There is some marketing gimmickry involved in the way antennas are sold, same as there is with the way radio is sold, but I assure you that not all antennas do the same job.
-
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
Radio world: Glynn Walden says IBOC was only temporary
- Thread starter KB1OKL
- Start date
Not all antennas do the job as well, but they do do the same job. If you have a decent UHF loop antenna and a pair of rabbit ears, you will receive the signal exactly as well as you would with a supposed "HDTV antenna," because the frequencies are exactly the same. The only difference is what's being carried on them, and in that regard, the minimized bandwidth is still placed within the original channels, so if your UHF antenna was tuned to work with the UHF television frequencies to begin with (and unless you're just using a metal headphone band connected to two leads and a paperclip, it most likely was) and your rabbit ears picked up the VHF signals just fine in the analog days, they're going to get you the exact same quality reception as a so-called "HDTV antenna." If not better.
Oh, of course; I didn't mean to imply that all areas had the same problems I do, either. Heck, I'm sure even just thirty miles up the road in Jackson, they can receive WLNS with no problems with an attic or roof antenna. I just happen to be in the fringe, and I shouldn't be, that's the issue, and there are several areas elsewhere across the country where they're experiencing similar problems.
True, and the thought to include that information hadn't crossed my mind as I was writing that post. Just to state it for the record in case anyone is curious, there are amplifiers feeding the signal from the respective antenna to each wall RF jack in each room. I couldn't tell you how powerful they are, but I asked the maintenance manager and he assured me that they're there and working. I wanted to know because I had my own amplifier that I was using in my previous apartment, and I didn't want to overload my set-top box or the tuner card in my expensive then-planned computer (which I'm using to type this message now). The equipment does seem to be well-maintained. On the FM side of things, I can pull in plenty of stations from that northerly direction. It's just the digital TV reception that's the issue.
Yeah, I've tried matching TV Fool's results, but they never quite get there. Right now, my tuner card is set up to receive WLNS, WILX, WXMI, WHTV, WKAR (which for some reason comes in FAR better than it ever did in analog; I'm not sure what happened there), WLMB (which is almost directly south of me, but I'm well within the primary coverage area), WOTV, WZPX, WSYM, WLAJ and WLLA (which, like WLNS, is spotty at best). So just under a dozen sounds right, but they're not necessarily the stations the site is predicting I'll get.
Additionally, on any given morning, I can get PSIP data but no usable signal from WWTV. VHF isn't the best for ATSC propogation, but that signal really gets out there when you've got the tallest tower in the state. On occasion, the set-top box in my bedroom will also pull in WSMH or WJRT. And for some reason, both receivers like to pull in WBGU when the weather is right. I've never quite been able to figure that one out, but it happens with some regularity.
No question about that, and I'm very clearly in that group. Despite the problems, I don't really have anything to complain about. It's an annoyance, not a hindrance. I can watch most things online, anyway. Even if I wanted to have 57 Channels (And Nothin' On), being in an apartment complex, I have nowhere to put a dish, and Comcast has a codified cable monopoly in my town, which... there's no way in hell I'm giving those clowns a penny of what little hard-earned money I make. I'll do without entirely before it comes to that.
Last edited:
I meant special as in $$, the way Joe Q Citizen thinks: (what? 125.00 for a "special antenna"!!) I know there is no special HD antenna, although the way they are marketed the ordinary person probably thinks so.
If you say so. My setup is the one that's working though. I didn't buy it because it says HDTV, that's where marketing comes in. I bought the particular antenna I did based on the experiences of my friends who settled on it after trial and error.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
No way I am giving up the quality programming on Cable TV. Except for video sewage like "Naked _____" (anything), the good clean family sitcoms on Disney and Nickelodeon, combined with science programming on Discovery networks is a feast for the eyes. If I go with only over the air - I get video sewage like "Two Broke Girls" (excuse my while I vomit), a pervert like Howard Stern being praised as a judge on a talent show, gory bloody special effects of bodies decomposing, "reality" shows of nearly naked and very ugly people pursuing pointless activity. Nothing there for an IQ over 70. If you want to go over the air only, go for it, but the best antennas and TV sets made won't improve the quality of the shows on TV even a tiny bit.
That's where the Internet comes in. You can watch via the networks' sites or Netflix... or there are always other, less than "legal" means. You wouldn't lose anything, really.
Yes, but as you said, you're much closer to the center of your market than I am, so you shouldn't have much trouble. Digital TV being all or nothing, You can get a solid picture and sound all the way out to the fringe areas. It's those fringe areas that have lost coverage. But the point you make about your friends' experience demonstrates my point: it's a good antenna. It would have been a good antenna for analog, as well, because it's likely well-tuned to the proper frequencies.
I'm sorry, but "breaking the law" is not an option many people are comfortable with, or should have to resort to, to watch quality programming.
I did a checklist (my DVR recordings list) and found that roughly 20% of what I want to watch is available online, legally and even less of it is available within a week of when it airs on cable. Factor in my shoddy DSL (no cable internet offered here, satellite and LTE cellular internets are deeply restricted to monthly allotments,) and cable/satellite still comes out as the most convenient, most reliable and best picture quality for the money. I do subscribe to Netflix but I can really only watch it between about 11 pm and 11 am, otherwise it looks like a blocky mess because of network saturation. (CenturyLink, my DSL provider, is also in an unspoken war with Google so YouTube and other Google sites often don't work through much of the day, so YouTube is not a viable option, either.)
Two other things really bug me about online video. First and foremost is that Hulu wants you to pay $8 a month and they STILL force you to watch commercials, which is a total ripoff. I don't mind watching commercials on channels like Crackle or local news apps on my Roku, but no way in hell am I paying to watch commercials anymore. True, I get commercials on my $100 a month DirecTV service, but I also DVR exactly 100% of what I watch, including news, and fast forward through all that bullcrap. Hulu and some other channels won't let you skip commercials at all. What's worse is 90% of the dreck on Hulu that's current TV is stuff that I get for free OTA through the big networks, and which is part of my DirecTV package which means I can DVR and skip commercials and still watch on my own time.
(The day they pull a cableco trick and stop letting DVR users fast forward is the day I say goodbye to them. They already restrict first run On Demand videos that way, just like cablecos do.)
The second thing is many of the shows I could theoretically watch online are only available on apps or sites that require a cable company login. Fox, A&E, History, ESPN all come to mind. You cancel your cable, you lose access to those shows on those networks. The only network that truly lets you cord cut is PBS. All I have to do is put in a zip code and pick my preferred local affiliate to watch all PBS programming, including locally produced shows, on my Roku's PBS app.
Digital OTA TV has been a bonus for me. I lived in a small Mississippi town when the switch occurred and I went from receiving PBS and NBC to receiving those plus ABC, Family Net and occasionally CBS with just a $12 RCA Wally-mart special up in the attic. Here on the Gulf Coast I think I could get 5 or 6 channels pre-switch and now I get something like 15 or 20. Plus plenty of HD, for free, with that same $12 crap RCA junk antenna in my room.
As for IB(A)C — love that! — analog radio will be around for probably the rest of our lives (yes, even the ones who are just 20 years old now) but I do wonder if a limited scope all digital AM solution might work as an option. I would love to see whatever reports come out of the all digital AM tests in Charlotte. As I understand it, they picked a high band CBS owned station to test with, and have moved on to a different station owned by a different company in the suburbs for another round. If the in-band AM HD is robust enough for local coverage during the day, I think setting aside some graveyard or high band allocations for HD only broadcasting might make sense. No one's listening to the AM anyway, so might as well at least make it sound better to the 15% with AM HD radios in their cars, if it works better than the current hybrid mess. And I can't imagine how it wouldn't considering how poor AM HD is now.
Of course, this would only work if it's feeding a translator or has a strong online presence, but that's quickly where AM is going, anyway. In fact, I think if full digital with no analog backup proves to be a viably reliable option for HD, that it could be a mandatory switch for stations already feeding translators. That would certainly kick start the popularity of the service.
No, they shouldn't have to resort to it, but you can only thank the content providers for not keeping up with the times and the demands of the marketplace for the fact that we find ourselves in this situation. Their draconian viewpoints on technology and copyright law have made such a black market both necessary and thriving.
Feel free to use it! I've been calling it that since 2002.
That is a valid point. That's been the whole problem with the system: sideband interference and lack of a robust signal. As I pointed out, theoretically, at least, all-digital should solve those problems. If they can fit it within the NRSC mask as well as they claim they can, I don't see any real technical problems other than some potential for resonance, but that just takes a suitable checksum algorithm to correct for, and that technology has been part of the system for some time, though it's never truly been put through its paces. That's the whole point of this testing now. So I'm with you... as little hope as I see for AM, this is exciting from a purely engineering-geek point of view. Sort of "let's throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks" sort of thing.
Meh... a mandatory changeover would get minimal response from the consumers, I'm afraid. If the service is robust enough that it can effectively overcome all the EM noise, that's great, but where's the compelling content? Heck, we're not even hearing it on FM these days, and people are already tuning out there, as well. If the stations have to spend all that money for new equipment and they're already unwilling to spend the necessary money for talent today, what gives them the incentive to spend even more money for talent after dropping all that cash on the new system? I just don't see it happening.
Like I said, I'm 60 miles from the WLOS TV tower and my neighbors tell me antennas don't work. They are the ones with the crappy antennas.
I won't go on any more about it. The point was not to change your mind, which is impossible, but to encourage other people to take advantage of OTA TV who might otherwise think it's impractical.
Last edited:
Which is why I made the distinction between well-made and cheap antennae. If you're using a cheap antenna that wouldn't have worked in the analog days, you can't expect it to work with digital, either. The same scientific principles apply.
Not sure why you'd think my mind needs changing even if you're not trying to change it. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from cutting the cord; I've done it myself... well before the transition, at that. I'm just pointing out that the FCC made some very glaring mistakes and that they need to be fixed, that's all.
- Status