• 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

What's changed?

N

NHRadio

Growing up in Peabody, MA in the 1970's we had just an old fashioned set-top rabbit ears and UHF loop. We got all the Boston stations and even Ch.27 was weak but watchable. If the weather was right we got 10 and 12 from RI.
Setting up a converter box for a friend less than a block from where I grew up a fairly expensive indoor VHF tunable antenna yielded no digital signals and only a barely watchable Ch. 7 in analog.
What happened to all these signals? Could the old tube sets be that much more sensitive than modern ones?
 
VHF antennas do nothing for digital, which is (for the moment) all UHF. Sounds like your friend needs a new antenna.

- Trip
 
Thanks, but why aren't the analog VHF's watchable? Granted, the last time I used an antenna was 1981 but all the VHF's were crystal clear then.
 
Well, the lower VHF stations deal with problems from electrical noise, though usually not enough to obliterate the signal. How old is this antenna he has? Something could be broken on it.

- Trip
 
I took him to a big box store and bought an RCA indoor VHF/UHF tunable antenna...cost about 20 bucks. I figured it's only about 20 miles...it'll be fine. How wrong I was. I exchanged it figuring it was defective. Nope. Same results.
Has electrical noise gotten so bad that everyone will need rooftop antennas even in Grade A coverage areas? Or are modern TV's deaf? Both? Neither?
 
I have parents in Lynnfield, MA just southwest of Peabody and they too have reception problems. Analog reception is not too bad with rabbit ears, they can receive all Boston stations with pretty good reception. Stations in southern New Hampshire are fuzzy (chs. 9, 50, 60, 21, and 11), and some Providence stations are very weak (chs. 10 and 12, very weak 64, and even weaker ch. 6). Go to digital, and they get most of the Boston stations with some dropouts (notably chs. 2, 4, 5, 7, 44) are very good, but chs. 25, 38, 56, 62 are a bit weaker. And stations in Worcester, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are never available. This is the future of TV reception especially after the February analog cutoff date. Digital television gives us a great picture and sound - but what good is that if you can not get the signal, so this new technology needs major improvements to be a great success as teh government is trying to convince us.
 
I think there is definitely something to be said for the points made in this thread. Allow me to indulge you in my experiences with OTA TV reception.

I used to reside in Manchester, CT, about 10 miles east of Hartford. Using an RCA Amplified Indoor antenna an apartment in a brick building, I was able to recieve very strong analog signals on all Hartford area channels, with a minimum of ghosting (3, 18, 24, 30, 61), New Haven (8, 59) & Waterbury (20) were pretty strong, with a minimum of ghosting, and watchable signals on Channels 22 & 40 from Springfield with some ghosting. Channel 57 in Springfield was weak. All things considered, pretty good results.

A few years ago, I relocated to Floral Park, NY (due to a job change), which is just outside Queens in Nassau County on Long Island, about 18 miles from Manhattan, as the crow flies. Given the performance of the set (Sony) & antenna I used in Manchester, I assumed that I would have very good reception on all the NYC locals...

This was true, but only on the UHF channels (21, 25, 31, 47, 68). The VHF channels were a completely different story. Channels 2 WCBS & 4 WNBC were barely watchable due to heavy RF interference. Channels 5,7, 11 & 13 were watchable but had interference & mild ghosting issues, and Channel 9 came in very strong with a minmum of interference.

For the record, I live 2 blocks from a Long Island Railroad station, where there are overhead electrical transformers used by the passing trains. I often wonder how much interference those babies throw off to create noisy VHF reception. Also given that I live a short distance from the town business center (which includes a few small medical & dental facilities) as well as the local police department, I wonder how much of a role the equipment used at these places of business affects VHF reception & throws out noise.

I have since upgraded to a DTV converter box (this TV is used only as a bedroom set, as opposed to my living room, where I use Direct TV), and the reception, needless to say, using the same antenna & TV, is crystal clear on all channels except 13 & 21 (which I expect will improve dramatically after the analog shutdown occurs, since both of these digital stations share UHF frequencies with analog Channel 61 in Hartford & analog Channel 22 in Springfield respectively).

- Kyle Bookholz
 
What kind of antenna?

What's the analog reception look like? WFXT-25 analog should be a fair indicator of what digital reception will be like. Should be relatively clean with few ghosts.

- Trip
 
I remember back in the 70's before we got cable tv,On channel 5 WNEW, at the time from ,New York was bombarded with alots of interference from bad car ignitions to mom running the vacuum and blender, dad cutting wood with his skilsaw. also me chatting on the ole CB radio.
 
If anyone's interested:
I tried with another TV and got 2, 4, and 7 fine. 5 and 68 were weak. Not sure what their DTV assignments are. Thats all. Guess it's time for a roof antenna.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom