• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

A year and a half after the DTV transition, and it still sucks

I'm having so much fun barely getting any channels at all, and when I do get some channels the signal goes in and out, or it turns into a bunch of pixels. I remember the good old days when all I had to do was move the rabbit ears a little bit and the signal would come in, sometimes not perfect but still good enough to watch. Nowadays, with the new and improved Digital TV, if you move your antenna even a millimeter away from where it's supposed to be, your screen goes black. Wasn't this DTV transition supposed to improve our TV viewing experience? I've lost at least four or five affiliates here. Very annoying.

I'm starting to think this was all just some big conspiracy to force us all to buy cable (which I have no plans on doing, by the way).
 
I think it was a big conspiracy to get us to read more and spend more time outside, or on the internet.
That's how it's worked for us.
 
It made the picture clearer here in town. But as you say, all the converter boxes, all
the new TVs sold...........that's who really made the money.......and the cable/satellite folks too.

Now if you're 25-30 miles from the city you're out of luck. No more signals 75 miles
away........you gotta go back to the radio or newspapers.

Now Directv sent me a noitce last week that they are going up on everybody $2 next month.
 
quadraphonic said:
I think it was a big conspiracy to get us to read more and spend more time outside, or on the internet.

You could be on to something since afterall more and more people are now into this "..I don't want to have anything to do with TV" kick.
 
joesixpack said:
I'm having so much fun barely getting any channels at all, and when I do get some channels the signal goes in and out, or it turns into a bunch of pixels. I remember the good old days when all I had to do was move the rabbit ears a little bit and the signal would come in, sometimes not perfect but still good enough to watch. Nowadays, with the new and improved Digital TV, if you move your antenna even a millimeter away from where it's supposed to be, your screen goes black. Wasn't this DTV transition supposed to improve our TV viewing experience? I've lost at least four or five affiliates here. Very annoying.

I'm starting to think this was all just some big conspiracy to force us all to buy cable (which I have no plans on doing, by the way).

A proper UHF/Hi-VHF antenna (not rabbit ears) will give excellent reception 20 miles or so indoors, and 50-70 outdoors

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11540186
 
i live in an apartment so rabbit ears are my options unless i get cable or satalite.i dropped my cable because it was not worth the cost and i have the problems mentioned in the first post.

on the tv set in my bedroom which is a digital set i miss out on some channels and in the living room my analog set with a converter box is better but i think i miss some channels and the picture and sound sometimes goes away.



digital tv is not the great inovation it is supposted to be.
 
Our only hope is that maybe this is the "model-A" period and improvements will
be made over time to make it better. I guess they never heard of "If it ain't broke
don't fix it."
 
I am one of those old 1st ticket guys and worked in TV but been out of that biz for over 20 years. So my knowledge might be somewhat dated. Seems to me, the major problem is UHF. All the old problems still exists. UHF takes a lot of power into the transmitter to get a decent power out. That uses a lot more electricity. I think some of the former "V"s that switched over to "U" have been shocked by the increase of cost to run their transmitters. UHF just doesn't travel as far as VHF but one of the benefits of UHF for digital is one of the old problems. The ghosting. The signal bouncing off hills, trees, etc. It gives the digital receiver a second chance to pick up the signal.

I think maybe one solution is just to have one band. Either all VHF or UHF. Then you'd only need one antenna and that would be much more user friendly and a lot less confusion. Another solution would be for the FCC to grant power increases. That has been slow in coming. Maybe the cable & satellite lobbyists are slowing that down. Maybe I am too optimistic but I am hopeful technology will find solutions to the off air digital problems
 
gregg75 said:
Now if you're 25-30 miles from the city you're out of luck. No more signals 75 miles
away........you gotta go back to the radio or newspapers.

Interesting, I'm 79 miles away and I get more programming from digital than I ever did with analog.

It turns out that having the proper tool for the job (an outdoor antenna) makes all the difference.

- Trip
 
The problem is digital was badly implemented. Digital TV is horrible in Chicago, the city proper, but seems to be OK in the suburbs. I think it is the dense buildings. But other factors must come into play.

I can stand with my laptop and a silver sensor and/or rabbit ears and point them at a clear line of site to Willis (Sears) Tower and get all stations beautifully, EXCEPT WBBM, which is on channel 12 (Virtual 2)

Something isn't right. I should be able to pull in channel 12 with rabbit ears and a clear line of site only a mile away.

Digital TV makes sense, as analog was a poor use of the spectrum. But it was poorly implemented. It was never defined well. It has far too many standards, for customer use.

Yes, more is better, but at some point you have to come to an agreement. No one benefited form the HD-DVD versus BluRay war, or other such format wars.

I read a history of AM Radio and interestingly enough it really parallels how DTV was implemented. This is why frequency allocations were established for TV, to avoid the mess of AM.

Basically AM stations were put on and when interference developed, thing like power adjustement, time limits, directional antennas were implemented to get as many stations in as possible.

DTV should've been rolled out in markets, start in NYC, then solve the issues there THEN move to LA, the Chicago and down the line. Of course for political reason you can't do that.

Tuners seem to have no standard. Why do virtual channels work fine for some TV brands but screw up on others? Because the standards are not set.

It isn't a conspiracy but rather just very poorly implemented.

HDTV is being sold for things that are useless. I always see, "The news is NOW in HDTV." Big deal, does that matter. Outside of sports and nature shows, it really doesn't matter.

Even on TV now, producers are so afraid of "cropping" that they have an "safe area" and keep all the action in that so if someone crops their TV screen they will still see anything. Anything outside of the 4:3 ratio is safe. Notice how the "station ID bug" has moved from the far lower right to the place where it'd be if you crop to 4:3

DTV IS a great idea. Digital makes the best use of spectrum but it was poorly thought out, subject to far too many changes, and political backlash.
 
therealjm12 said:
I am one of those old 1st ticket guys and worked in TV but been out of that biz for over 20 years. So my knowledge might be somewhat dated. Seems to me, the major problem is UHF. All the old problems still exists. UHF takes a lot of power into the transmitter to get a decent power out. That uses a lot more electricity. I think some of the former "V"s that switched over to "U" have been shocked by the increase of cost to run their transmitters. UHF just doesn't travel as far as VHF but one of the benefits of UHF for digital is one of the old problems. The ghosting. The signal bouncing off hills, trees, etc. It gives the digital receiver a second chance to pick up the signal.

I think maybe one solution is just to have one band. Either all VHF or UHF. Then you'd only need one antenna and that would be much more user friendly and a lot less confusion. Another solution would be for the FCC to grant power increases. That has been slow in coming. Maybe the cable & satellite lobbyists are slowing that down. Maybe I am too optimistic but I am hopeful technology will find solutions to the off air digital problems

UHF does cost more to run, but 1m watts in digital is equal to 5m in analog on UHF. (Because of the cost of running a U, KAET, our local PBS, went back to VHF-8 in 2009. Our Fox and NBC are also on high-V.) One of the benefits for UHF as well is that it requires a smaller antenna size and is thus suited better for mobile DTV applications (in Atlanta, though Gannett owns WXIA-11 and WATL-36, WATL runs the mobile DTV streams for this very reason).
 
joesixpack said:
I'm having so much fun barely getting any channels at all, and when I do get some channels the signal goes in and out, or it turns into a bunch of pixels. I remember the good old days when all I had to do was move the rabbit ears a little bit and the signal would come in, sometimes not perfect but still good enough to watch. Nowadays, with the new and improved Digital TV, if you move your antenna even a millimeter away from where it's supposed to be, your screen goes black. Wasn't this DTV transition supposed to improve our TV viewing experience? I've lost at least four or five affiliates here. Very annoying.

I'm starting to think this was all just some big conspiracy to force us all to buy cable (which I have no plans on doing, by the way).

The DTV transition also requires some transition on the part of viewers. Channels will come in differently than before.

You didn't mention how far away you were from broadcast centers/towers. That is definitely a factor.

Prior to DTV, I got hardly anything, and I live about 10 miles from most of the towers in town. With DTV, I get every channel in the market crystal clear. Sometimes I do get a little tiling and blocking, but it just requires a little adjustment of the antenna.

This site might prove helpful. Shows how far away stations are, and recommends the best types of antennas to use:

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

I for one prefer digital. I get all the channels (plus the subchannels!) and no more static and ghosting.
 
Frank Provasek said:
A proper UHF/Hi-VHF antenna (not rabbit ears) will give excellent reception 20 miles or so indoors, and 50-70 outdoors

Not always. I am 8 miles line-of-sight from my local transmitter tower farm and consistently have problems with several stations. I am using a combo FM-UHF-VHF rooftop antenna. The worst problems on on RF VHF stations (8, 10 and 12) but some of the following issues plague UHF signals too.

Multiple TV's, each with their own outdoor or indoor antennas, have problems on DTV that never happened on analog. Wind (no dust), the sun setting behind the towers, rain (not necessarily heavy) and even people walking in back or to the side of an indoor antenna cause picture loss.

It is clear to me the FCC made a purely political decision and intentionally overlooked the many deficiencies of digital TV before mandating the DTV switch.

Oh, and the BIG advertised benefit of DTV, the sub-channels? Virtually a waste of time. Worthless.
 
From Frank Provasek's Costco link:
"Clearest HD Possible - No Compression "

Ironically, the Japanese analogue MUSE system was suggested early on in the US!
 
now that my cable is dropped it does seem like a sceme to make people want to go to cable rather then deal with the reception and audio problems.
 
For me, living about 30 miles from Downtown Chicago in Gary Indiana, DTV reception initially sucked, but improved overtime. I'm only talking about the reception & not the programming. I still want to get a new set of antennas as my VHF/UHF combo antenna works best for VHF reception & not as well for UHF reception. For Chicago, there are 2 VHF on the Hi-VHF (WLS-TV & WBBM-TV, though WLS-TV won't have their VHF once their new UHF is ready to go on the Sears Tower) & one Class A digital on the Lo-VHF (WOCK-CD), while WMAQ, WGN-TV, & WTTW stayed on their pre-transitional UHF channels. I've never had a problem with WLS-TV on chanel 7 & I was one the lucky few to not have a problem getting WBBM-TV on channel 3 (they're now on 12). For WLS-TV, I had problems when they were on 52 & on 44 when they were using their old antenna from when they were on 52. When they shut down their transmission on the Sears Tower, they used an existing antenna WSNS used when they transmitted from the John Hancock, & WLS-TV is using that for 44, plus they're using their backup channel 7 antenna on the John Hancock as well. I get WLS-TV on 44 much better from the John Hancock than I did from the Sears Tower. I hope once they get their new channel 44 channel running on the Sears Tower, that I get just as good reception. The only reason I get good reception now is because they're at 1000kw, but directional on the JH, while the new antenna will be 473kw non-directional, but at a higher height. The original UHF antenna was side mounted, which blocked some of the signal. Once it gets running, WLS-TV will vacate channel 7, leaving WBBM-TV the only full power VHF in Chicago, though I wouldn't rule out channel 7 being re-issued to someone else (WOCK-CD might even consider 7 as a way to get off of channel 4).

As for programming (channel numbers used in this section are the virtual numbers, while the last part was the actual channel they broadcasted on), the only subchannels I watch are Livewell Network (on ABC O&O, it's in HD, & looks horrible having 2 720p HD channels) for Advice For Life & Motion, plus the occasional Let's Dish show (Let's Dish recorded at WLS-TV studios).
WGN-TV had The Tube, which I watched that channel. I don't care for LATV, which was on WGN-TV 9.2, but is now on WOCK-CD 13.3. WGN-TV now has Antenna TV & watch that whenI get a chance. for WBS station WTTW, they took a pass on World from PBS & instead programmed locally WTTW Prime. Any program that would typically air in primetime is available 24 hours a day on WTTW Prime, andmost programs either repeat after it's shown on WTTW 11, or might not be able to fit into the WTTW 11 schedule, that it's available on WTTW Prime. I only wish WTTW Prime were available in widescreen, as some widescreen programs get cropped when they forget to set the aspect ratio to letterbox for widescreen programs (which would consist of most PBS & APT shows recorded in the last 5-6 years). The other channel is Create, which is most of the DIY craft, sewing, home repair, travel, & cooking shows from PBS & APT (most shows on Create are distributed by APT).
WCIU has made use of the DTV subchannels carrying MeTV (now national, whereas before was local), MeToo (now the local MeTV, carrying some of the shows that Antenna TV has the national rights, where MeToo has the Chicago rights to the shows), This TV, & replacing the foreign language FBT channel with U Too (carrying primarily shows that aired on WCIU the first time & giving viewers a second chance to see the same episodes again, plus some sportscasts that aren't being shown anywhere else in Chicago).
I never watch Ion Television on WCPX, but will watch Qubo for select cartoons (mainly He-Man & She-Ra on Qubo Nightowl) & from time to time, Ion Life (though I've probably watched nearly every episode of programs I like watching, like Design U, Hometeam, My Green House, which is also on Livewell Network, & a few others).

I don't like my NBC O&O's subchannels: WMAQ's Chicago Nonstop on 5.2 nor Universal Sports on 5.3. Don't completely like V-Me on WTTW 11.4, just because a lot of the shows were originally aired in English, & are dubbed in Spanish, with no option of having it in English. WYCC wastes a subchannel by having an SD simulcast on 20.2, which isn't necessary. NW Indiana PBS station, WYIN hasn't fully made use of their 2 remaining subchannels. They managed to get programming on 56.3 by having it a locally programmed PBS Kids Go channel. They however still simulcast 56.1 on 56.2 & 56.4. Like WLS-TV, WYIN runs 56.1 & 56.2 in 720p HD, but also have 2 SD subnchannels as well (WLS-TV only has 1 SD subchannel), & the only station in the Chicago market that has widescreen SD channels. So you see any widescreen shows the way they're meant to be viewed, instead of it being letterboxed or cropped on the sides. I don't watch WJYS at all, as they're brokered religious, but still infomercials in most timeslots. The simulcast of WEDE-CA 34 (still broadcasting in analog) on WJYS 62.2 has practically all programming (religious) in their timeslots, & could probably run WJYS better than the people who run it now.
 
I guess the FCC just doesn't understand "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I don't recall anyone ever complaining about analog tv. But the FCC decided to "fix" it anyway and overall has caused more problems than it has done good.
 
Interference. Consumer electronic devices radiate an awful lot of crap, and more of it at VHF than at UHF.

Antennas sold that shouldn't be. We've had a bunch of trouble with people being sold UHF-only indoor antennas. Even though NBC, CBS, and PBS are all on VHF. We've also seen rabbit ears sold in areas 50 miles or more from the towers.

Viewers who tolerated some pretty crappy analog signals. I think the worst case I heard from was a guy using indoor rabbit ears in Cookeville, 75 miles from the towers. He said he used to watch channel 5 in analog on that antenna all the time. I hate to think what it looked like. (he admitted that, other than the Cookeville station on channel 22, he didn't get anything else in analog with that antenna. Not even the other Cookeville station on channel 28.)

Inadequate power. The 1000kw vs. 5000kw thing isn't nearly as big as it seems. But most VHF stations are indeed underpowered, mostly due to the need to avoid interfering with other VHF stations on the same channel.

Increasing power across the board may not help much. If my station on channel 7 is suffering interference from another channel 7 20dB down, and both channel 7 stations get a 6dB power increase.. well, the interference is still 20dB down...

Viewers with unreasonable expectations. People living 50 miles from the tower hearing from their friend that digital works great with an indoor antenna -- and conveniently forgetting that their friend lives 10 miles from the tower.

_________________________________________________

With analog, I got clear signals from four stations. I got noisy signals from nine stations. "Noisy" meaning you usually couldn't read small text, and any kind of "propagation lift" would result in enough interference to make the station unviewable. I'm 25 miles from the transmitters; given computer noise in my house (I have an unusual number of computers...)

In analog with rabbit ears, nothing came in with a clear signal. Three stations might possibly be occasionally viewable if I located the antenna just right.



In digital, I get clear signals from nine stations. (nine transmitters. I get twelve more stations on subchannels of these nine. Admittedly I only ever watch five of them.) I get intermittent signals from two stations. (four if you count subchannels) Two of the stations I got weakly in analog don't come in at all in digital. One (unfortunately, the one I would most like to receive..) never bothered to build out a full-power digital facility; they're basically a LPTV now.

In digital with rabbit ears, I get one station reliably and another intermittently. But again, nothing delivered a viewable signal in analog with this antenna.


I consider digital a significant improvement.
 
My father owns a cabin and some rural property. It is fairly remote.
He is not really there enough to justify springing for cable or a dish.
He used to get a handful of analog channels with a decent sized roof antenna.
Some snowy, nothing spectacular, but serviceable. Now he's got bupkis.
 
Frank Provasek said:
joesixpack said:
I'm having so much fun barely getting any channels at all, and when I do get some channels the signal goes in and out, or it turns into a bunch of pixels. I remember the good old days when all I had to do was move the rabbit ears a little bit and the signal would come in, sometimes not perfect but still good enough to watch. Nowadays, with the new and improved Digital TV, if you move your antenna even a millimeter away from where it's supposed to be, your screen goes black. Wasn't this DTV transition supposed to improve our TV viewing experience? I've lost at least four or five affiliates here. Very annoying.

I'm starting to think this was all just some big conspiracy to force us all to buy cable (which I have no plans on doing, by the way).

A proper UHF/Hi-VHF antenna (not rabbit ears) will give excellent reception 20 miles or so indoors, and 50-70 outdoors

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11540186

I went out and bought one of those flat antennas made by RCA when the transition happened, and I've been through numerous antennas since. My TV doesn't need a converter box. I live about 30 miles or so from Houston, and I hardly get any channels. When it was still analog, I got every channel.

Problem is, when the signal actually comes in and works for a while, I love it. But that is a very rare occurrence. Most of the time, I get a black screen or if I'm lucky a bunch of pixels.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom