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

[landtuna]

But at least in our case, we certainly tried our best to get lots of accurate information out there.

Kudos to you and your station. Unfortunately, that sort of information dissemination wasn't the norm - or even close to it.

I'm a pretty big news hound and followed the DTV conversion closely and I do not recall ever seeing:

1. Any notice of frequency change (and need for a different antenna). Not even any of the various converter boxes I bought have any relevant information.
2. Any notice of reduction in effective power.

But even the lack of information in those two items does not explain the many other problems DTV has in locations other than the one, single test location (the flat marshes of North Carolina if memory serves). Significant additional testing in real-world environments was required. I've always thought the feds said the 15% of OTA viewers just wasn't worth the expense.

 

[johnnyu]

Looks like we got the shaft again form our Congress.

 

[TexasTom]

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 you want to rephrase that as "...the MANY that can receive DTV..." then I'd agree. Because I'd say that the digital transition has worked for more viewers than it's not worked for.

 

[LibertyNT]

I think most of the stations in Dallas said
if they were changing frequencies or not.

4 and 5 for sure talked about it.
8 and 11 told you to rescan after the switch
(11 hadn't planned on keeping their UHF)

 

[landtuna]

I think most of the stations in Dallas said
if they were changing frequencies or not.

4 and 5 for sure talked about it.
8 and 11 told you to rescan after the switch
(11 hadn't planned on keeping their UHF)

I do remember the rescan messages but it said nothing about changing from VHF to UHF as many stations did (thus the antenna problem for many).

Also, only one of my four unique converter boxes shows the RF alongside the virtual channel. As it was not one of the more popular models I am assuming most people's boxes only showed the virtual channel which is useless in determining antenna type.

 

[landtuna]

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 you want to rephrase that as "...the MANY that can receive DTV..." then I'd agree. Because I'd say that the digital transition has worked for more viewers than it's not worked for.

I'll stick with my original statement thanks.

As I sit here tonight trying unsuccessfully to receive RF8 (which usually comes in fine during the day) I wonder which issue affects the signal tonight. No wind, rain, dust, sunshine, snow to be seen. Some wonderful technology indeed!

 

[cd637299]

I can get many more channels now with DTV.....of course, that's because analog didn't have subchannels.

Now to the corner.

cd

 

[fredcantu]

I guess we lucked out in Austin. We were a one-VHF market before the switch so everyone was setup for UHF. The only band-switcher was our Univision station which went from 62 to 13. But it's a rim shot supplemented by an in-town digital translator on UHF.

 

[KeithE4]

As I sit here tonight trying unsuccessfully to receive RF8 (which usually comes in fine during the day) I wonder which issue affects the signal tonight. No wind, rain, dust, sunshine, snow to be seen. Some wonderful technology indeed!

I was having the same problem with 12 last night during the football game. It would cut out for about 3-5 seconds every 5 minutes or so. Signal levels varied from "good" to "weak," when they normally are a consistent "excellent." It was already dark, so the sun wasn't an issue. This morning, it was back to normal.

 

[kenglish]

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 you want to rephrase that as "...the MANY that can receive DTV..." then I'd agree. Because I'd say that the digital transition has worked for more viewers than it's not worked for.

I'll stick with my original statement thanks.

As I sit here tonight trying unsuccessfully to receive RF8 (which usually comes in fine during the day) I wonder which issue affects the signal tonight. No wind, rain, dust, sunshine, snow to be seen. Some wonderful technology indeed!

You either have a marginal signal, and need a better (higher gain) antenna, or you are receiving your signal from a bounce or a sidelobe, and it (the bounce) changes as the atmosphere changes in the afternoon. Is your antenna aimed properly?

 

[kenglish]

We built a trailer with two HDTV sets in the back, about a year before the "switch".
The first time we used it, we had it inside a building at the State Fair, and put a tripod-mounted UHF Yagi on top. Marketing complained about having "such a huge antenna" on it, until someone at the Fair pointed out that the reason the (VHF-5) signal on the "analog" display TV looked so bad was because they had a UHF antenna feeding it.

Marketing then had us do some additional work, where we added a fold-down mast (it was actually a support for a Hummingbird Feeder), and a small antenna rotor, plus an "A/B" Switch, so we could flip between a VHF+UHF antenna and the small UHF Yagi.

No one ever used it much, though. They kept using an old tripod, wrapped in a piece of canvas, sitting on the ground. People often commented on the instability of the Digital signal. Sometimes they used the antenna INSIDE the metal trailer, with only a tiny bit of signal leaking in through the gaps.

Never did use any of the posters and handouts I made.

We did participate in numerous demos and Q and A sessions for Senator Hatch's office. Some of the crowds got rather hostile.

 

[landtuna]

You either have a marginal signal, and need a better (higher gain) antenna, or you are receiving your signal from a bounce or a sidelobe, and it (the bounce) changes as the atmosphere changes in the afternoon. Is your antenna aimed properly?

The loss of signal doesn't happen consistently and it appears to happen to other VHF's as well (as board member KeithE4 pointed out).

The antenna is pointed directly at the South Mountain antenna farm - about 8 miles line of sight.

 

[flashback]

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

the posts made earlier about how to aim the antenna and if the right antenna was connected to the set are examples of what i mean when i say good over the air reception should not such a problem or a need for so much research .

 

[jd]

Exactly. I don't have OTA digital and don't plan on getting it, since I spend most of my viewing time with the Travel Channel, Discovery or live sports. I have two friends who gave up on it, one with a pretty good outside antenna in the fringe area of the stations and the other with an indoor VHF/UHF combo antenna, less than 10 miles from the market's antenna farm. To me, if you can't get a decent signal from a station 10 miles away that's running 1,000,000 watts ERP something is desperately wrong.

 

[kenglish]

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

the posts made earlier about how to aim the antenna and if the right antenna was connected to the set are examples of what i mean when i say good over the air reception should not such a problem or a need for so much research .

If you can't bother with any of this, then you have to purchase Cable/Satellite, and let them take care of it for you.
That's what they are there for.

 

[KeithE4]

Exactly. I don't have OTA digital and don't plan on getting it, since I spend most of my viewing time with the Travel Channel, Discovery or live sports.

But that's a reason to keep cable. If it's worth the money to you, then by all means keep it. It wasn't worth the extra $85 to me since all I watched were the sports channels and CNN. I can watch games at my local bar, and can read CNN's website and watch whatever videos they have there. I still pay the $85 one way or another, but I have more fun at the bar than sitting at home by myself.

I have two friends who gave up on it, one with a pretty good outside antenna in the fringe area of the stations and the other with an indoor VHF/UHF combo antenna, less than 10 miles from the market's antenna farm. To me, if you can't get a decent signal from a station 10 miles away that's running 1,000,000 watts ERP something is desperately wrong.

Its success or failure depends on location. I have few problems despite what happened last night. Landtuna (who lives a few miles north and east of me) has more problems, but some of those might be due to his being in-line with South Mountain and the possibility of reflections off the mountain itself.

There are other potential issues that are market-specific: Co-located 100 kW FM transmitters causing tuners to overload is one issue (like here in Phoenix). Stations on adjacent channels could be another one (we don't have that problem here). Reflections off buildings, mountains, other houses, and even trees could be a problem. I don't care what the engineering specs say - multipath is still a disaster for DTV and the issue hasn't been fully addressed.

Digital TV is today where analog TV was in about 1953 - somewhat developed but more work is necessary to get the numerous bugs out. Testing was poorly done, despite there being plenty of time to do it right. Those who just can't get it to work may have to get cable/satellite, and that's just the way it goes.

As for me, I'm a test engineer (not in broadcasting). Part of my job is to analyze problems and come up with solutions. Not just sit there and whine "Waaah! It doesn't work!" Unfortunately, I don't have a $10K spectrum analyzer to really see why stations cut in and out, like KPNX/12 and KAET/8 did last night. But my cheap $40 converter box does have two signal indicators - strength and "quality." I'll have to hook it up and see which parameter is really changing over time.

 

[landtuna]

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

If you can't bother with any of this, then you have to purchase Cable/Satellite, and let them take care of it for you.
That's what they are there for.

I disagree. Neither cable nor sat have the PQ of primary OTA stations. They were originally intended as solutions for rural viewers who had no or limited access to OTA analog.

OTA viewers should not be second class citizens. DTV should, at a minimum, be "better" than the system it replaced. It is not.

 

[JHBrandt]

You either have a marginal signal, and need a better (higher gain) antenna, or you are receiving your signal from a bounce or a sidelobe, and it (the bounce) changes as the atmosphere changes in the afternoon. Is your antenna aimed properly?

The loss of signal doesn't happen consistently and it appears to happen to other VHF's as well (as board member KeithE4 pointed out).

The antenna is pointed directly at the South Mountain antenna farm - about 8 miles line of sight.

At 8 miles your signal should be plenty strong. QRM could be part of the problem, but that's less likely with VHF-Hi than VHF-Lo. (Still, it wouldn't hurt to try an FM trap anyway, just in case.)

But most likely, the problem is multipath. If so, you may want to aim your antenna not directly at the antenna farm, but rather off to one side. The idea is to minimize the strength of the reflection that's causing you trouble. Of course, you probably won't know where that reflection is coming from, so you may just have to experiment. With luck, you'll find an orientation for your antenna that produces a weaker, but much more stable, signal.

Another option would be to get an antenna that's "overkill" for your location. Higher-gain antennas are better at rejecting off-axis signals such as reflections. But make sure you aren't using an amplifier - at 8 miles a high-gain antenna could easily overload your receiver(s) if it were amplified.

 

[kenglish]

A huge antenna will often help (better directionality), but you may also want to add some attenuation to the line, to prevent overload. Attenuators are about a buck or so each.

If anybody wants to post some photos of their antennas (or, just give us the model numbers and manufacturers) along with a zip code (for RabbitEars or TVFool), and some info on what you've already got wired up, I'm sure people on the forums can help you with reception problems.