In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:27:59 -0700 (PDT), Uncle
Monster wrote:



I followed your link but I got this: "You are not allowed to access this re=

Worked for me.

source". I am using a VPN so that might be the problem. I seem to recall se=
eing Burghoff playing drums. ^_^

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:10:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 10/8/2015 1:09 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 10/07/2015 09:45 PM, micky wrote:

[snip]

That 27-inch "portable" CRT TV weighed 90 pounds.


I had a 32" HD with the 16:9 CRT screen. It was 185 pounds.

I had a 60" mother-in-law who was 220 pounds.


I didn't know they made CRTs that big. Are you talking about a
projection TV with 3 CRTs?



The biggest CRT for 4:3 was 35", but the 32" was the biggest 16:9.
Projection TVs were in the 40" range but had a crappy picture, IMO.

The biggest mother-in-law for the 1900's was 240 lbs, but the biggest
for the 200's has been 293 pounds. Both had a crappy picture, IMO.

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:36:50 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:28:06 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 1:35:53 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:14:39 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Uncle
Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:52:06 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Here, some places charge a flat $10 to dispose of it; others do so
by *weight* (so bigger tubes cost more).

Our local disposal charges $1 per half inch. That's almost $65 for a
32 incher! 8|

nb

I'd smash or cut it up and bag it, dispose of some each week.

Radar O'Riley from M*A*S*H mailed a Jeep home, one piece at a time.. ^_^

Yeah. That didn't seem like him. Dishonest and all that.


You are referring to the "later" Radar. Early on, Radar was not such a nice guy.

Channeling a younger Radar, I stole the following from:

http://mash.wikia.com/wiki/Walter_%2...E2%80%99Reilly

======

"On television, Radar's character started off as worldly and sneaky, a clerk
who carried with him at all times a pocketful of passes for any potential
scam that might arise. He also sold tickets to the male members of MASH so
they could take turns sneaking looks through a peephole in the nurses'
showers and also used his camera to sneak pictures of the nurses showering.

He also won over $800 in poker playing with members of MASH and dismantled a
jeep and smuggled it home piece by piece. He once conned the entire company
of MASH 4077 into buying a pair of wing-tip shoes-although he was once
conned himself into spending over $50.00 for a improved writing course by
mail-which nearly drove Col. Potter crazy trying to read the daily reports.

He was known for his tremendous appetite for heaping portions of meat.. He
was also not averse to drinking Col. Blake's brandy and smoking his cigars
when the colonel was off-duty. This character was apparently not wholly to
the writers' liking and he later became a naive and trusting farm boy, a
vegetarian, and cigars and strong liquor made him ill or dizzy. His favorite
beverage was a grape Nehi (non-alcoholic)."

======

There are also rumors that while Radar was (later on) a real nice guy on screen, at least one cast member claimed "Gary Burghoff may well have been the best actor in the company" possibly meaning that the "nice guy act" was nothing more than that. Off camera, Burghoff was apparently not a very nice guy.

I followed your link but I got this: "You are not allowed to access this resource". I am using a VPN so that might be the problem. I seem to recall seeing Burghoff playing drums. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Radar Monster

Did you try Copy-Paste?

I turned off my cloud based VPN and the page popped right up. Right now, the IP site,"whatismyipaddress.com" indicates that I'm in this place: o_O

Your IP Details:
ISP: Digital Ocean
Services: None Detected
City: Dhaka
Region: Dhaka Division
Country: Bangladesh

I love The Internet, it takes me around the world in a flash. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Teleporting Monster

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.


Is the box HD? You're connected to the HD outputs?
Via HDMI? Component video?

If you take a standard def source and blow it up
to 42", it's going to look poor. An HD source should
look excellent on a 42", much better than a std def
source on a 32". So, something it's right and I doubt
it's your eyes.


Ah ha ! Sorry - I'm a luddite.
Is there some sort of conversion device / connector ?
It's an old-ish satellite receiver - not HD.. connected with the same
co-ax ? cable that the old TV used. The receiver also has
S-Video and the 3 RCA AA/V jacks.
The TV has the co-ax? cable ; 5 RCA ; 3 USB ; 3 HDMI.
I much appreciate the help - thanks guys.
.... to think that I once enjoyed delving into this sort of
NEW TOY / NEW TECH stuff ! ?
John T. just another old fart




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


.... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 10/8/2015 6:43 PM, hubops wrote:

.... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..

Bwahaha! When it comes to consumer electronics, you're
NEVER finished spending money!

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Uncle
Monster wrote:


I followed your link but I got this: "You are not allowed to access thi=
s resource". I am using a VPN so that might be the problem. I seem to recal=
l seeing Burghoff playing drums. ^_^

I turned off my cloud based VPN and the page popped right up. Right now, th=
e IP site,"whatismyipaddress.com" indicates that I'm in this place: o_O

Your IP Details:
ISP: Digital Ocean
Services: None Detected
City: Dhaka
Region: Dhaka Division
Country: Bangladesh

You should try the goat soup. Very good.

With crackers.

I love The Internet, it takes me around the world in a flash. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Teleporting Monster

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:43:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:37:07 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:17:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...

That sounds like what they may be doing here, along with the same language
("free for a year"). Are you sure about that interpretation? It would be
wrong to give you something and then later charge for what they gave you.
Maybe it just means if you DON'T get any now you'll have to pay to get it
later.


I may be wrong for how long, but think it is a year. Anyway , after a
certain ammount of time the cable company will charge a $ 2.75 a month for
each device. Bad thing about it will not give all the channels, just the
standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going away on
cable.

You can get an A-B switch to switch from the cable input to a standard
antenna. You can get one with remote control so you don't have to get
up (I have that.), and maybe you can just connect both the cable and
the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I
think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere
with each other.


We went through that in another recent thread. If you combine the

I don't think I read that one. In another group, maybe cross-posted
here, we recently talked about joining two antennas, but I don't the
other topic came up.

cable together with an antenna using the typical splitter, you will
be driving the antenna with the cable company's signals and radiating
them to the neighborhood.

Did anyone mention that by using an antenna amp, that is almost
certainly uni-directional, that won't happen?

Even without that, I find it hard to believe the puny signal that comes
out of a cable box will radiate even to next door from an antenna. Do
you remember the Subject of that thread?

Cable companies and the FCC don't like that.
IDK what exactly an antenna has to do with his issues anyway.

Read his post again. "Bad thing about it will not give all the channels,
just the standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going
away on cable."

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:19:12 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Uncle
Monster wrote:


I followed your link but I got this: "You are not allowed to access thi=
s resource". I am using a VPN so that might be the problem. I seem to recal=
l seeing Burghoff playing drums. ^_^

I turned off my cloud based VPN and the page popped right up. Right now, th=
e IP site,"whatismyipaddress.com" indicates that I'm in this place: o_O

Your IP Details:
ISP: Digital Ocean
Services: None Detected
City: Dhaka
Region: Dhaka Division
Country: Bangladesh

You should try the goat soup. Very good.

With crackers.


The local diet could help me lose weight, especially if the soup had the eyeballs floating in it. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Yuck Monster

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:43:23 -0400, hubops
wrote:


... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.

I have no experience with this, but maybe there's a TV setting for
standard definition signals that would improve the picture with the
current receiver.

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 1:28:53 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:43:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:37:07 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:17:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...

That sounds like what they may be doing here, along with the same language
("free for a year"). Are you sure about that interpretation? It would be
wrong to give you something and then later charge for what they gave you.
Maybe it just means if you DON'T get any now you'll have to pay to get it
later.


I may be wrong for how long, but think it is a year. Anyway , after a
certain ammount of time the cable company will charge a $ 2.75 a month for
each device. Bad thing about it will not give all the channels, just the
standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going away on
cable.

You can get an A-B switch to switch from the cable input to a standard
antenna. You can get one with remote control so you don't have to get
up (I have that.), and maybe you can just connect both the cable and
the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I
think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere
with each other.


We went through that in another recent thread. If you combine the

I don't think I read that one. In another group, maybe cross-posted
here, we recently talked about joining two antennas, but I don't the
other topic came up.

cable together with an antenna using the typical splitter, you will
be driving the antenna with the cable company's signals and radiating
them to the neighborhood.

Did anyone mention that by using an antenna amp, that is almost
certainly uni-directional, that won't happen?

Even without that, I find it hard to believe the puny signal that comes
out of a cable box will radiate even to next door from an antenna. Do
you remember the Subject of that thread?

The FCC says otherwise:

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-signal-leakage



Cable companies and the FCC don't like that.
IDK what exactly an antenna has to do with his issues anyway.

Read his post again. "Bad thing about it will not give all the channels,
just the standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going
away on cable."

He also said:

"When cable announced that extra box would be
needed for both sets and they would provide them for free for a year , then
charge for them, I switched to Direct TV. "

So he doesn't have cable anymore and presumably he doesn't have a problem
to solve.

On 10/08/2015 01:36 PM, micky wrote:

[snip]

You can get an A-B switch to switch from the cable input to a standard
antenna. You can get one with remote control so you don't have to get
up (I have that.), and maybe you can just connect both the cable and
the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I
think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere
with each other.

Channels 2-13 are the same for air and cable.
Cable channels 14-64 and 95-99 (IIRC) are different.
Cable channels 65+ overlap UHF broadcast channels 14+.

Below is from their web page. Talking with some that have gone to this
converter box (the converter box for off the air TV will not work either)
say it is free for now to watch.

Digital Adapters are free for a limited time in some areas. Please refer to
our Digital Adapter support page for details




--
78 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

If a member of McDonalds' staff was God:

"OK, one Universe. Uh, you want
fries with that?"

On 10/08/2015 01:40 PM, micky wrote:

[snip]

"This program has been brought to you in compatible color"

which I didn't understand for another 30 years. Compatible meaning
black & white sets could understand it and show the picture in black and
white, and the opposite too, which iirc meant when they sent a black and
white show in compatible color, the color sets would render it in black
and white.

A color TV is capable of displaying a black and white picture. It checks
for the color signal and works in black and white if there is none,
using a circuit which I seem to remember being called a "color killer".

"compatible color" would be needed when an old black and white TV gets a
color signal.

[snip]

--
78 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

If a member of McDonalds' staff was God:

"OK, one Universe. Uh, you want
fries with that?"

On 10/08/2015 02:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

[snip]

The biggest CRT for 4:3 was 35", but the 32" was the biggest 16:9.
Projection TVs were in the 40" range but had a crappy picture, IMO.

I remember 36-inch CRTs in stores, and reading about 40-inch although
that was not commercially available.

IIRC projection TVs had a limited viewing angle.

--
78 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

If a member of McDonalds' staff was God:

"OK, one Universe. Uh, you want
fries with that?"

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:27:00 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 10/08/2015 01:40 PM, micky wrote:

[snip]

"This program has been brought to you in compatible color"

which I didn't understand for another 30 years. Compatible meaning
black & white sets could understand it and show the picture in black and
white, and the opposite too, which iirc meant when they sent a black and
white show in compatible color, the color sets would render it in black
and white.

A color TV is capable of displaying a black and white picture. It checks
for the color signal and works in black and white if there is none,
using a circuit which I seem to remember being called a "color killer".

"compatible color" would be needed when an old black and white TV gets a
color signal.


IDK what "compatible color" means. The color broadcasting system was
designed so that a color broadcast would display as black and white on
the millions of bw sets out there at the time. The color part was
a compatible addition to what was already there.

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:34:00 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 10/08/2015 02:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

[snip]

The biggest CRT for 4:3 was 35", but the 32" was the biggest 16:9.
Projection TVs were in the 40" range but had a crappy picture, IMO.

I remember 36-inch CRTs in stores, and reading about 40-inch although
that was not commercially available.


Correct. I bought the first 35" TV that came out, Mitsubishi. Had
it for many years until the picture tube died. At which point I
bought a 36", think it was a Toshiba. That was the largest available
at that time and I think as big as they ever got.

Now I have a Sony 47" LCD and I'm not a happy camper. It's out of
warranty and it has a problem that's widespread, which is that the
thin flex conductor that is bonded to the display to carry the signals
is loose. The pic went from perfect, to just one bad line, to the
whole screen screwed up over time, eventually because unwatchable.
About a month ago, I took it apart, identified the bad connection.
It's a thin flex fine pitch cable that's about 4" wide. If I push
on it just right, the pic goes back to perfect. I figured out a
way to try to keep pressure on it by epoxying a piece of popsicle
stick to press against it. That worked for about a month, now it's
getting progressively worse again. Luckily I still have the TV half
apart, so can try again. No other solution, it's part of the display.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 9 Oct 2015 04:56:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 1:28:53 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:43:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:37:07 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:17:19 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...

That sounds like what they may be doing here, along with the same language
("free for a year"). Are you sure about that interpretation? It would be
wrong to give you something and then later charge for what they gave you.
Maybe it just means if you DON'T get any now you'll have to pay to get it
later.


I may be wrong for how long, but think it is a year. Anyway , after a
certain ammount of time the cable company will charge a $ 2.75 a month for
each device. Bad thing about it will not give all the channels, just the
standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going away on
cable.

You can get an A-B switch to switch from the cable input to a standard
antenna. You can get one with remote control so you don't have to get
up (I have that.), and maybe you can just connect both the cable and
the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I
think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere
with each other.


We went through that in another recent thread. If you combine the

I don't think I read that one. In another group, maybe cross-posted
here, we recently talked about joining two antennas, but I don't the
other topic came up.

cable together with an antenna using the typical splitter, you will
be driving the antenna with the cable company's signals and radiating
them to the neighborhood.

Did anyone mention that by using an antenna amp, that is almost
certainly uni-directional, that won't happen?

Even without that, I find it hard to believe the puny signal that comes
out of a cable box will radiate even to next door from an antenna. Do
you remember the Subject of that thread?

The FCC says otherwise:

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-signal-leakage

This is a general warning and says NOTHING about antennas as a source of
leakage, and thus it says nothing about using an antenna amp to block
the cable signal from going up to the antenna.

As I asked before, in that prior thread, did anyone think to suggest an
antenna amp? Did you?

The only examples the FCC url gives are here "Cable signal leaks can be
caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated
cables." Backfeeding into antennas doesn't even make the list.

Cable companies and the FCC don't like that.
IDK what exactly an antenna has to do with his issues anyway.

Read his post again. "Bad thing about it will not give all the channels,
just the standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going
away on cable."

He also said:

"When cable announced that extra box would be
needed for both sets and they would provide them for free for a year , then
charge for them, I switched to Direct TV. "

I saw that. I don't think that was any reason not to reply as I did,
and I don't think you or most people here would have let that stop you
from replying either.

So he doesn't have cable anymore and presumably he doesn't have a problem
to solve.

Like the OP in a thread is the only one posters write for.
Like this OP can't have a problem with Direct and want to go back.
Like this OP can't have family who might still be in the same situation
he was in.

My gosh, you love to bicker.

On 10/09/2015 11:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
IDK what "compatible color" means. The color broadcasting system was
designed so that a color broadcast would display as black and white on
the millions of bw sets out there at the time. The color part was
a compatible addition to what was already there.

It was a marketing term coined by the cable industry to add a
"Compatible Color Technology Fee" to America's cable bill.
Today, the surcharge has morphed into the "HD Technology Fee".

We'll soon have a "Ultra Compressed 4K HD Technology Fee".

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

Even without that, I find it hard to believe the puny signal that comes
out of a cable box will radiate even to next door from an antenna. Do
you remember the Subject of that thread?

The FCC says otherwise:

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-signal-leakage

This is a general warning and says NOTHING about antennas as a source of
leakage, and thus it says nothing about using an antenna amp to block
the cable signal from going up to the antenna.



"Cable signal leaks occur when the RF signals transmitted within a cable system are not properly contained within the cable plant. Cable signal leaks can be caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated cables."

And I cited the FCC based on your recommendation to just use a splitter
to combine the antenna and cable:

"maybe you can just connect both the cable and the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere with each other. "

After listing loose connectors, cracked, un-terminated cables, you think
the FCC has to specifically say "don't connect an antenna to the cable"?

Just how stupid are you?


I didn't comment on your suggestion to use an antenna amplifier for isolation.
I didn't see the need to, because as I pointed out, you're solving a problem
that doesn't exist. The poster doesn't have a problem. He reported that he
no longer even has cable, he's switched to DirectTV.



As I asked before, in that prior thread, did anyone think to suggest an
antenna amp? Did you?


As I recall, yes it was discussed at length. But then we also had
someone that had an actual problem then too.


The only examples the FCC url gives are here "Cable signal leaks can be
caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated
cables." Backfeeding into antennas doesn't even make the list.

Well, obviously you are that stupid.




Cable companies and the FCC don't like that.
IDK what exactly an antenna has to do with his issues anyway.

Read his post again. "Bad thing about it will not give all the channels,
just the standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going
away on cable."

He also said:

"When cable announced that extra box would be
needed for both sets and they would provide them for free for a year , then
charge for them, I switched to Direct TV. "

I saw that. I don't think that was any reason not to reply as I did,
and I don't think you or most people here would have let that stop you
from replying either.


You didn't see me replying though, did you? I didn't see anyone else
replying to solve his non-existent problem either.




So he doesn't have cable anymore and presumably he doesn't have a problem
to solve.

Like the OP in a thread is the only one posters write for.
Like this OP can't have a problem with Direct and want to go back.
Like this OP can't have family who might still be in the same situation
he was in.

My gosh, you love to bicker.

And you're still the village idiot. Maybe you could learn to trim posts?

On 10/8/2015 9:43 PM, hubops wrote:

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.


Sorry to tell you, but yes, you need a new receiver and possibly more to
get the full HD picture. You may want to contact your satellite
supplier to get fixed up properly.

hubops wrote:


... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.


Is the box HD? You're connected to the HD outputs?
Via HDMI? Component video?

If you take a standard def source and blow it up
to 42", it's going to look poor. An HD source should
look excellent on a 42", much better than a std def
source on a 32". So, something it's right and I doubt
it's your eyes.


Ah ha ! Sorry - I'm a luddite.
Is there some sort of conversion device / connector ?
It's an old-ish satellite receiver - not HD.. connected with the same
co-ax ? cable that the old TV used. The receiver also has
S-Video and the 3 RCA AA/V jacks.
The TV has the co-ax? cable ; 5 RCA ; 3 USB ; 3 HDMI.
I much appreciate the help - thanks guys.
... to think that I once enjoyed delving into this sort of
NEW TOY / NEW TECH stuff ! ?
John T. just another old fart




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/8/2015 9:43 PM, hubops wrote:

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.


Sorry to tell you, but yes, you need a new receiver and possibly more to
get the full HD picture. You may want to contact your satellite
supplier to get fixed up properly.

Upgrading sat. receiver may be easiest solution. Or there is other
method like using A/V receiver with video upscaling capability.
It is a matter of additional cost to get the benefit of full HD
viewing.

hubops wrote:

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

If your TV has digital tuner built-in, connect TV antenna to the TV set.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:27:00 AM UTC-4, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 10/08/2015 01:40 PM, micky wrote:

[snip]

"This program has been brought to you in compatible color"

which I didn't understand for another 30 years. Compatible meaning
black & white sets could understand it and show the picture in black and
white, and the opposite too, which iirc meant when they sent a black and
white show in compatible color, the color sets would render it in black
and white.

I almost said it right. Compatible color meant that the signal of a
color program could be understood by black & white sets and shown in
black and white , and that the signal of a black & white program could
be understood by a color set and displayed in black & white.

When parts of the world, probably Europe, got color tv they didn't have
the enormous number of black & white sets and IIRC they used a different
method for color that wasn't compatible with black & white, but other
than that, it had advantages over the method used for color in the US.

A color TV is capable of displaying a black and white picture. It checks
for the color signal and works in black and white if there is none,
using a circuit which I seem to remember being called a "color killer".

"compatible color" would be needed when an old black and white TV gets a
color signal.

Both of those are part of compatibility.

IDK what "compatible color" means.

Now you probably do.

The color broadcasting system was
designed so that a color broadcast would display as black and white on
the millions of bw sets out there at the time. The color part was
a compatible addition to what was already there.

Yes.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:40 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:43:23 -0400, hubops
wrote:


... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.

I have no experience with this, but maybe there's a TV setting for
standard definition signals that would improve the picture with the
current receiver.

I don't mean that the setting would give you HD. Only that it would
give SD as good as you used to get. If there is such a setting.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:32:54 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

hubops wrote:

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.


If your TV has digital tuner built-in, connect TV antenna to the TV set.

Good point. Over the air signals are full definition. If they start
out as HD, they stay that way. No electronics to compress them.

Bearing in mind what Mark said, it might be better to use a multiplexer
than a splitter. Despite the fancy 4-syllable name, they're very cheap
too. As well as the antenna amp, of course.

Continued below.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

Even without that, I find it hard to believe the puny signal that comes
out of a cable box will radiate even to next door from an antenna. Do
you remember the Subject of that thread?

The FCC says otherwise:

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-signal-leakage

This is a general warning and says NOTHING about antennas as a source of
leakage, and thus it says nothing about using an antenna amp to block
the cable signal from going up to the antenna.



"Cable signal leaks occur when the RF signals transmitted within a cable system are not properly contained within the cable plant. Cable signal leaks can be caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated cables."

Yeah, that was there, for sure. By golly, I remember reading it! I
even remember quoting it!!!

And I cited the FCC based on your recommendation to just use a splitter
to combine the antenna and cable:

"maybe you can just connect both the cable and the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere with each other. "

After listing loose connectors, cracked, un-terminated cables, you think
the FCC has to specifically say "don't connect an antenna to the cable"?

Absolutely. That's an entirely different beast from loose or cracked,
which are physical defects. Unteminated is a third kind of beast.

Just how stupid are you?

Smarter than you, it seems.

I didn't comment on your suggestion to use an antenna amplifier for isolation.
I didn't see the need to, because as I pointed out, you're solving a problem
that doesn't exist.

Baloney. Then why did you comment on the rest of it?

Why did you write "The FCC says otherwise:
https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-signal-leakage" If the antenna amp is
moot now, what the FCC is just as moot.

The poster doesn't have a problem. He reported that he
no longer even has cable, he's switched to DirectTV.

By golly, he did.


As I asked before, in that prior thread, did anyone think to suggest an
antenna amp? Did you?


As I recall, yes it was discussed at length. But then we also had
someone that had an actual problem then too.

Do you remember what the problem was?


The only examples the FCC url gives are here "Cable signal leaks can be
caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated
cables." Backfeeding into antennas doesn't even make the list.

Well, obviously you are that stupid.

You're not only stupid, you love to bicker. What a combination.



Cable companies and the FCC don't like that.
IDK what exactly an antenna has to do with his issues anyway.

Read his post again. "Bad thing about it will not give all the channels,
just the standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going
away on cable."

He also said:

"When cable announced that extra box would be
needed for both sets and they would provide them for free for a year , then
charge for them, I switched to Direct TV. "

I saw that. I don't think that was any reason not to reply as I did,
and I don't think you or most people here would have let that stop you
from replying either.


You didn't see me replying though, did you?

You had nothing worth saying. You still don't.

I didn't see anyone else
replying to solve his non-existent problem either.




So he doesn't have cable anymore and presumably he doesn't have a problem
to solve.

Like the OP in a thread is the only one posters write for.
Like this OP can't have a problem with Direct and want to go back.
Like this OP can't have family who might still be in the same situation
he was in.

My gosh, you love to bicker.

And you're still the village idiot. Maybe you could learn to trim posts?

Do you pay by the byte?

On 10/9/2015 6:32 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:


If your TV has digital tuner built-in, connect TV antenna to the TV set.

Depends on where you live. I'd get maybe one station and the others
would just be pixels.

On 10/8/2015 9:43 PM, hubops wrote:


... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED seems to provide a
poorer picture quality than the old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's
replacing ! ... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish. Or is it just a
matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ? John T.

[SNIP]

Ah ha ! Sorry - I'm a luddite. Is there some sort of conversion
device / connector ? It's an old-ish satellite receiver - not HD..
connected with the same co-ax ? cable that the old TV used. The
receiver also has S-Video and the 3 RCA AA/V jacks. The TV has the
co-ax? cable ; 5 RCA ; 3 USB ; 3 HDMI. I much appreciate the help
- thanks guys. ... to think that I once enjoyed delving into this
sort of NEW TOY / NEW TECH stuff ! ? John T. just another
old fart

Don't know exactly what you mean by "the 3 RCA AA/V jacks". You could
be describing either 3 {composite video/stereo audio} input sets or 1
{component video/stereo audio} input set. In order of increasing video
quality:
a. composite (single RCA connector, usually yellow),

b. S-video (small round with 4 pins and a rectangular key to help
orient the plug to mate with an s-video socket),

c. component video (3 video cables using RCA connectors, usually blue,
green, and violet or red). Some manufacturers use proprietary names
rather than "component" to describe this protocol. For example, Toshiba
calls it "colorstream".

Connecting cables for each system should be coaxial to minimize signal
loss and/or noise from nearby sources of radio frequency noise. Do not
use unshielded speaker cables with RCA connectors as substitutes. All 3
video protocols require separate cables with RCA connectors to carry the
audio; and when stereo, usually a red/white or black/white pair.

d. As I understand it, HDMI doesn't provide better video quality than
component video for conventional (720 or 1080) HD video. I'm not an
expert and don't know if that's also the case for 4K video. HDMI
connections also provide a stereo audio signal and the ability for two
HDMI equipped devices to at least partially control each other,
simplifying hookup and increasing user convenience.

Choose the best video signal protocol that is common between your
satellite receiver's output choices and your TV's input choices. Unless
the satellite receiver or a TV has a defective circuit (or a connecting
cable is defective), you should see better video quality using any of
the video protocols other than composite video. Although it shouldn't
be an issue, I've found that signal quality is sometimes degraded if
more than one protocol is used concurrently between the input and
output devices (to make quick A-B) comparisons. It's better to
disconnect/connect the other protocol's cables, and then switch the
input source on the TV. Also, if a configuration option, make sure that
your output device is sending a video quality protocol that the TV can
use. For example, if the TV can only process up to 1080i, and the
satellite receiver (or DVD player, etc.) can be set to deliver either
1080i or 1080p, make sure that they are not set to deliver 1080p. If
the TV can only process 720 resolution, no input device should be set to
deliver 1080, etc. etc. TVs usually automatically process whatever
signal quality they are capable of receiving - depending on their
specific circuitry. Many input devices that you connect to a TV do have
user-selected settings to choose the output quality (in addition to the
multiple jacks on the back) and you want to choose the best quality that
your specific TV can use. By the way the "p" (for "progressive")
protocol provides double the resolution of the "i" (for "interlaced")
protocol.

Hope this helps.

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 7:59:05 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
Bearing in mind what Mark said, it might be better to use a multiplexer
than a splitter. Despite the fancy 4-syllable name, they're very cheap
too. As well as the antenna amp, of course.

Continued below.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

Even without that, I find it hard to believe the puny signal that comes
out of a cable box will radiate even to next door from an antenna. Do
you remember the Subject of that thread?

The FCC says otherwise:

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-signal-leakage

This is a general warning and says NOTHING about antennas as a source of
leakage, and thus it says nothing about using an antenna amp to block
the cable signal from going up to the antenna.



"Cable signal leaks occur when the RF signals transmitted within a cable system are not properly contained within the cable plant. Cable signal leaks can be caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated cables."

