I don't usually have problems on this particular set, at least with the three channels left that come n perfectly when they do. The converter box is a Magnavox TB 100MG9. The antenna is a Philips and there is a number MANT 410 on the box. It's 45 dB. The wire is pretty thick, so it could actually be a coax. The box the antenna comes in says "gold-plated connectors".KeithE4 said:
-
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
- Thread starter joesixpack
- Start date
vchimpanzee said:
Is this the one you have? If so, it's definitely coax-fed, as are most indoor antennas today. Gold plated connectors help, but if the shielding is garbage and the coax is too thin (like older RG-59 cable, which is useless at VHF and UHF), then you'll still have a handicap compared to good-quality RG-6 coax (thicker). The braid should cover 100% of the dielectric (the white foam that contains the center wire). RG-6 has it, RG-59 doesn't. Don't take it apart to find out. ;D
That antenna is just an average set of rabbit ears with a UHF loop, but with a preamp, per Philips' website. Nothing spectacular here. I don't know how far away you are from your stations, but if you're closer than about 10 miles, you might want to disconnect the preamp, if possible. If you're more than about 20 miles away, you'll probably need a bigger antenna.
I'm a long way from the stations, but the man at Sears said this antenna worked for someone living near me. It was also the only one he had left. Wall-E was all Radio Shack had except for outdoor ones which cost more than I wanted to spend., when installation was factored in. I am not handy. I just didn't want to go all over creation searching, and I had already decided cable was a necessity if I was going to keep using VCRs, which were part of the TV in each case. Turns out I was right, as the TiVo Radio Shack sold me was not for DTV.KeithE4 said:
I'm not spending any more. Most of the time the Philips does fine for me, because I've already decided to just watch cable most of the time.
The temperature dropped 20 degrees and my problems cleared up.
Once the 70s came back, more interference.
Once the 70s came back, more interference.
F
flashback
Guest
last nights storms mesed up my tv reception on many channels.
analog tv came in even durring storms about the same when we had those signals.
as i said before the bugs should have been wortked out before it became a mandate..
analog tv came in even durring storms about the same when we had those signals.
as i said before the bugs should have been wortked out before it became a mandate..
Analog TV was a robust technology, but it was beginning to show its age. First of all analog used more spectrum than DTV uses, but stations are still assigned the same amount of space they were before, they are just filling it with subchannels now. The biggest issue was the fact that analog could not do HD effectively. DTV is supposed to be the answer to HDTV over the air.
The reception issues many people are having boils down to power levels and frequency reassignments. UHF travels a shorter distance per unit of ERP, and many VHF channels moved up to UHF. Im not sure what the reasoning was besides for the e-skip, etc interference on VHF-L. But then why was VHF-H also undesirable. Also many channels lowered their ERP when moving from analog to digital, unless that move meant moving from VHF to UHF. Then they probably increased power to make up for the UHF band. The FCC set lower maximum power levels for DTV than analog TV. If channels were allowed the same exact channel and ERP as analog, you'd find the digital signal would work pretty darn well. Unless there is major interference and a marginal signal, digital is usually able to decode. The problem is many strong powered VHF channels moved way up the band to UHF, and many analog UHF channels decreased power significantly.
The reception issues many people are having boils down to power levels and frequency reassignments. UHF travels a shorter distance per unit of ERP, and many VHF channels moved up to UHF. Im not sure what the reasoning was besides for the e-skip, etc interference on VHF-L. But then why was VHF-H also undesirable. Also many channels lowered their ERP when moving from analog to digital, unless that move meant moving from VHF to UHF. Then they probably increased power to make up for the UHF band. The FCC set lower maximum power levels for DTV than analog TV. If channels were allowed the same exact channel and ERP as analog, you'd find the digital signal would work pretty darn well. Unless there is major interference and a marginal signal, digital is usually able to decode. The problem is many strong powered VHF channels moved way up the band to UHF, and many analog UHF channels decreased power significantly.
F
flashback
Guest
i don`t care about that technical stuff.i am concerned that digital is not as reliable as analog signals.if it was with an antena connected all the stations would come in.
a superior signal that you can`t recieve does not help you at all.
a superior signal that you can`t recieve does not help you at all.
D
Darth_vader
Guest
"But then, why was high-VHF also undesirable?"
Certainly didn't become undesirable around here. KGW, KOPB and KPTV are all still on 8,10 and 12, just as they were in NTSC days.
Certainly didn't become undesirable around here. KGW, KOPB and KPTV are all still on 8,10 and 12, just as they were in NTSC days.
Darth_vader said:
Maybe no undesirable but definitely not as desirable either.
8, 10, and 12 are still on the air here in Phoenix too but 8 isn't as strong as it once was and 10 is miserable and has a SD sub on another UHF freq as a backup to its primary freq. 12 seems unaffected but it is NBC so who is watching?
flashback said:
The biggest problem with digital is that it's "all or nothing". So you need a solid, consistent signal to even be able to receive picture and sound. With analog, if the signal was weak you would still get a watchable signal, albeit snowy. With digital the picture completely drops out if there is any kind of interference.
ansky212 said:
"All or nothing" is a myth. You can have pixelation to many degrees and still have a somewhat watchable picture (although most people would be extremely irritated if they tried) and the audio can come in and out as well. In addition, there are the well known "freezes" that will stop both audio and/or video for some period of time before the signal "catches up" and is displayed normally.
I am not one of the rural viewers trying to catch a signal from 60 miles away. I am 8 miles, clear line of sight, from the antenna farm and still can't get a good signal some of the time on selected stations. And that problem is intensified during sunset, wind and rain which didn't bother analog at all.
To get marginally better video (when it works) it seems we gave up a working, reliable system for another "HD radio" disaster.
Why is bandwidth even an issue? The frequency plan was already established and analog and digital stations still use 6 MHz on that same frequency plan. HDTV (along with subchannels) is just an aside; something that muddles the real issue, the main point. And HDTV is only available on 1 subchannel; 2 is stretching it!spunker88 said:
I thought electricity savings was part of the pitch to GMs? Looks like all these issues highlight the net improvements of DTV: none. Same 6 MHz allocation and same power consumption. Those LCD TVs generate excessive heat (more air conditioning, more electricity) and are power hogs by themselves.
K
kenglish
Guest
flashback said:
Sounds about like my sister, when she complains about having to be able to type, in order to use a computer. ;D
I wish we could do OTA. After the loss of our cable company due primarily to DTV conversion and increased costs, we attempted OTA to no avail, although some of our neighbors are doing quite well. One older gentleman bought my antenna and now receives more locals than DishNetwork provides, and he' s less than one-half-mile away. An uncle, who's a stone's throw from me, on a higher location does well also. There are at least 5 locals we used to get, and I really miss them.
Where I reside in Vermont, antennaweb.com says I can get two channels. O.K. I have cable and the cutoffs at the top, bottom and sides of the screen after the flip to digital made me crazy enough to go get an HDTV. I now get the crawls at the bottom of the screen, the tops of peoples heads and the w-h-o-l-e p-i-c-t-u-r-e.
<----------Left----------------------To---------------------Right------------------->
Also, with cable, I have access to the CBC from Canada, something satellite cannot offer.
To veer off-subject for one sentence, I don't see the need for 3DTV. Thanks.
<----------Left----------------------To---------------------Right------------------->
Also, with cable, I have access to the CBC from Canada, something satellite cannot offer.
To veer off-subject for one sentence, I don't see the need for 3DTV. Thanks.
B
Bob1370
Guest
The reception problems people are reporting are directly traceable to low signal power on all the digital stations.
The FCC is looking to further reconfigure the TV band to make more room for wireless broadband as well as improve over the air reception. Word from DC is that two steps are likely;
-Pushing stations which had been on VHF before the transition back to their old channels, with effective power raised to the level of their old visual signals (maximum 100 kW on channels 2 to 6, 316 kW on 7 to 13), and also pushing many UHF stations down into the VHF band at the same power levels, now that adjacent channels can be assigned to the same town. Stations still on VHF will stay put and raise their power as well.
-Pushing all other stations down to the bottom 20 or 25 channels on the UHF band, also at higher (2500+ kW ERP) power levels, clearing out everything above channel 40.
Will pushing everything down the band, and pushing up the power, help? Possibly...the power boost in particular will make a difference if it happens.
The FCC is looking to further reconfigure the TV band to make more room for wireless broadband as well as improve over the air reception. Word from DC is that two steps are likely;
-Pushing stations which had been on VHF before the transition back to their old channels, with effective power raised to the level of their old visual signals (maximum 100 kW on channels 2 to 6, 316 kW on 7 to 13), and also pushing many UHF stations down into the VHF band at the same power levels, now that adjacent channels can be assigned to the same town. Stations still on VHF will stay put and raise their power as well.
-Pushing all other stations down to the bottom 20 or 25 channels on the UHF band, also at higher (2500+ kW ERP) power levels, clearing out everything above channel 40.
Will pushing everything down the band, and pushing up the power, help? Possibly...the power boost in particular will make a difference if it happens.
F
flashback
Guest
they should have had those bugs worked out before they changed it .
Has there been any discussion on this board about fractal antennas? I've done some research on the internet, and they seem impressive, although I haven't had experience with them yet. There are YouTube videos on how to build them (even with a coat hanger).
Just wondered if anyone has had any DTV experience with fractal antennas. Tnx.
Just wondered if anyone has had any DTV experience with fractal antennas. Tnx.
- Status