-
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
Telemundo 60 Merrimack testing new subchannel
- Thread starter Schuyler
- Start date
Telemundo 60 Merrimack has a different subchannel
Apparently, this is not a test. I caught a network promo showing different affiliates across the country, and every one of them is on an "x.3" subchannel. Seems like WNEU simply replaced the Telemundo SD with Canal SOI and rebranded 60.2 as 60.3. (The absence of 60.2 led me to believe this was a testing phase.)
That same promo also listed 60.3 by its RF channel, 34.3. WNEU did PSID itself as 34.1 and 34.2 for a long time after the digital transition, but changed that to 60 a few months back.
So, for purposes of OTA reception, 60.3 is really 34.2. ??? IMHO, virtual channels only confuse things, but the FCC is good at that. Now, I think I'll go watch the CBS Early Show on WBZ 20, or maybe the FOX25 morning news over on channel 31.
Apparently, this is not a test. I caught a network promo showing different affiliates across the country, and every one of them is on an "x.3" subchannel. Seems like WNEU simply replaced the Telemundo SD with Canal SOI and rebranded 60.2 as 60.3. (The absence of 60.2 led me to believe this was a testing phase.)
That same promo also listed 60.3 by its RF channel, 34.3. WNEU did PSID itself as 34.1 and 34.2 for a long time after the digital transition, but changed that to 60 a few months back.
So, for purposes of OTA reception, 60.3 is really 34.2. ??? IMHO, virtual channels only confuse things, but the FCC is good at that. Now, I think I'll go watch the CBS Early Show on WBZ 20, or maybe the FOX25 morning news over on channel 31.
Re: Telemundo 60 Merrimack has a different subchannel
Except it's WBZ 30, if you're one to go with the RF number instead of the virtual channels that 99.9% of the population continue to use.
Schuyler said:
Except it's WBZ 30, if you're one to go with the RF number instead of the virtual channels that 99.9% of the population continue to use.
Or you can watch MY-TV 9 from New Haven! Okay, WCTX-TV was analog channel 59. It's channel 39 for digital. The "9" refers to their analog cable channel on most area systems. They haven't used "59" on the air since their last days as WBNE-TV, a.k.a. "WB 59". That ended on January 1, 2001, when they switched to a UPN affiliation.
As for Telemundo, I last saw them here on WRDM-LP analog channel 50. For many years they were W13BF channel 13 out of Hartford. Presently, we also have WUVN-TV (UNI) channel 18 (digital channel 46) of Hartford for Univision. Many years ago, this was the infamous WHCT-TV. WUVN-TV runs LATV on one subchannel and Telefutura on another. However, I don't get them well over-the-air, but Comcast carries the channels, even without a converter.
As for Telemundo, I last saw them here on WRDM-LP analog channel 50. For many years they were W13BF channel 13 out of Hartford. Presently, we also have WUVN-TV (UNI) channel 18 (digital channel 46) of Hartford for Univision. Many years ago, this was the infamous WHCT-TV. WUVN-TV runs LATV on one subchannel and Telefutura on another. However, I don't get them well over-the-air, but Comcast carries the channels, even without a converter.
Re: Telemundo 60 Merrimack has a different subchannel
Canal SOI launched November 1 on 15 Telemundo O&O's nationwide, in each case, on channel X.3, in what looks like a package deal with an outside provider. As to whether 60.3 is really 34.2 for OTA, you'll need a transport stream analyzer to verify, but that's probably not the case. Like Boston, New York and Las Vegas show no channel X.2, and Telemundo is on program 3 (X.1) with SOI on program 5 (X.3). Los Angeles, Phoenix and Tucson show a program 4, but it's blank, although Phoenix labels its program 4 as KTAZ2. Chicago and Houston still run Inmigrante TV on program 4 and simply added SOI on program 5. In seven of the 15 markets, I have access to transport stream data that has been updated since Nov. 1, and in every case, SOI is actually on program 5, or X.3 in the virtual world.
I don't think virtual channels confuse things; I think you're just overthinking it. Most people don't know and don't care that there is such a thing as a virtual channel, as so everything is simple. Virtual channels meant that WGBH, WBZ and WCVB didn't have to spend a truckload of money telling people that they're now on channels 19, 30 and 20, respectively, because the digital television format the government chose 15+ years ago is virtually unusable on low-VHF channels, which used to be prime real estate in the analog world.
