• 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

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

kenglish said:
I have a friend who has his satellite dish in his garage. Needless to say, he can't get a decent signal, and now calls DBS a "failure".

I have another friend who lives in the basement of her parents' house. Her TV is wired to the back of her mother's TV set, using lamp cord. She has concluded that Cable TV is "a failure".
;D

I have another friend who bought a tabletop HD Radio. After trying to keep the HD-1 locked to digital, he can't seem to keep it from blending into analog stereo. AM will go analog by flipping the light switch, much more with lightning strikes. He has concluded that HD Radio is a failure. :D(Two can play that game!)
 
KTN Corp said:
kenglish said:
I have a friend who has his satellite dish in his garage. Needless to say, he can't get a decent signal, and now calls DBS a "failure".

I have another friend who lives in the basement of her parents' house. Her TV is wired to the back of her mother's TV set, using lamp cord. She has concluded that Cable TV is "a failure".
;D

I have another friend who bought a tabletop HD Radio. After trying to keep the HD-1 locked to digital, he can't seem to keep it from blending into analog stereo. AM will go analog by flipping the light switch, much more with lightning strikes. He has concluded that HD Radio is a failure. :D(Two can play that game!)

Does he spend all of his time running around the internet, telling people that HD Radio "does not, can not, and will not work" under any and all circumstances? It seems that there are a few people who do that, talking about Digital TV. If they put even a fraction of the time and effort in to trying to fix their own reception problems, as they do in their efforts to knock the system, they'd be watching TV, instead of sitting in front of the computer. But, typing takes a lot less effort than running a wire across the room, installing a reasonable antenna, or asking a landlord or HOA about having an MATV system added to the building.
Believe me, I've tried to work with many of those types, and they would rather argue and "Curse the Darkness, before they'd light a Candle".
 
flashback said:
^well analog worked for a much greater percentage of people.when over the air analog tv was used a lot more i never saw anyone who lived in the city who had problems getting the local channels.

compared to analog in those days it is a falure.

And, of course, the people that you know and have talked to a good cross representation of the entire country, right?

Anecdotally, I've known people who can get good digital reception in an environment where their analog reception was unviewable. There are also those for whom the reverse is true. Time will tell which group is larger...although we certainly know which group seems to be LOUDER.
 
fredcantu said:
TexasTom said:
The sad irony is that had digital TV been introduced 30 years ago, it would have been a smashing success.

30 Years ago we had $900 video cassette recorders, analog cell phones the size of a lunch box and the first Atari video game consoles. The technology for digital video compression was still in its infancy. Digital satellite TV as we know it today didn't get going until the 1990s.

Yes, I fully understand that the technology for digital television didn't exist 30 years ago. I bought my first VCR in 1980 and have watched the evolution of both video and digital technology until the finally starting intersecting in 1986 (when analog televisions and VCRs with digital processing to allow picture in picture and clean still frames) started appearing. I shudder to imagine how much the RAM to store a single frame of high definition video would have cost in 1981...

My comment was a thought experiment based on the idea that had digital television been possible 30 years ago, it would have been far more successful than today simply because viewers had greater awareness of what is required for a proper antenna installation.
 
..........My comment was a thought experiment based on the idea that had digital television been possible 30 years ago, it would have been far more successful than today simply because viewers had greater awareness of what is required for a proper antenna installation.

Not to mention, there would have still been INSTALLERS who know how to do a proper antenna installation. :)

(Dear Google, Please stop inundating me with those ads for "165 mile antennas" and "newest, wonder-technology HDTV antennas", every time I do a search. I know the difference between those and the real thing, but my viewers are getting confused.)
 
KTN Corp said:
I have another friend who bought a tabletop HD Radio. After trying to keep the HD-1 locked to digital, he can't seem to keep it from blending into analog stereo. AM will go analog by flipping the light switch, much more with lightning strikes. He has concluded that HD Radio is a failure. :D(Two can play that game!)

I know this is off-topic, but I discovered a simple way that significantly improves my HD FM reception: use a circularly polarized antenna! You can just take one of the commercially-available "turnstile" omnidirectional FM antennas and turn it on its side. (You'll have to experiment to see which side should face the radio stations.) Or, do what I did: mount two identical FM "twinlead" dipole antennas on a wall crisscrossed at a 90-degree angle, shorten the lead from one by about two feet, and combine them with two baluns and a 2-way signal splitter. (If it doesn't work, try reversing the polarity on one of the baluns.)

I get a solid lock on almost every HD FM station, as the antenna attenuates most reflections.
 
kenglish said:
(Dear Google, Please stop inundating me with those ads for "165 mile antennas"

Back in the days when TV antennas were a major source of sales for Radio Shack, I remember looking in their catalog and seeing the really inflated distance claims for those antennas. I recall one far fringe model that claimed range of "up to 200 miles" for VHF.
 
TexasTom said:
kenglish said:
(Dear Google, Please stop inundating me with those ads for "165 mile antennas"

Back in the days when TV antennas were a major source of sales for Radio Shack, I remember looking in their catalog and seeing the really inflated distance claims for those antennas. I recall one far fringe model that claimed range of "up to 200 miles" for VHF.

You mean, it WASN'T?!?! :D (I think I owned that "VU-210".)

cd
 
cd637299 said:
TexasTom said:
kenglish said:
(Dear Google, Please stop inundating me with those ads for "165 mile antennas"

Back in the days when TV antennas were a major source of sales for Radio Shack, I remember looking in their catalog and seeing the really inflated distance claims for those antennas. I recall one far fringe model that claimed range of "up to 200 miles" for VHF.

You mean, it WASN'T?!?! :D (I think I owned that "VU-210".)

cd

What if your line of sight was 200 miles? Maybe you're on top of Pike's Peak.
 
An antenna can claim to pick up TV stations "up to 1000 miles and beyond", IF they were stations on channels 2-6 caught via E-skip! So there! ;D

(I wonder if any unscrupulous antenna dealer ever tried to pull THAT one...)

cd
 
flashback said:
i will say the basic thing i have been saying all along.
.
.
.
DTV IS A FALURE.

As you wish. Some on this board agree with you, and others do not. No matter how many times you repeat the same bleat, you're not going to change anyone's opinion, and we are already well aware of yours, and that nothing we say will change it. The horse is dead - you can stop beating it now.
 
I've never gotten an answer from the "DTV Sux" people, when I ask them if they've ever had a professional come out and look at their setup. Seems like it's easier to complain.
 
If you compare DTV to analog there is no plausible argument that it is not as complete as the service it replaced. For the few that can receive DTV without its shortcomings it is better than analog. For the rest of us it is not.

If the major goal of the conversion was to free up low VHF frequencies for non-TV broadcasting then it succeeded. If the goal was to provide an improved method of TV broadcasting, considering all that that statement implies, then it has failed.
 
kenglish said:
I've never gotten an answer from the "DTV Sux" people, when I ask them if they've ever had a professional come out and look at their setup. Seems like it's easier to complain.


over the air tv is not something you should have to pay a professional to come out to look at your hook up or hook up themselves to get a good signal in the city the station is in.

a replacment to analog should be user frendly.if not it should not be a replacment.
 
flashback said:
over the air tv is not something you should have to pay a professional to come out to look at your hook up or hook up themselves to get a good signal in the city the station is in.

Agreed. This is not the 1950's. But part of the problem is not with DTV itself but with the cavalier attitude the conversion had. For instance.....I do not remember seeing anything anywhere that said stations were changing frequencies. Suddenly your fav station goes from VHF to UHF and you need a different antenna (not a "digital" antenna). But even that does not explain why a combo V/U/F antenna on the roof cannot receive a reliable DTV signal 8 miles line-of-sight.
 
>But even that does not explain why a combo V/U/F antenna on the roof cannot receive a reliable DTV signal 8 miles line-of-sight.

You may be getting overload from an FM station. I have a 100,000 watt FM between me in South Austin and the stations in San Antonio. I inserted an FM filter in the antenna coax to clear up the problem.
 
landtuna said:
... But part of the problem is not with DTV itself but with the cavalier attitude the conversion had. For instance.....I do not remember seeing anything anywhere that said stations were changing frequencies. Suddenly your fav station goes from VHF to UHF and you need a different antenna (not a "digital" antenna)....

You have a point there. In fact the whole virtual channel scheme was too clever by half. The idea was to hide the fact that stations were changing frequencies - and it worked all too well. I doubt that more than one viewer in fifty knows that D/FW's channels 4, 5 & 13 are actually UHF now - and 52 is actually VHF!

In the analog era, I'm quite sure a lot of folks relied on VHF-only antennas - after all, VHF had all the major network affiliates. Then they hook up a converter box and get nothing but channel 8. So they go buy a "digital" (in reality a UHF) antenna and now they get most of the stations except channel 8! And then 6/12/2009 rolls around and things quit working as half the stations change frequencies yet again. But even that's not the end of it as channel 11's new VHF signal is too weak, so they appear as channel 21.2 for awhile, then finally return as channel "11" back on UHF (but if you can receive it, they're on VHF too) ::)

A little public education would've gone a long way. Instead we were just told to get our converter boxes and everything would work automagically. Needless to say things didn't work out that way.

But that's all water under the bridge. By now channels have finally re-stabilized. The remaining issues have to do mostly with unscrupulous marketers still selling UHF-only "digital" antennas when almost everyone needs a UHF/VHF combo nowadays, and there being so few indoor antennas on the market that are any better than the trusty old rabbit ears+loop combo.

There are a few good indoor antennas. The Zenith Silver Sensor is OK, but it's UHF-only; luckily Terk makes a nearly identical antenna, the HDTVi, which at least has rabbit ears for VHF. And Winegard makes an interesting indoor antenna called the SS-3000 which looks a bit like a 1/4 slice of the big outdoor Channel Master 4228. But unless you stumble upon a site like this one, you won't know about them, and more likely than not wind up with an inappropriate antenna for your needs.
 
Here's a question....

Outside of DXing, I really don't watch a lotta TV, so maybe somebody can remind me/us....

I knew about the "nightlight" info that some broadcasters had in June '09, on analog stations designated to give out info on digital conversion, and what to do.....but just prior to that, I seem to recall every 3rd commercial spot or so giving warning about the change. Did those warnings specifically say that many channels will change frequency, despite being called by their same channel number (for the most part), and to get the proper antenna? (Heck I am not sure if even the nightlight info mentioned it.)

If that info was not given, thereby lies the main rub.

cd
 
Man...if you only knew how much we engineers BEGGED "them" to let us educate the public about this stuff.
But, too many stations wanted to "Keep it simple", and "not confuse the public".

It was only after the analog shut-off, when the "nightlight" stations came back on with the Iowa Public TV (educational) video, that any real, useful technical information was given. Maybe stations didn't mind then, since it wasn't taking away from salable commercial time....I know one station manager who said, "nobody can get us (in analog) any more" (he wasn't thinking at the time).

The VHF reception problems are (generally) due to two things....
FM station overload of the tuners, and high levels of indoor RF interference.
The FM thing was often easily solved by placing an FM Trap ahead of the tuner, or before the first active stage of the system (like, a preamp). The FM Trap has to be made for the entire 88-108 MHz FM band...there are two types out there, one for 88-108, and one for about 93-108 MHz. The old idea was, that FM stations below about 93 MHz would be "educational" stations, running at lower power levels, and you could use the 93-108 traps without impinging on channel 6 (82-88 MHz) analog reception.
These FM Traps often cost as little as three or four dollars. Problem is...they seem to be almost unavailable any more. I don't know why they can't be made nowadays, or if somebody bought them all and flushed them down a toilet (sorta' kidding here).

The indoor interference problem is tougher. Nearly every digital device adds some sort of noise to the spectrum, unless it's built to some rigid standards. So, using a computer, a router, a CPU-controlled appliance, or even some of the new light bulbs inside your home adds RF noise. Switch-mode power supplies and chargers, like come with most every portable device now, are notorious spectrum polluters. Unless the desired signal is strong enough to penetrate the building's roof and wall, with enough left over to decode a TV signal, it won't work reliably. ATSC 8VSB signals need about 16 dB of signal above the ambient noise (that's enough to decode a digital TV signal, but would not be enough to get a watchable analog signal). You also need a few dB of "margin", to compensate for normal variations in signal level between the transmitter and you, or you'll get intermittent "hits' in the signal data.

The answer to the indoor noise problem is, you either lower the noise by proper filtering and grounding (the manufacturers should have done this in your computers and appliances), or you have to find a spot where the noise is lowest and the signal is highest. That's often a window, a spot near the ceiling or floor, or outdoors. The answer isn't always, "have the stations raise their power", since that would often cause them to interfere with other stations, in other nearby cities, on those channels.
You can help, by installing filters on some devices. You can help by unplugging things (like chargers) that are not being used at the moment, or by wrapping the cables through Ferrite Toroidal Filters (like a donut-shaped, tuned sponge, that absorbs certain frequency bands of noise). Or, you find a good spot for a directional antenna, that ignores the noise from the sides and behind it. Note that this "good spot" does not always mean "the attic", since there's a lot of wiring, air conditioning ductwork, and copper tubing up there.

Most people, unless they had a well-installed outdoor antenna, never had "great" analog TV reception. They had reception that was "acceptable" under the circumstances. And, it probably got worse as the years went on...and the interference levels increased. But, it was "watchable', until it was "gone". Digital is "perfect" until it hits that same point where the analog would drop out. Then, it disappears without additional warning. And, someplace right at that "cliff" point, audio aberrations and video pixelizations begin to show up...just before the signal is below the "cliff effect' dropout point.
 
There were at least some markets where stations did on-air public education that included a review of the need for both VHF and UHF antennas.

I know. I was one of the people doing it, at WXXI-TV in Rochester NY, where we ran ourselves ragged for months leading up to the conversion. We did at least two live half-hour TV specials (or was it three?), including one on the night before the analog shutdown, plus several open houses, a live Q&A session in the studio a few weeks before the changeover, plus a couple of live hours of radio call-ins and shorter TV and radio PSAs that ran so often that even I got sick of seeing myself on TV after a while. (You can see some of the "DTV Minutes" we did here: http://wxxi.org/dtv/videos.html ))

Oh, and there was a full-color insert into our program guide, and booths at several local festivals, and the toll-free hotline that started in early 2009 and ran past the second switchover date. (That one was done in collaboration with the commercial stations in the market, and was partly funded by a federal grant as part of the FCC's educational outreach efforts.)

And we sent our engineers out to points near and far to test the signal and to help viewers who still couldn't get things working on their own.

Was the process 100% perfect? Heck, no. But at least in our case, we certainly tried our best to get lots of accurate information out there.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom