "great' pictures people are lamenting losing with the conversion were all that "great" at all. They were just used to looking at a substandard picture caused by weak a signal and interference, none of which digital is forgiving of. Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned. |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
My big pioneer plasma seems to do a good job with digital channels in the DC
area I have numerous ways of capturing the digital signals here all the devices seem about the same to me, but great difference can be seen in what antennae is used and it's placement I live in a high rise apartment - 24th floor of 26 - SW facing balcony -- not idea, but I have a big HD antennae on the balcony next to the DirecTV dish and get good reception on nearly all channel in the area even though I can not get a direct view of probably 50-60 of the compass. "Eric in North TX" wrote in message ... On Jan 13, 9:45 am, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce I hadn't heard that, but it is disturbing. I get great reception with my converter box, in what had formerly been a fringe area. I have been toying with buying a 52" Samsung LCD, but if it would be a step backwards, I'll continue with my 36" CRT. |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations. |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Jan 13, 9:18*am, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. *I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. *I live 45-60 miles from the stations. I live 20 miles from the transmission towers. I live atop a 400' hill. I had to put a large antenna on the roof to get good digital reception. Some local stations have done some tinkering over the past months to help on their end. BTW, I've always heard that the integral digital tuners in TV's are superior to converter boxes. |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On 1/13/2010 12:18 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations. I live only 10 miles from most of my transmitters and found that even a highly amplified, directional indoor antenna did not give me satisfactory reception even though the land is almost flat between here and there. I needed to spend hundreds of $ to have a rooftop directional antenna installed (my roof is high, peaked, and I'm no spring chicken). Reception is excellent except when there are storms, high winds, or low altitude airplanes in the transmission path. When those conditions pertain, I get a little pixelation and occasionally a dropout for a second or two. I do have a second element on the mast pointing in a different direction to receive one UHF PBS station that is 22 miles away. Interesting enough, the reception quality and problems is identical to the problems I have with the transmitters that are only 10 miles away. No preamps or line amplifiers in use, and the signal is being split 3 ways for 3 different rooms in the house. I've always had OTA reception and figured that after only about 6 mos, if the rooftop antenna doesn't cut it, I can always go to cable. The cable bill in 6 mos for just basic service would exceed the cost of the antenna installation. 45-60 miles? GOOD LUCK WITH OTA!! |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Peter wrote:
On 1/13/2010 12:18 PM, Metspitzer wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations. I live only 10 miles from most of my transmitters and found that even a highly amplified, directional indoor antenna did not give me satisfactory reception even though the land is almost flat between here and there. I needed to spend hundreds of $ to have a rooftop directional antenna installed (my roof is high, peaked, and I'm no spring chicken). Reception is excellent except when there are storms, high winds, or low altitude airplanes in the transmission path. When those conditions pertain, I get a little pixelation and occasionally a dropout for a second or two. I do have a second element on the mast pointing in a different direction to receive one UHF PBS station that is 22 miles away. Interesting enough, the reception quality and problems is identical to the problems I have with the transmitters that are only 10 miles away. No preamps or line amplifiers in use, and the signal is being split 3 ways for 3 different rooms in the house. I've always had OTA reception and figured that after only about 6 mos, if the rooftop antenna doesn't cut it, I can always go to cable. The cable bill in 6 mos for just basic service would exceed the cost of the antenna installation. 45-60 miles? GOOD LUCK WITH OTA!! If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better. Chip -- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
|
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:35 -0500, Peter wrote:
On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote: If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better. Chip I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get satisfactory reception using several different configuration traditional unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna was much better than using the unamplified antenna, but still unsat. I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer to ask why they were using such low power, they told me that they had petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater power, but the FCC was concerned that greater power would cause interference in the Baltimore metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of DC). So, I can't receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna and the FCC is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA reception of this station is so difficult. I bought 5 or 6 antennas, tested them out, and returned the rest. The most expensive antenna was worse than average. Antenna selection/positioning will take some trial and error work, but once it's done, that's it! Comcast must hate me because I got many neighbors into using power antennas. |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Peter wrote:
On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote: If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better. Chip I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get satisfactory reception using several different configuration traditional unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna was much better than using the unamplified antenna, but still unsat. I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer to ask why they were using such low power, they told me that they had petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater power, but the FCC was concerned that greater power would cause interference in the Baltimore metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of DC). So, I can't receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna and the FCC is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA reception of this station is so difficult. Have you tried an outside antenna? Your results would no doubt be excellent. Chip -- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB |
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Peter wrote in :
On 1/13/2010 12:37 PM, wrote: If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better. Chip I bought the amplified indoor antenna after I was unable to get satisfactory reception using several different configuration traditional unamplified indoor antennas. The reception with the amplified antenna was much better than using the unamplified antenna, but still unsat. I'm in the DC metro area. One of my biggest reception problems is with a major network outlet that is broadcasting in a lower VHF channel and dropped it's effective radiated power from about 220KW analog to 12.5 KW digital!! That's right, not a typo. When I called the station engineer to ask why they were using such low power, they told me that they had petitioned the FCC to transmit with greater power, but the FCC was concerned that greater power would cause interference in the Baltimore metro area (which is more than 40 miles north of DC). So, I can't receive a decent signal 10 miles away with an indoor antenna and the FCC is worried about interference 40+ miles away. No wonder OTA reception of this station is so difficult. maybe you should try that Make TV homemade antenna,it uses coathanger wire,a small board,some screws and washers,and a 75:300 ohm matching transformer.I get pretty good results with it,no amplifier needed. It's a "quad bowtie" type of antenna. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
[snip]
If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better. Chip And an amp won't fix poor reception anyway. |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Gary H wrote:
[snip] If you are only 10 miles away over flat territory and using an amplifier, that is likely your problem. You are getting too much signal. If you remove the amp you should do better. Chip And an amp won't fix poor reception anyway. No, but it will help in marginal signal situations. Chip -- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB |
#32
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
In article , Metspitzer wrote: [extraneous quotage deleted] To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? OTA isn't my primary reception method, but I'm about 40 miles from most San Francisco TV transmitters and I get nearly 50 stations (including subchannels) with an indoor bowtie. I'm in the flatlands, so my view of Sutro Tower is not blocked by hills. I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations. You'll need to go to TVFool.com or AntennaWeb.org and put in your address to see what the likely results would be at your house. Because of frequency, power, and antenna height changes (and sometimes even antenna location changes), your experience could be better or worse with the digital versions of specific local stations. Also, alt.video.digital-tv is a better place to get information. Watch out for the rabid pro- and anti-digital TV posters, but if you've been on Usenet for long, you already know to avoid the people with agendas. Patty |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations. I had poor reception with analog: severe ghosts on strong stations and severe snow on others. In preparation for going digital, I bought a so-called HDTV amplified set-top antenna. It made strong and weak stations much better. That antenna was terrible when I got a digital TV. I got an old 4-bay outdoor antenna out of the closet and made a stand by sticking a pipe onto the pedestal of a broken office chair. I think I got 40 channels, all better than my best analog reception. I took the antenna and TV outside, hoisted the antenna to a limb above rooftop level, and used a cord to aim it toward each station the FCC said was within 80 miles. I got the same 40 I got with the antenna beside the TV in my dining room. My most reliable reception comes from transmitters 80 miles away, while I can't receive from some transmitters 20 miles away. It seems HDTV can work beautifully with weak signals because all that is necessary is to count pulses. Multipath distortion can break the train of pulses, causing trouble for HDTV. That's why I had trouble with the amplified set-top antenna. Multipath distortion can come from reflections in your house, outdoor obstacles like mountains, and even reflections off the sky in some conditions. An impedance mismatch between your antenna, cable, and TV can cause a similar problem. |
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Jan 13, 11:18*am, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. *I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. *I live 45-60 miles from the stations. I live about 30-40 miles from my stations and am located on the backside of a hill between me and the stations. Analog signals were adequate but not good but the digital signals are very good. With analog I got 4 channels. With digital I get 14 channels. Note however that's channels and not stations since most stations are broadcasting 3 channels each. I only picked up 1 additional station when they went to digital, but at least I didn't lose any like many people did. KC |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
On Jan 13, 11:18*am, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. *I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. *I live 45-60 miles from the stations. 45-50 miles and in a hole, we had spent so much trying to get analog; Rotor, big fringe antenna, amplifier, best quality coax, and still results were dismal. The converter box was another story, we immediately got all the normal channels + a few from way east off the side of the antenna. if we turn it we can get many more, but they are redundant, I get the four main networks + CW & an assortment of UHF type stations, most of which are religious or Spanish, so we block them. |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Metspitzer wrote in
: On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? It's not the station itself,it's the antenna site,which may be far away from the studio site,and shared by some or all of the other local stations. I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations. What irks me is that the stations LOWERED broadcast power after the initial switchover. that reduced their coverage area even more.(but saved them on their electric bill...) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#37
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote: I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV stations? I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. I am interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA for digital. I live 45-60 miles from the stations. I had very bad reception and only 3 or 4 channels, often unwatchable. With digital I now have 6 channels (without counting the -2 -3 simulcasts) and 3 or 4 more that are the same as other channels I get. I have the antenna about 20' taller than the roof and a rotator. I want to try going taller yet but I need a 2nd person and some guy line. BTW, to go 20 feet up, I'm using black pipe, not antenna mast. My biggest problem is a mountain blocking about 180 degrees of reception area. The distance to the stations I receive is about 30 to 90 miles, probably further yet are those channels that are all the same and I deleted them. The mountain plays tricks here. All 6 of those channels come in fairly good with the antenna pointed in what should be the WRONG direction for all of them. About 90 degrees off. To get a 7th channel, a very good PBS station, I have to rotate the antenna and it seems like it's hit or miss with the rotator just where it's going to work tonight. |
#38
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. Perce People at dbstalk have complained about the OTA capabilities of DirecTV DVR's for some time. Many claim the tuners are inferior to the ones on their HDTV sets. That hasn't been my experience. I've got a 37-year-old rooftop UHF/VHF antenna and am about 38 miles from Mount Wilson, where most of the Southern California stations are located. I get excellent pictures OTA on my main Sony Bravia HDTV set and my smaller Sceptre HDTV set. I get acceptable pictures on my old Sylvania CRT using a converter box. I can receive local channels via satellite or OTA on my DirecTV DVR. The input from my rooftop antenna is split four ways with no amplifiers. What looked really bad was the analog signals OTA on the two HDTV sets before the digital signals took over. |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital signal is receivable only over a very small area. I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were distributed over the last couple of years. So add aa amplifier, or jack your pc to your tv and stream shows on the internet. Why pay for cable when so many shows and movies can be viewed online for free? |
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.dbs.directv
|
|||
|
|||
Digital TV
I live 50 miles northwest of New York City.
My rooftop antenna system consists of a rotor, separate UHF and VHF high band antennas, connected to a CM 7777 mast mounted pre amplifier. The engineers continue to play with the antennas and power output at the Empire State Building, and reception is a very mixed bag. UHF channels are more reliable than the VHF high band channels. VHF channels are stronger in the morning on cold days with snow and ice on the ground. After a rain storm I can receive WABC channel 7 if I point my antenna towards a cell tower about one mile away. Once the tower dries out the signal dies. The most reliable signals are from WCBS, WNBC, WNYW, WWOR, and WPIX. The non English audio, infomercial, and holy roller stations on UHF come in loud and clear at all times, but I don't care for their programming. Too many of them don't know what to do with their sub channels, wasting bandwidth on poor quality 24 hour a day traffic cams, canned low cost junk programming, rebroadcasts of weather forecast audio. I used to get many of the PBS stations, until their money sources died up and they reduced their transmitter power. Not all converter boxes have the same design receiver chip sets. Some are much better than others. Steve |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Digital SLR Cameras- Compare n Buy Digital SLR Camera | Electronics | |||
Digital SLR Cameras- Compare n Buy Digital SLR Camera | Electronics Repair | |||
Digital Camera : Know more about digital cameras | Electronics Repair |