After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
dipole antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
300 ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew

On Apr 20, 11:27*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
dipole antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
300 ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew

Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these? I have some
extra cable sitting around and our current antenna isn't very good.

-Nathan

"nhurst" wrote:

Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?

No, but it is simple enough to build.

1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming
the antenna lead wire to TV set.

Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of straight
pins, then attach lead to TV.

Enjoy.

Lew
..

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"nhurst" wrote:

Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?

No, but it is simple enough to build.

1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming the
antenna lead wire to TV set.

Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of straight
pins, then attach lead to TV.

The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital frequencies are
on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.

"CW" wrote:

The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital
frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.

Seems to be working just fine, especially on the UHF channels.

Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
....
Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.
....
If you have enough signal level to have digital, that's generally true.

Otoh, when there isn't enough you have nothing w/ digital where analog
was probably still just snowy/ghosty but at least visible.

So far here we're 1 for 2; the other two have delayed 'til the June
witching date. When they make the switch, then I'll investigate what
it'll take to get 'em all if it's within reason; 'til then I'll just do
w/o the PBS. Discussion w/ their engineer wasn't promising that they
thought would have a signal (and didn't really seem to give a flip,
either, of course).

--

"Lew Hodgett" writes:

"CW" wrote:

The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital
frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.

Seems to be working just fine, especially on the UHF channels.

Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.

As long as the signal is strong.

When the signal is weak, the picture doesn't just get "fuzzy."

CW wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"nhurst" wrote:

Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?

No, but it is simple enough to build.

1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming
the antenna lead wire to TV set.

Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of
straight pins, then attach lead to TV.

The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital
frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.

There are no "new digital frequencies". There are different channel
assignments but the frequencies are the same as for analog TV, except that
for digital there are fewer of them since the FCC has chosen to divert one
block of frequencies to other purposes.

CW wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
"nhurst" wrote:

Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?
No, but it is simple enough to build.

1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming the
antenna lead wire to TV set.

Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of straight
pins, then attach lead to TV.

The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital frequencies are
on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.


The top 108Mhz of the UHF band has/is being assigned or auctioned off
for other purposes, otherwise all old TV frequencies are the same.
However, there may be some stations migrating from VHF to the remaining
UHF frequencies. As well, some stations may not alight on their final
frequency assignment until the June deadline.

Formerly K7OQF from the vacuum tube days.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:43 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
The top 108Mhz of the UHF band has/is being assigned or auctioned off
for other purposes, otherwise all old TV frequencies are the same.

Low VHF (analog channels 2 through 6) likewise.

However, there may be some stations migrating from VHF to the remaining
UHF frequencies. As well, some stations may not alight on their final
frequency assignment until the June deadline.

Formerly K7OQF from the vacuum tube days.

--
Art Greenberg
WA2LLN
artg at eclipse dot net

Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long

was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in required
length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?
.

wrote:

was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in
required
length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?

I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
everthing including FM in my area.

SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
wrote:

was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in required
length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?

I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
everthing including FM in my area.

SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".

The "accepted" (on FCC tests) simplified equation for a half-wave dipole
wire length is:
feet = 468/MHz.

A folded dipole simply folds each leg of the dipole back to the center.
Effectively, the 5' long folded dipole has 10' of wire. Its resonant
frequency is thus 46.8 MHz according to the formula. Interestingly, this
works out to about a full wave for the 100 MHz FM band. It might be worth
experimenting with slightly shorter lengths, moving the resonant frequency
to, say, 75 MHz. The gains will be minimal, if measurable at all (let alone
noticeable).

The simplified formula differs from the theoretical value in a vacuum by the
velocity factor of the wire, in this case apparently about 95% (from 492/MHz
in a vacuum). I wouldn't worry much about it. The antenna's resonant
frequency is not nearly so important for receive-only operations as it is
for transmitters. A mismatch on a transmitter presents a very high
impedance, causing the feedline to also radiate, and plays all kinds of
havoc to equipment in the vicinity.

A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the same 2 dB
attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends. Given a choice, I would face
the antenna toward the signal and the ends toward the local RF noise.
However, if reception is so marginal that this is enough to make or break
the chain, consider it broken and get a tuned, multi-element, directional
antenna. The same goes fiddling with the wire length.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew



Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you need a
COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style Color TV's?
They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old rabbit ear
antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old out doors
antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by a brand new
antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna than analog as you
well know.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you need
a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style Color
TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old rabbit
ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old out
doors antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by a
brand new antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna than
analog as you well know.

With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in a
strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not, you will
need a new antenna.

"CW" wrote in message
m...

"Leon" wrote in message
...

Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you
need a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style
Color TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old
rabbit ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old
out doors antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by
a brand new antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna
than analog as you well know.

With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in a
strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not, you
will need a new antenna.


I get about 30 channels in Houston however most of the antennas are about 8
miles away "as the crow flies". Oddly with a similar antenna and with an
analog TV the reception for 3 of the 5 major network stations was terrible.
I added a $50 digital tuner to that TV and with the same antenna the
reception was perfect.

My father lives 2 miles from me, added the digital tuner, and a $50 set of
"digital" rabbit ears and the reception sucks if you stand too close or too
far away. The antenna is located near the ceiling.

CW wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message
...

Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that
you need a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW
style Color TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our
15 year old rabbit ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe
that perhaps an old out doors antenna that has been fighting the
elements may be out done by a brand new antenna but the digital
signal requires no better antenna than analog as you well know.

With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in
a strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not,
you will need a new antenna.

Some digital is on UHF, some on VHF, just as some analog was on UHF and some
was on VHF. Nothing new _there_.

"CW" writes:

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you need
a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style Color
TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old rabbit
ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old out
doors antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by a
brand new antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna than
analog as you well know.

With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in a
strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not, you will
need a new antenna.

External rabbit ear antennae have had UHF capabilities for forty years.

scott

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
m...


External rabbit ear antennae have had UHF capabilities for forty years.


So do your bedsprings but it doesn't make them efficient.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew


I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Jim

Jim wrote:

I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?

Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
received signal strength.

Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.

I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Jim wrote:

I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?


Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
received signal strength.

Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.

I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.


The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1"
so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.

I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I have
to turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at minimum some
station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the signal
completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven and
clipping. A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the stations in
my area.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Nova" wrote in message
...
Morris Dovey wrote:

The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1" so
the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.

That's is what I thought but my dad gets a lot of pixilization and slow
motion and dropped sound with his digital tuner and TV. I thought you would
get all or none way back when. As it turns out with my HD satelite DVR and
mostly only with local stations broadcast through satelite I regularially
get pixilization. The probpem is nonexistent with the premium satelite
channels unless it is raining.




I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I have to
turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at minimum some
station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the signal
completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven and clipping.
A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the stations in my area.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Nova wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Jim wrote:

I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?


Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
received signal strength.

Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.

I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad
antenna that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.


The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a
"1" so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog
receiver.

That may be the theory, but if it misses a few bits you get a black screen
while with analog you get a viewable degraded image.

I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I
have to turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at
minimum some station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the
signal completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven
and clipping. A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the
stations in my area.

Lucky you.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

That may be the theory, but if it misses a few bits you get a black screen
while with analog you get a viewable degraded image.

Are you reading this some where? Do you actually have digital? I have had
digital for close to 4 years and if I am getting bad reception the picture
is all kinds of terrible, you would swear you were doing mushrooms when this
happens.





I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I
have to turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at
minimum some station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the
signal completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven
and clipping. A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the
stations in my area.

Lucky you.

Nova writes:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Jim wrote:

I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?


Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
received signal strength.

Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.

I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.


The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1"
so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.


The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog carrier
to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.

scott

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
m...

The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog
carrier
to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.

scott

That gets me to thinking. I have DirecTV on 2 televisions. From the same
HD dish goes a lead to the HD DVR to a HD LCD, also to a analog DVR to an
analog TV. Reception on the analog DVR and TV are basically perfect unless
the weather is poor, **** poor. Almost daily my HD DVR and HD LCD TV and my
neighbor, BIL, and father's SAME setup have periods of bad reception on any
of the major local networks. I wonder if DirecTV is currently converting an
analog signal from these stations to digital and if that could be the
problem. On a 3rd going from a rabbit ear antenna to a CHEAP digital
converter to an analog TV produces great results day in and day out. Non
local HD channels do fine. DirecTV cannot figure out the problem nor can
the installers on any of the 7 or 8 times that they have come out to replace
the dish or HD DVR.

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Nova writes:

The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1"
so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.



The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog carrier
to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.

scott

I'm not familiar with the set up for digital TV but I was a TELCO data
transmission specialist for quite a few years.

With DOV/DUV (data over voice/data under voice) the S/N ratio seldom
cause problems with the data, unless the noise was severe, while it
would greatly impact the modulated analog signals. Phase jitter on the
other hand would wipe out the data with little impact on the analog.

The same help true for the Async data using 2024, 2028 and 2029 modems.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Morris Dovey wrote:

Jim wrote:

I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?


Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
received signal strength.

Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.

I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.


The following web site allows you to input your zip code (the only
information REQUIRED), indicate if there are obstructions in your area
and tell the calculator what type of structure the building is and the
site will provide a chart of the stations in your area and what type of
antenna is required for each station.

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

also see:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvantennas.html

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:18:09 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:



I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.


Here's a link to the now famous coat hanger antenna.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

There are a couple variations of this but this is the basic idea. It's
mostly a UHF antenna but some guys get upper VHF channels especially
with an added reflector. That version builds the bowties on one edge
of a 2x4 with a piece of plywood (or cardboard) covered with foil
attached to the other edge. You can also combine 2 for more gain and
some guys are mounting them on a rotor.

I built one and set it the back yard and it worked just fine. I used
pieces of romex I found laying around the jobsite for the bowties. I
haven't fished a wire from the basement to the attic yet so now it's
hanging in the floor truss space for emergencies. Basically that's at
ground level and it even works there.

You can buy practically the same antenna for not a whole lot of money
but where's the fun in that?

Mike O.

Mike O. wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:18:09 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:

I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.

Here's a link to the now famous coat hanger antenna.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

There are a couple variations of this but this is the basic idea. It's
mostly a UHF antenna but some guys get upper VHF channels especially
with an added reflector. That version builds the bowties on one edge
of a 2x4 with a piece of plywood (or cardboard) covered with foil
attached to the other edge. You can also combine 2 for more gain and
some guys are mounting them on a rotor.

I built one and set it the back yard and it worked just fine. I used
pieces of romex I found laying around the jobsite for the bowties. I
haven't fished a wire from the basement to the attic yet so now it's
hanging in the floor truss space for emergencies. Basically that's at
ground level and it even works there.

You can buy practically the same antenna for not a whole lot of money
but where's the fun in that?

I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.

Swingman helped me draw the hubs with SU a while back. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.

Swingman helped me draw the hubs with SU a while back. :-)

SU is the bomb! But how did he work around the line of sight problem?

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:16:45 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.

Tropo duct, no doubt.

I think the bandwidth of that quad is going to be a bit narrow for even
one digital channel, let alone a whole range of channels. You ought to
be able to put together a simple log-periodic yagi that would likely do
much better.

Hmmm... what would a log-period quad look like?

--
Art Greenberg
WA2LLN
artg at eclipse dot net

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:01:26 -0500, "Jim" wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew


I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Jim


Because with digital TV you need more signal to get any picture at all
compared to analog. If the signal is just below the threshold, you get
a totally useless picture or no picture at all. With analog, the same
picture would just have a bit of snow.

Having said that, the "new better digital" antennas are not different
than antennas before digital. You just *may* need one with more gain
to get a picture.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew


I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Jim

Shoot. I live so far out in the burbs that a folded dipole gets only a few
FM radio stations. Rabbit ears get only WGN (the station, of course, and
also white gaussian noise elsewise). There's a 20 year old, normal, ordinary
log periodic TV antenna lying in the attic, that hasn't been used in 19.9
years. It would probably work well enough if I mounted it outside where it
belongs, but it serves a useful purpose right now broadbanding the half wave
20m dipole, also inside, so it tunes enough to transmit on 40m and 15m.
We've been on cable and dish since long ago, all digital for at least half
that. Not everyone lives close to the city center.

MikeWhy wrote:
....
...Not everyone lives close to the city center.

Not everyone lives remotely close to a city fringe...

--

Jim wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
dipole antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
300 ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew


I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?

Because the signal strength is much less than previously and the digital
signal dies under multipath conditions that would not even be noticeable
with an analog signal.
Jim

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:47:59 +0100, J. Clarke wrote
(in article ):


Because the signal strength is much less than previously and the digital
signal dies under multipath conditions that would not even be noticeable
with an analog signal.


Ahhh.. that's the digital difference, it's very much an "it is or it isn't"
situation from the signal stream right down to end user satisfaction.

Some sort of fractal logic at work here, perchance, the microcosm implicit in
the macrocosm - the opposite of ironic?


In Britain it's become some sort of elitist game. I know plenty of people
with NO worthwhile terrestrial signal unless they hang on to their five
channels of analogue reception while others have a gerzillion channels of
sparkling, crystal-clear worthless junk. It's going to be quite bloody when
the all-noing government pulls the plug on all analogue broadcasts. Some
rural areas are either going to have to go satellite or run 60-foot poles up
on top of their picturesque cottages. My mother-in-law lives maybe 10 miles
from a transmitter but is in a reception shadow (hilly terrain.) Like
everyone else in her area, she has the digital box and an expensive new
antenna rig but still watches analogue because the reception is great,
channel switching is instantaneous and she is comfortable with her
traditional stations and has no desire for forty channels of manga. I had a
play with her set and it takes maybe 20 seconds to change from one channel to
another to find out that it's something you don't want to watch.. Channel
surfing is effectively impossible, and the "guide" takes just as long to
scroll through.. each line takes about 20 seconds to refresh.

Everyone in the village is in a similar situation, so it's not just the
senile old bat going luddite with the technik.

Progress







There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand bananary and
those who prefer a straight answer.....

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew


I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Jim


You would't but the frequencies WILL change.

"CW" wrote in message
m...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.

Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.

Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
dipole antenna.

Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.

That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
ohm twin lead to build.

So much for overpriced antennas and cable.

Lew


I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Jim


You would't but the frequencies WILL change.

I was wondering how they get those subchannels.

I live about 50 miles from the transmitter tower. The analog TVs were never
able to get consistent signals from the UHF stations. Now, however, these
stations come in quite well.

But, since nothing is broken here, there is nothing to fix (yet).
Jim