Yeah, that was there, for sure. By golly, I remember reading it! I
even remember quoting it!!!

And I cited the FCC based on your recommendation to just use a splitter
to combine the antenna and cable:

"maybe you can just connect both the cable and the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere with each other. "

After listing loose connectors, cracked, un-terminated cables, you think
the FCC has to specifically say "don't connect an antenna to the cable"?

Absolutely. That's an entirely different beast from loose or cracked,
which are physical defects. Unteminated is a third kind of beast.

Just how stupid are you?

Smarter than you, it seems.


Obviously not if you can't fathom that if a loose connector or cracked
cable can radiate the cable signal to the neighborhood, then connecting
an antenna would be even worse. I guess it's for guys like you that
they have to put the 6 pages of warnings on power tools and appliances.
They could say, "Warning, this tool has sharp pointed edges", but if they
didn't tell you to not put it in your eye, you couldn't figure that out. And
then after you put your eye out, you'd sue them, saying it's all their
fault, they should have.


I didn't comment on your suggestion to use an antenna amplifier for isolation.
I didn't see the need to, because as I pointed out, you're solving a problem
that doesn't exist.

Baloney. Then why did you comment on the rest of it?

Because you recommended combining the cable system with an antenna
using a $2 splitter. I commented on why that's a bad idea.



Why did you write "The FCC says otherwise:
https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-signal-leakage" If the antenna amp is
moot now, what the FCC is just as moot.


No it's not, it still applies to your first recommendation, which was
to use a $2 splitter. And while adding an antenna amp will prevent
the antenna from radiating the cable signals, it too is a bad idea because
there typically are shared frequencies between cable and OTA. So,
while it won't spew signals, it probably won't work either. But you're
right that's a moot point, because the poster clearly stated his issue
was in the past and he had REPLACED CABLE WITH DIRECT TV.



The poster doesn't have a problem. He reported that he
no longer even has cable, he's switched to DirectTV.

By golly, he did.


There you go.

On 10/7/2015 3:25 PM, Checkmate, DoW #1 wrote:
In article ,
says...



On 10/6/2015 2:10 PM, hubops wrote:
Hi all ;
My old fat-screen CRT 32 inch RCA has taken on a mind of its own -
- it has started to turn itself OFF & ON after working for 20
minutes or so. I took the batteries out of the remote to see if it
was causing the trouble - it made no difference.
Any ideas ?
I like to keep stuff from the re-cycle / garbage bin, if I can.
John T.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Sometimes I do the same thing when I'm yanking my crank.
LOL

Is yer new TV settin' on top of yer old one?

Checky........what?

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.



Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.


Sorry to tell you, but yes, you need a new receiver and possibly more to
get the full HD picture. You may want to contact your satellite
supplier to get fixed up properly.

Upgrading sat. receiver may be easiest solution. Or there is other
method like using A/V receiver with video upscaling capability.
It is a matter of additional cost to get the benefit of full HD
viewing.


Yep. Thanks to all.
Now I'm looking at ..
$ 200 for a new High Def sat receiver
$ 75. for the dish LNB upgrade
and then I still have my two perfectly fine
low def devices VCR and DVD .. !
Geeesh !
John T.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

... my brand new $ 600. LG 42 inch LED
seems to provide a poorer picture quality than the
old 32 inch RCA CRT that it's replacing !
... could it be the cable ? or something else ?
It's fed by a Bell Expressvue satellite dish.
Or is it just a matter of my eyes adjusting to the change ?
John T.


Do you have an HD receiver? If not, the picture is not up to top
quality. You should see a definite difference compared to a CRT.


... ahhh .. gulp .. nope.
Just an old regular sat receiver ..
I got a feeling I'm not finished spending money quite yet ..
John T.


If your TV has digital tuner built-in, connect TV antenna to the TV set.

Good point. Over the air signals are full definition. If they start
out as HD, they stay that way. No electronics to compress them.


Yep. if it were up to me - I'd just go for the free TV
http://www.leevalley.com/en/hardware...64&cat=3,43597
... but alas I'm no longer in charge ..
John T.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---