• 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

"For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

W

wkbam1690

Guest
I know this is about Digital TV, but here is an interesting article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune...

http://www.startribune.com/business/25920079.html?location_refer=Homepage:highlightModules:3

It documents all the problems viewers are having with digital TV, even before the conversion.

"Complaints about converter boxes that are supposed to carry old TVs into the digital age sound about the same: You can't find them anywhere -- and they don't work." Sound familiar?

This is going to be fun to watch next February...
 
wkbam1690 said:
I know this is about Digital TV, but here is an interesting article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune...

http://www.startribune.com/business/25920079.html?location_refer=Homepage:highlightModules:3

It documents all the problems viewers are having with digital TV, even before the conversion.

"Complaints about converter boxes that are supposed to carry old TVs into the digital age sound about the same: You can't find them anywhere -- and they don't work." Sound familiar?

This is going to be fun to watch next February...

Maybe our old friends, ibquity is involved?
 
wkbam1690 said:
This is going to be fun to watch next February...

We'll be seeing how fun it is a lot sooner than that. The FCC has designated a test market (IIRC it's Wilmington NC) to convert to all-digital in September.
 
I used my $40 coupon the other day to get a converter for the 13 inch color TV in my guest bedroom. I went to one and only place here in an eastern suburb of Baltimore, Target, and found two different models from the same manufacturer on the shelves. There were about six or eight of each. I bought the cheaper $49 model, so my net cost was $12 after tax. The TV is an RCA, about 15 years old. Both rabbit ears broke years ago at the telescoping points and are held together with electrical tape. My results: All the over-the-air Baltimore stations (and their secondary channels) come in great; the picture is uniformly better than the analog picture -- which usually involved fooling with the rabbit ears when switching stations. The only complaint, and it is a minor one, is that the Washington DC stations which were a little snowy but watchable in analog can't be detected at all in digital. DC is about 45 miles from me, so I suppose people with rabbit ears living similar distances from their primary cities could have trouble without outdoor antennas.
 
This is why I can't understand all the uproar about IBOC. It's not required. No one has to use it. No one has to listen. It's not mandated in any way. You can use FMExtra if you want. It's pure democracy or anarchy in action.

But in TV, it is a federally mandated program, requiring all TV stations to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy new equipment, and require all consumers to buy new TVs. Sure, no one single company benefits. But I bought stock in Matsushita specifically because I expect a huge increase in people buying Panasonic TVs next year. We saw the start of it in the second quarter already.

The iBiquity people would love such a thing, and I believe the reason the FCC didn't mandate it, and has resisted any opportunity to include it, is because one single company would be the beneficiary.
 
I receive a station 55 miles away with a simple dipole (12-position) antenna. Granted, it is at 50%, but viewable. I wonder will a full-power digital signal on 02.17.09 help with said converter boxes?
 
Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

Why would anyone go out and buy a new TV when the converter box will work with existing TVs?

I've heard stories already of people thinking they needed to chuck all their old TVs, even though they have cable or satellite.

The whole thing's been kind of a mess. I suppose in some instances, after the analog shutdown some digital channels will increase power since co-channel interference won't be an issue any longer... And I know of a few stations here (all public) that share antenna cable between analog and digital and have to balance the capabilities of the feedline with the two RF sources.

What I am wondering about is whether or not your local cable provider has made the investments yet to downconvert a digital signal to their analog cable customers - or whether Dish or DirecTV have a plan for the 100+ installations they have across the US to downconvert HD to SDTV for their non-HD customers.

I know in the Birmingham market, they get at least two stations via off-air antenna - the PBS affiliate and one from an adjacent city. Anytime storms moves through the region, ghosting appears on those two channels.
 
TheBigA said:
The iBiquity people would love such a thing, and I believe the reason the FCC didn't mandate it, and has resisted any opportunity to include it, is because one single company would be the beneficiary.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges.

The TV transition is realistic because the TVs have been on sale for many years and have sold so well that some retailers couldn't even keep them in stock until sometime last year, when manufacturing capacity seriously ramped up. Converter boxes are also available from about half a dozen manufacturers for those who don't want to buy a new TV, and cable and satellite TV operations do not yet have a mandated transition-to-digital date. Bottom line is that even though OTA TV stops analog transmissions on 2/17/09, not one existing set is being made obsolete.

