I'd like to get one but several things will have to happen. It will have to be more affordable and hopefully have recording capability. Also there will have to be stations in the Memphis and Jackson, TN areas with ATSC 3.0. Until then there's no real need for me to consider it.
-
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
ATSC 3.0 STB
- Thread starter kfbkfb
- Start date
I would tell them yes and no, because you can recieve the OTA signal like regular without the internet, but I imagine the internet connection is needed for Emergency Alerts, Personalized ads, and possibly for the Evoca services since they encrypt their feeds.
They're in the boonies so no internet or even cell services. Their antenna is on a 40 foot tower. Recently they bought a regular TV, I think Samsung and wouldn't go beyond setup without a connection. They took it back.
That's just sounds like good 'ol stubborn Samsung to me. Did that TV have ATSC 3.0 capibilities?
LG is the same way. Setting up 'smart' functions via an assumed wireless Internet connection takes priority over OTA or cable during setup.
Total pain in the a$$.
My Sony XBR900H did not require internet to set up.
You can just skip past any of the registration and update checks.
Didn't have mine connected to the network for a couple days.
You can just skip past any of the registration and update checks.
Didn't have mine connected to the network for a couple days.
(just found this, haven't found a price [Zinwell also made an ATSC 1.0 STB])
Kirk Bayne
Just saw this post. It did.
AM stereo flopped because it came out a decade too late. It was also hamstrung by incompatible systems and FCC wishy-washyness (Leonard Kahn.)
The backers of ATSC 3.0 need to clearly articulate its applications, advantages and potential. We hear a lot of vague talk about interactive features, datacasting, and viewer targeting, but nothing really specific. And many of these proposed features may not be practical upon closer examination. For instance, 4K and 8K have been touted, but those eat up a huge amount of bandwidth. However I do like the HDR capability for improved color reproduction.
It will probably be another seven to ten years before we really realize the advantages, or disadvantages, of ATSC 3.0.
Here is the article Kirk linked to on his USENET post, so you don't have to make extra clicks:
KDSM Fox 17 aired a commercial today that it intends I relocate it's ATSC 1.0 signal to a different frequency and begin broadcasting in the NextGen (ATSC 3.0) transmission standard on March 28, 2023 at 9:00 A.M.
So exactly what does this bring to the viewer or the advertiser?
4K or 8K? Why? Will the average OTA viewer be able to tell the difference? The human eye can only comprehend so much. Might work with monitors that occupy an entire wall of a large living room, but for the rest of us...
Will reception be better? If not, then don't bother. Fix the reception/decoding/error-correction issues in ATSC 1.0 and leave it at that. I just want to be able to receive my local stations without them cutting out every time a plane flies over my house, or the wind rattles the leaves on my trees, or the weather gets bad, or the sun is directly over the path between me and the towers, or, or, or.
Right now, it's all a hot, steaming pile of marketroid-babble. No reason for me to buy a new TV or decoder box.
Yes, reception has been a major improvement and talking point for ATSC 3.0, because it uses a stronger HEVC codec, which helps with several of the problems you mention here.
Personally, I'm holding out as well until there are actually stations in my market, and the concept is cheaper as well. However, the "Antenna Man" YouTube channel has done side-by-side comparisons that are quite useful
IMHO, with the repack placing more programs in the ATSC 1.0 6MHz channel, what's needed is more work on making the MPEG-2 video data reduction codec more efficient.
Perhaps do what the streaming companies do - picture quality is good near the center of the picture and somewhat worse nearer the edges, trying to keep the video data rate down.
AFAIK, ATSC 1.0 tuners have reached the "laws of physics" limit for signal strength and multipath compensation.
Kirk Bayne
Perhaps do what the streaming companies do - picture quality is good near the center of the picture and somewhat worse nearer the edges, trying to keep the video data rate down.
AFAIK, ATSC 1.0 tuners have reached the "laws of physics" limit for signal strength and multipath compensation.
Kirk Bayne
The better reception of ATSC 3.0 is NOT due to the video codec used. It is due, however, to the multi-carrier COFDM modulation used in ATSC 3.0, which provides a much more robust and stable signal in comparison to the very fragile, inferior single-carrier 8VSB modulation used in the current ATSC 1.0 standard. COFDM is used in cell phone networks and with other digital TV and radio standards around the world, which includes DVB-T/T2, ISDB-T, DTMB, DAB/DAB+, HD radio, SiriusXM satellite radio, and others. The primary advantage of COFDM is its performance in multipath and mobile signal environments, especially in comparison to the 8VSB modulation used in ATSC 1.0. The primary reason why the current ATSC 1.0 signals break up so easily on windy days or when someone moves around in a room, or in indoor environments is due to the inherent weakness of 8VSB when it comes to multipath interference. In addition to the advantage COFDM has in multipath signal environments compared to 8VSB, it also has an advantage when it comes to Single Frequency Networks (SFN). Without getting into many technical details, SFNs are much easier to implement with a COFDM system than with an 8VSB system because the extra multipath interference created by the multiple stations on the same frequency actually enhances the signal and increases capacity as long as the stations are in sync with each other and are within the guard interval parameters. With 8VSB, an SFN can be done but it is much more difficult than with COFDM because it requires terrain shielding in order to prevent harmful interference between two transmitters on the same frequency. Basically, this is the reason why ATSC 3.0 signals are much more robust and mobile-friendly compared to the current ATSC 1.0 standard.
Thank you for providing the more technical explanation. So when I hop onto YouTube, and the quality adjusts between 360, 480, and 720p, that's COFDM at work?
No, not at all. There's no modulation involved in streaming, because there's no RF involved. It's just data traveling over the Internet to you. (There may be RF along the way, especially if you're using a cable internet connection, but that's behind the scenes).
- Status