Well I'm finally giving in and getting paid-for tv after the Digital TV FAILURE

[landtuna]

Thanks Keith. I'll give it a try.

Interestingly, I just bought a new pair of ears to replace one that broke and the instructions mentioned positioning the dipoles horizontal instead of the familiar "V" I have known since the 50's. I tried it but it didn't seem to make any measurable difference. I will reset the length though.

 

[yragha]

I'm kinda an antenna junkie, I've tried many upon many. This one gets my vote. I just cancelled cable and bought two of 'em for my place.

Might wanna give it a try. This one even beats an old personal hard to find favorite of mine, the (model# escapes me) the black Radio Shack "grill" looking antenna from many year's back. Why they discontinued that model I have no idea.

http://www.gomohu.com/

 

[fredcantu]

I have a large outdoor antenna that I used to swing between the local Austin stations and those 60 miles away in San Antonio. Then I read that you could combine antennas using a conventional antenna splitter. I left my large one aiming to SA and added a smaller antenna for the Austin locals and-- viola-- digital TV from two markets on all my home TVs 24/7 with no rotator needed. You might try combining antennas if your stations come from two directions-- for instance an antenna farm and downtown.

 

[kenglish]

The Mohu looks to be about the same as the old Radio Shack UHF, but without the reflector. Two bowties.

 

[Ryan Williams]

I don't share the same frustrating experiences as some of you. From my house in Waco, I can get most of the Dallas-Ft. Worth stations that broadcast from Cedar Hill with just a small outdoor antenna that is not even above the tree line. I think I paid about $30 for the DB2 on Amazon. I am over 70 miles from Cedar Hill "as the crow flies".

And actually, I can consistently get 21 (and I think 11) with the antenna just leaning on top of the TV inside the living room, with no north-facing windows.

 

[kenglish]

Has anybody ever even SEEN an ATSC Digital TV Analyzer, that looks at the signal impairments and allows you to set up an antenna and other components correctly?

Most people probably have not. It's far easier to just bash the system.

 

[flashback]

when the system makes it so either you have to spend a lot of money and do a bunch of reserch to get the same over the air channels you got before the system became in effect it should be bashed and criticized.

 

[landtuna]

I would start out with 1/4 wavelength at the middle of Channel 10 (195 MHz).

Success! (At least for now.) I left the dipoles in the classic "V" position but shortened them to 14" and now all three VHF's show a 100% signal with no pixelation. Last evening was clear and still though so I will have to wait for some lousy weather to see if I have a permanent solution. At least it is a start.

 

[Tom Wells]

A "sniffer" mode should have been required, where the user could see in realtime how the antenna adjustments
are affecting the signal received. In analog TV it WAS real time, and ANYONE could adjust the antenna
to find the best postioning.

This should have been required on every TV as a separate button on the TV itself only.

It is very frustrating to adjust something that has such a huge delay built-in and no feedback at all and then either does
or most likely doesn't work even after extended adjusting.


Most people havent got the patience.

And those who promoted digital TV were not honest enough to admit that part of the plan is to kill OTA.
Nor was anything such as a real-time sniff mode required, that would indicate the system might not be as robust as advertised.

 

[KeithE4]

A "sniffer" mode should have been required, where the user could see in realtime how the antenna adjustments are affecting the signal received. In analog TV it WAS real time, and ANYONE could adjust the antenna to find the best postioning.

This should have been required on every TV as a separate button on the TV itself only.

It is very frustrating to adjust something that has such a huge delay built-in and no feedback at all and then either does or most likely doesn't work even after extended adjusting.

Most people havent got the patience.

My cheap $40 converter box has this feature. Unfortunately, neither of my TVs do. It comes in very handy.

And those who promoted digital TV were not honest enough to admit that part of the plan is to kill OTA. Nor was anything such as a real-time sniff mode required, that would indicate the system might not be as robust as advertised.

The FCC is not going to kill OTA television unless the market demands it (read: not enough viewers and advertisers to allow the stations to survive, or at least not enough revenue to pay the electric bills for the transmitters). I do believe that many stations will go dark as the networks convert to cable/satellite-only and/or online delivery, but at worst we'll go back to 2 to 7 stations per market like it was in the '60s. There is still a market for local news that the networks can't

With appropriate channel allocations (the British system is a good example of how to do it right), I would think that channels 14 thru 40 or 45 would be entirely adequate for that number of stations.

 

[kenglish]

They're talking about using 14-30 for TV, plus whatever use that can be gotten out of the 12 VHF channels.
So, 17 total UHF channels...and, that's not for a single DMA. You've gotta still protect and share with all the cities around you.

 

[JHBrandt]

Looks like we touched a raw nerve. I feel Joe Sixpack's pain. Free over-the-air DTV is definitely better once you get it working, but it's a lot tougher for the average Joe to get working for several reasons.

First, DTV is just terrible on RF channels 2-6, and marginal on 7-13. It was made for UHF. This is why many of us worry about the FCC reclaiming more UHF channels for other proposed uses like the National Broadband Plan. (We could probably give up 5-10 UHF channels, but 20? )

Second, DTV requires better antennas than analog. DTV receivers have gotten good at dealing with multipath, but still tend to crap out when the echos shift, as when the wind blows the trees in your neigborhood (or your fan blows your antenna). So many folks need directional antennas to reject multipath, even in strong-signal areas where rabbit ears theoretically should work. Unfortunately most antennas suck, and the manufacturers lie. W9wi and I have long fumed about the way they sell UHF-only antennas in markets like Houston that have several VHF stations.

Third, like Tom Wells said. There's no easy way to see what's happening as you adjust your antenna. Complicating matters is that you usually can't measure the strength or quality of a signal unless you can get a lock - but if you have a lock, you don't need to adjust anything.

BTW, this site has some decent guidance on adjusting rabbit ears for the various VHF channels.

Incidentally, the Gomohu antenna looks like a reasonably good and simple idea. Hard to tell from the site, but it seems to be just a classic UHF loop resized for VHF and squared up to make it easier to find a place for it in your home. The gain should be comparable to rabbit ears with only 1/2 to 1/4 the width.

 

[yragha]

The Mohu doesn't have any amplification, and here in the Clear Lake area am able to pull Victoria's 25.1 thru 25.4 at night. The leaf worked for me, it raises my signal levels quite a bit more than any amplified antenna I've ever tried and without the constant dropouts from others sold at Walmart or Radio Shack.

I was hoping it would do miracles and pull in RTV at 34.2, but lol that wasn't happening. ARGH! ;D

 

[LibertyNT]

I'm guessing it's where you live.

In McKinney about 25-30 miles north of Dallas I can get all the Major Stations with an indoor antenna.
It took me a while to get ch. 8, but I did finally get it.

 

[KTN Corp]

The FCC is not going to kill OTA television unless the market demands it (read: not enough viewers and advertisers to allow the stations to survive, or at least not enough revenue to pay the electric bills for the transmitters). I do believe that many stations will go dark as the networks convert to cable/satellite-only and/or online delivery, but at worst we'll go back to 2 to 7 stations per market like it was in the '60s. There is still a market for local news that the networks can't

"The Market": Cell phone companies parlay cash and FCC reclaims all UHF channels in return. The networks become cable channels and you can listen to local news on the radio (and if you're lucky something like News 24 Houston--from a few years back). The internet provides video on local news websites (such as Chron.com and KUHF.org) and all new TVs are connected by an Ethernet plug for reception instead of a coaxial connector. The tiny minority who watches OTA will be outnumbered by those who have cable/satellite (or have converted because of the DTV transition). The cable subscribers will never notice an interruption to incense them.

Meanwhile VHF channels are not utilized due to poor transmission characteristics for either mobile devices or digital broadcasting and lack of "demand" for OTA reception.

This is the "National Broadband Plan": Broadcasting (and ATM/POS device connections, etc.; everything but the PSTN) can be done entirely over the internet. We have bridged the digital divide!!! ???

 

[yragha]

The FCC is not going to kill OTA television unless the market demands it (read: not enough viewers and advertisers to allow the stations to survive, or at least not enough revenue to pay the electric bills for the transmitters). I do believe that many stations will go dark as the networks convert to cable/satellite-only and/or online delivery, but at worst we'll go back to 2 to 7 stations per market like it was in the '60s. There is still a market for local news that the networks can't

Are you saying that eventually NBC, ABC, CBS and the likes could go to cable/ dish only?

 

[KeithE4]

The FCC is not going to kill OTA television unless the market demands it (read: not enough viewers and advertisers to allow the stations to survive, or at least not enough revenue to pay the electric bills for the transmitters). I do believe that many stations will go dark as the networks convert to cable/satellite-only and/or online delivery, but at worst we'll go back to 2 to 7 stations per market like it was in the '60s. There is still a market for local news that the networks can't

Are you saying that eventually NBC, ABC, CBS and the likes could go to cable/ dish only?

Unless they start making money in the next few years, then yes. I believe all the broadcast networks, NBC especially, are losing money as standalone operations.

It would be cable, satellite, and online. Those subscriber fees will be just too hard to resist.

 

[dhett]

More efficient use of spectrum - stations can now be co-channel in the same market.

Uh...I meant adjacent channel, not co-channel.

Thanks, Keith, for the assist - I'd seen a chart of dipole lengths for each channel somewhere, and was using a very simplified formula that got me into the right area.

 

[KeithE4]

Thanks, Keith, for the assist - I'd seen a chart of dipole lengths for each channel somewhere, and was using a very simplified formula that got me into the right area.

I have some questions about the chart that was linked to earlier. Most, if not all antennas made today have 75 ohm coax attached, not 300 ohm twinlead. The ideal length of a dipole fed with coax is 1/4 or 3/4 wavelength on a side. 3/4 wavelength at 195 MHz (42 inches) will provide some gain and will also be 1/4 wavelength at 65 MHz if you need it, but the directional pattern will be different and adjustments may be necessary. I use 1/4 wavelength (14 inches) per element, and have no problems.

 

[JHBrandt]

I linked to the chart but I didn't do the calculations. The chart's author is Ken Nist, MSEE (ret), KQ6QV. I believe he did the calcs using EZNEC4 simulation software and assuming that the rabbit ears were connected to coax via a 4:1 balun, and so calculated the lengths that gave the best compromise between resonance and a match to the balun's 300 ohms, which is why they're slightly "off" the 1/4 (for VHF-Lo) 3/4 (for VHF-Hi) wavelength you'd expect.

But that's just speculation. If you want a definitive answer, he posts his email address on his homepage: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/

BTW, connecting rabbit ears directly to coax would give a better match, but would require a 1:1 balun. You could achieve this via the simple trick of winding a few feet of the coax into a coil at the antenna end (a so-called choke balun).