Schuyler said:
Canal SOI launched November 1 on 15 Telemundo O&O's nationwide, in each case, on channel X.3, in what looks like a package deal with an outside provider. As to whether 60.3 is really 34.2 for OTA, you'll need a transport stream analyzer to verify, but that's probably not the case. Like Boston, New York and Las Vegas show no channel X.2, and Telemundo is on program 3 (X.1) with SOI on program 5 (X.3). Los Angeles, Phoenix and Tucson show a program 4, but it's blank, although Phoenix labels its program 4 as KTAZ2. Chicago and Houston still run Inmigrante TV on program 4 and simply added SOI on program 5. In seven of the 15 markets, I have access to transport stream data that has been updated since Nov. 1, and in every case, SOI is actually on program 5, or X.3 in the virtual world.
I don't think virtual channels confuse things; I think you're just overthinking it. Most people don't know and don't care that there is such a thing as a virtual channel, as so everything is simple. Virtual channels meant that WGBH, WBZ and WCVB didn't have to spend a truckload of money telling people that they're now on channels 19, 30 and 20, respectively, because the digital television format the government chose 15+ years ago is virtually unusable on low-VHF channels, which used to be prime real estate in the analog world.
Re: Telemundo 60 Merrimack has a different subchannel
OK, I've done this on just about every board here that has anything to do with TV
Imagine that there were no virtual channels. You live on Los Angeles, and your two favorite programs are on CBS (KCBS-TV) and independent station KCAL. To watch those programs, assuming your TV was connected to an antenna, you'd tune:
KCBS KCAL
Analog, pre-transition: 2 9
Digital, during transition: 60 43
Digital, post-transition: 43 9
But of course, we do have virtual channels. If your two favorite programs were on KCBS and KCAL and your TV connected to an antenna, to watch those programs you tuned:
KCBS KCAL
Analog, pre-transition: 2 9
Digital, during transition: 2 9
Digital, post-transition: 2 9
Which is less confusing?
_________________________________________________
In the Boston market, if there were no virtual channels, WHDH would be the confusing station. To watch them in analog, you of course tuned channel 7. Without virtual channels, to watch them in digital during the transition you would have tuned 42. Then, when the transition ended, you would have gone back to tuning channel 7 -- for a few weeks, until they learned viewers were having massive problems with the 174MHz frequency. At which point you would have gone back to tuning channel 42.
_________________________________________________
I work for a major Nashville network affiliate; when viewers call to complain of reception issues, I'm the one they usually end up talking to. I've taken hundreds of calls and emails about digital reception over the last ten years. The total number of viewers/emailers confused by channel remapping, out of those hundreds of contacts:
ZERO.
The only folks confused by virtual channels are broadcast engineers & radio geeks.
Schuyler said:
OK, I've done this on just about every board here that has anything to do with TV
Imagine that there were no virtual channels. You live on Los Angeles, and your two favorite programs are on CBS (KCBS-TV) and independent station KCAL. To watch those programs, assuming your TV was connected to an antenna, you'd tune:
KCBS KCAL
Analog, pre-transition: 2 9
Digital, during transition: 60 43
Digital, post-transition: 43 9
But of course, we do have virtual channels. If your two favorite programs were on KCBS and KCAL and your TV connected to an antenna, to watch those programs you tuned:
KCBS KCAL
Analog, pre-transition: 2 9
Digital, during transition: 2 9
Digital, post-transition: 2 9
Which is less confusing?
_________________________________________________
In the Boston market, if there were no virtual channels, WHDH would be the confusing station. To watch them in analog, you of course tuned channel 7. Without virtual channels, to watch them in digital during the transition you would have tuned 42. Then, when the transition ended, you would have gone back to tuning channel 7 -- for a few weeks, until they learned viewers were having massive problems with the 174MHz frequency. At which point you would have gone back to tuning channel 42.
_________________________________________________
I work for a major Nashville network affiliate; when viewers call to complain of reception issues, I'm the one they usually end up talking to. I've taken hundreds of calls and emails about digital reception over the last ten years. The total number of viewers/emailers confused by channel remapping, out of those hundreds of contacts:
ZERO.
The only folks confused by virtual channels are broadcast engineers & radio geeks.
Re: Telemundo 60 Merrimack has a different subchannel
Quite right. Must've gotten confused somehow. 5 is 20, naturally.
The whole numbers thing is meaningless anyway when cable and satellite viewing are taken into account. The old analog numbers have been brands rather than channels for a long time now.
However, for those of us who prefer to get TV for free, it would be nice to know whether to aim the VHF or the UHF antenna. You can't do that unless you look up the RF number, and most people wouldn't know they had to; they'd assume 2 is 2 when it's really 19.
Nevertheless, it seems most folks prefer their "reality" to be virtual rather than actually real. "I'm goin' to Diz Nee Land."
bostonmediaguy said:
Quite right. Must've gotten confused somehow. 5 is 20, naturally.
The whole numbers thing is meaningless anyway when cable and satellite viewing are taken into account. The old analog numbers have been brands rather than channels for a long time now.
However, for those of us who prefer to get TV for free, it would be nice to know whether to aim the VHF or the UHF antenna. You can't do that unless you look up the RF number, and most people wouldn't know they had to; they'd assume 2 is 2 when it's really 19.
Nevertheless, it seems most folks prefer their "reality" to be virtual rather than actually real. "I'm goin' to Diz Nee Land."
L
Laurence Glavin
Guest
Re: Telemundo 60 Merrimack has a different subchannel
Wasn't the definition of a "channel" the ability to transmit and receive more than one frequency at a time? In the early days of over-the-air-antenna-received television, you got one frequency for the B&W picture and another frequency for the sound (which itself was an FM channel just like FM radio itself). There was even some technical stuff in-between that steadied the picture. That's why a weak signal didn't just display a "fuzzy" picture, but one that often just rolled nonstop. Later came a frequency for color, and then stereo. It would have been crazy to have a continuous tuner like radio, so TV sets came with detent tuners PLUS a wheel just in case you wanted to fine-tune it better than the factory did.
Scott Fybush said:
Wasn't the definition of a "channel" the ability to transmit and receive more than one frequency at a time? In the early days of over-the-air-antenna-received television, you got one frequency for the B&W picture and another frequency for the sound (which itself was an FM channel just like FM radio itself). There was even some technical stuff in-between that steadied the picture. That's why a weak signal didn't just display a "fuzzy" picture, but one that often just rolled nonstop. Later came a frequency for color, and then stereo. It would have been crazy to have a continuous tuner like radio, so TV sets came with detent tuners PLUS a wheel just in case you wanted to fine-tune it better than the factory did.
That's right. In fact, they're probably talking about us right now. But it's in Spanish, so I wouldn't know.
As for "most people" having combo UHF-VHF antennas, indoors at least those are seperate elements which can be aimed separately and that's what I have. That, and a tremendous headache.
As for "most people" having combo UHF-VHF antennas, indoors at least those are seperate elements which can be aimed separately and that's what I have. That, and a tremendous headache.
Schuyler said:
Ah. I was assuming an outdoor aerial antenna. If you're relying on an indoor antenna, then you have bigger problems than which part of the antenna to aim where. It's even trickier when you're trying to pick up a VHF channel (RF VHF), as you have to have the dipoles extended the correct length, or reasonably close. Digital television is definitely much less forgiving than analog was. I can understand why you have a headache.
dhett said:
I've searched with no success to find some sort of chart for those lengths, but all I could come up with were stats for optimal outdoor VHF elements. Eighty-three and a fraction inches isn't going to work in the den. (With trial and error, I can usually pick up New Hampshire's 9 and 11, which transmit on RF9 and RF11 respectively. What's wrong with those people!?) If anyone can point me toward a more useful chart or formula, I'd sincerely appreciate it.
BTW, Boston's 7 on RF7 worked much better for me than 7 on 42, but we've already established what a misfit I am!
Schuyler said:
**In theory**, you want each "ear" to be 1/4 wavelength. One wavelength, in meters, is 300/frequency (MHz).* One meter is 39.37". RF channel 7 is 177MHz (at the center of the channel); the other high-V channels are 183 (8), 189 (9), 195 (10), 201 (11), 207 (12), and 213MHz. (channel 13)
So to a rough approximation, one wavelength for channels 7-13 is 300/200 = 1.5 meters = a tad more than 59". 1/4 of that is 14-3/4".
_________________________________________________
And IMHO 14-3/4" is a good starting point regardless of which channel (in the 7-13 band) you're looking at. Other objects in the area are going to affect the "right" antenna length; the theoretically correct length is probably not going to be exactly right for your situation. Start at 14-3/4 and adjust for best signal.
_________________________________________________
* Engineers: IMHO for these purposes you can ignore velocity factor, even if you could figure out what it was for a rabbit ear!
Schuyler said:
That was then...this is now:
This week, 60.2 returned, broadcasting "EXITOS."
I realize the Spanish-language stations want to appear committed to the community they serve, but I can't help but wonder whether they might make a little more coinage if they tried having one sub-channel en ingles.
- Status