By contrast, not only is there piddling demand for digital radios, but mandating a transition when not even one million have been sold, and when there are 800-million-plus analog radios already in the hands of consumers, would be the height of stupidity. The only D-A converter I know of for radio is the Directed kit designed to add HD to existing car radios, via either a modulator or a line input. At this rate, unless something seriously changes, HD radios will not reach any sort of critical mass in consumers' homes, cars and offices for decades.
 
dumber than a box of hair said:
By contrast, not only is there piddling demand for digital radios, but mandating a transition when not even one million have been sold, and when there are 800-million-plus analog radios already in the hands of consumers, would be the height of stupidity.

Perhaps it's comparing apples and oranges, but not for the reason you gave.

HDTV technology came at about the same time as LCD and Plasma. And people really can see a difference with HDTV sets.

Radio sales, HD or otherwise, stalled out 20 years ago. They got a brief spike a few years ago with the Inno and some of the other cool satellite portables. But next to no one buys table radios today. It has nothing to do with whether you call it HD Radio or SexRadio. (which, by the way, is a great idea.)

My point is the sales figures aren't indicative of anything.
 
Zach said:
Why would anyone go out and buy a new TV when the converter box will work with existing TVs?

They buy a new TV because the picture on a real HDTV is vastly better than NTSC. If you use a converter, you will still be watching NTSC TV. HDTV does have some problems, but to the average consumer the good far outweighs the bad.

Even Helen Keller, Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder would agree.
 
TheBigA said:
The iBiquity people would love such a thing, and I believe the reason the FCC didn't mandate it, and has resisted any opportunity to include it, is because one single company would be the beneficiary.

-Get rid of "HD Radio's"
-Manufacture "Digital Radio's that have FMeXtra AND HD Radio
-Problem Solved

Now you have two companies doing the exact same thing
 
Re: "For many, digital switch brings in 'can’t-see TV’ "

Chuck said:
Zach said:
Why would anyone go out and buy a new TV when the converter box will work with existing TVs?

They buy a new TV because the picture on a real HDTV is vastly better than NTSC. If you use a converter, you will still be watching NTSC TV. HDTV does have some problems, but to the average consumer the good far outweighs the bad.

Even Helen Keller, Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder would agree.

...and then those same people get their shiny new TV home and the picture looks nothing like it did in the store, because they hooked it up wrong and don't have any kind of an HD package.

Believe me, I've seen and heard about it happening constantly. Most people's reaction? "I bought the TV because I thought all my channels would look as good as they did at the store."

Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of myrmidons out there who have missed the DTV-education bus and think they need a new TV when they really don't; those people would be better off buying converter boxes, or doing nothing at all since chances are their cable/satellite provider have them covered.

I often make it a point to ask the sales dweebs at the electronics stores about the subject. Very few mention the need for an HD subscription or OTA antenna hookup as a part of the package. Just like few know anything about HD radio.

You and I and most folks on this board are smarter than that, but the average TV viewer isn't. I have honest-to-God talked to people who see the "available in high definition" or HD logo on their old TV and think they're watching the actual hi-def feed!

And on a similar note, I've also talked to two different people who thought that they were listening to HD radio on their boomboxes, "because the guy on the radio just said, 'Broadcasting in HD digital!'" ::)
 
TheBigA said:
people really can see a difference with HDTV sets.

Good point. The supposed better quality with HD is invisible to most consumers, who don't buy for audio quality anyhow...witness the explosion of low-bit-rate, highly compressed MP3s that pass for music these days. The time when "high fidelity" actually meant something are long gone, and despite what iBiquity claims, FM HD is NOT "CD quality"...not even close.
 
Zach said:
...and then those same people get their shiny new TV home and the picture looks nothing like it did in the store, because they hooked it up wrong and don't have any kind of an HD package.

This is pretty far off the topic of HD radio, but my experience is the picture looks a lot better at home than it does in the stores. That is because most stores have a closed circuit in house HD distribution system that delivers the same signal to all sets as component video. Frequently they are poorly set up, and the kid that is running the department is playing a standard definition DVD of his favorite movie on it. You can up-convert all you want, but the picture won't get better if it starts out as a standard definition source. When you get home and connect the set to an antenna, you will discover OTA stations that are really running HDTV signals. They can look stunning.

Where I live, I can receive about 10 signals in analog. Some come in a lot better than others. Ghosts and snow are familiar companions on about 1/3 of those signals. Using the same antenna, I get 22 DTV channels, none of them with snow or ghosting. Not all of them are 720P or 1080I, but even the standard definition channels look way better than they do in analog.

Add to that the increasing number of HDTV channels that are available from my satellite supplier, and there is a lot of high quality video to watch on your new TV. If people are incapable of connecting this up so it works right, then they have my sympathy. It is very simple to do.

Zach said:
You and I and most folks on this board are smarter than that, but the average TV viewer isn't. I have honest-to-God talked to people who see the "available in high definition" or HD logo on their old TV and think they're watching the actual hi-def feed!


It is true that some people just "don't get it" and probably never will. When I was in High School, I had a part time job at a local TV shop. That was in the relatively early days of color TV. People would actually get upset when I adjusted their TV so the faces were natural looking, the sky was blue and grass was green. It seemed that quite a few of them actually liked beet colored flesh tones, green sky and purple grass. As P.T. Barnum supposedly said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American Public. "

Zach said:
And on a similar note, I've also talked to two different people who thought that they were listening to HD radio on their boomboxes, "because the guy on the radio just said, 'Broadcasting in HD digital!'" ::)

I have noted that too, even among people who should be smart enough to know better. I think a lot of that can be blamed on the really lame promotion the Alliance gave HD radio. It was a long time before I ever heard a promo that mentioned you might need to get a new radio. Their "Time to Upgrade," promotion is better, but still leaves a lot to be desired.

The real point is, except for the addition of the secondary and tertiary channels, most people wouldn't know HD if it jumped up and bit them in the a$$. You can tell the difference if you are wearing headphones or listening on quality speakers in a quiet environment, but most people don’t do that. For many, radio is background noise. Traveling down the road at 70 MPH in your car is another story, unless your car is exceptionally well sound insulated. Most aren't. At highway speeds, it is not an obvious improvement. In fact, when it "blends “ to analog, many people find it is an unpleasant experience. Of course the HD-2 channels just stop working, and I’ve met several people who find that to be intolerable enough that they no longer listen.

It is doubtful that most people would notice improved audio quality enough to persuade them to get out their wallets. Add to that the fact that most people accept a 64 kbs MP3 on their ipod as “quality audio,” and you will loose the fight if the only thing you have to offer is “CD” quality. That is even more the case when the quality doesn’t happen to measure up to that of a CD. People who know better do notice that little problem.

So far, other than on these boards, I really haven't heard much buzz about the new HD channels. To the consumer, new channels is about the only selling point, and with few exceptions, they are not representing themselves very well. Most are just "more of the same."

The only way this will work out is if HD decoders are built into lots of devices that coincidentally can receive radio broadcasts. That may happen, but at the moment, technology is moving at a fairly fast pace. I can easily see other technologies being incorporated into these very same devices that will circumvent the need for HD Radio.
 
All digital should work well in Wilmington. Eastern North Carolina is "flat as a pancake". If the FCC REALLY wanted to see how poor digital coverage (on TV) can be they should have designated, perhaps, Asheville! Digital TV does a LOUSY job of reaching "the boonies" of Wilkes County NC with a stable signal...even with a 600 dollar antenna/rotor/preamp recently installed. By the way, HD on FM works great off the same antenna. I know people love to bash HD Radio. But my experience (easily demonstrated in my living room) is that it's HDTV that truly does a lousy job of approximating the analog service area, even with a good antenna.
 
Mike Walker said:
All digital should work well in Wilmington. Eastern North Carolina is "flat as a pancake". If the FCC REALLY wanted to see how poor digital coverage (on TV) can be they should have designated, perhaps, Asheville! Digital TV does a LOUSY job of reaching "the boonies" of Wilkes County NC with a stable signal...even with a 600 dollar antenna/rotor/preamp recently installed. By the way, HD on FM works great off the same antenna. I know people love to bash HD Radio. But my experience (easily demonstrated in my living room) is that it's HDTV that truly does a lousy job of approximating the analog service area, even with a good antenna.

I'm not sure how tropo conditions are in North Carolina, but in East Texas, RF propagation goes NUTS during the spring and summer months. The problem is especially prevalent in the morning hours, but I’ve seen it happen just about anytime during the day. This year has been especially bad for it.

This morning I couldn’t get a reliable HDTV lock on any of the local stations due to tropospheric ducting/skip problems. It wasn't a good day for FM or analog TV either. At least, I was able to get a poor, but viewable analog signal so I could watch the morning news programs. That ability will go away in February. My HDTV signal would not keep a lock, even though these stations usually register between "75" and "95" on the TV's signal strength meter.

It does kind of make you wonder what will happen during storm seasons, when you'd really like to see the news or weather radar.
 
Chuck said:
Mike Walker said:
All digital should work well in Wilmington. Eastern North Carolina is "flat as a pancake". If the FCC REALLY wanted to see how poor digital coverage (on TV) can be they should have designated, perhaps, Asheville! Digital TV does a LOUSY job of reaching "the boonies" of Wilkes County NC with a stable signal...even with a 600 dollar antenna/rotor/preamp recently installed. By the way, HD on FM works great off the same antenna. I know people love to bash HD Radio. But my experience (easily demonstrated in my living room) is that it's HDTV that truly does a lousy job of approximating the analog service area, even with a good antenna.

I'm not sure how tropo conditions are in North Carolina, but in East Texas, RF propagation goes NUTS during the spring and summer months. The problem is especially prevalent in the morning hours, but I’ve seen it happen just about anytime during the day. This year has been especially bad for it.

This morning I couldn’t get a reliable HDTV lock on any of the local stations due to tropospheric ducting/skip problems. It wasn't a good day for FM or analog TV either. At least, I was able to get a poor, but viewable analog signal so I could watch the morning news programs. That ability will go away in February. My HDTV signal would not keep a lock, even though these stations usually register between "75" and "95" on the TV's signal strength meter.

It does kind of make you wonder what will happen during storm seasons, when you'd really like to see the news or weather radar.

I wouldn't call that a PROBLEM! I'd call it an OPPORTUNITY!

Anyway....

One thing I don't understand: why didn't the U.S. choose to phase out analog TV in regional stages? There doesn't seem to be much sense in treating each region of a large and diverse country the same in this respect by setting a single national shut-off date. Some areas, those which are largely cabled, have good OTA coverage, and have both high population and TV station density (such as the Northeast) could go all-digital first, followed by medium-density areas (the eastern Midwest, East Texas, etc.), and finally by low-density areas reliant on long-distance analog reception - by this I mean the Great Plains, northern Minnesota, mountainous areas. The NYC metro might be suffering from RF congestion, and freeing up those high UHF channels could certainly help. But for rural South Dakota or Minnesota, I really wonder how much good DTV transition will accomplish.
 
kc0ltv said:
One thing I don't understand: why didn't the U.S. choose to phase out analog TV in regional stages?

That's an interesting question. I tried to think of a situation where the federal government made a conversion like this in a regional way. For the most part, the gov't loves the one-size-fits-all aproach. But your suggestion makes sense to me. Except that the gov't really wants to get the GFN broadcasters off UHF and VHF so they can sell the spectrum for billions and billions of dollars.
 
TheBigA said:
kc0ltv said:
One thing I don't understand: why didn't the U.S. choose to phase out analog TV in regional stages?

That's an interesting question. I tried to think of a situation where the federal government made a conversion like this in a regional way. For the most part, the gov't loves the one-size-fits-all aproach. But your suggestion makes sense to me. Except that the gov't really wants to get the GFN broadcasters off UHF and VHF so they can sell the spectrum for billions and billions of dollars.

They could still sell the spectrum. Most of the major stations out in less-populated regions are on VHF and translators on channels 51+ could be vacated to lower channels, or they could simply sell it on a local / regional basis - which I believe they are doing in most cases. Selling the spectrum doesn't entail getting rid of analog TV in South Dakota or western Kansas.
 
We are "flash cutting" Cache County, Utah on August 30.
I'll try and get back to everyone here, if I can get off the phone, on or about Sept 2 with the gory details ;D .

(These are translator stations, and a low-power or two. They have to go back on the same channels as the analog, since there is too much co-channel from SLC to use them as "boosters".
We are cutting over early, since the Franklin County, Idaho translators have to make major changes, too.)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom