Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Jan 3, 2010, at 1:10 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: Ok that worked amazingly well. I now get a solid signal on both 5 and 9 with numbers in the high eighties. I had to put the pie pan on at a rakish angle and made a ring of tinfoil to hold up the pan. Good for you. Yes angles can be funny. A while back I knocked over my antenna and it was at about 45° pitch and yaw. Reception was much improved, but it really looked like I was a lazy housekeeper. The pie pan looks better. It did degrade the signal on a bunch of the MHZ stations but I don't speak Japanese or any of the other languages. I'm a news junkie and I find that MHz is my best source of news. US TV networks have mostly abandoned serious news for stories about kittens and handicapped children and cable is the land of screaming idiots. PBS has just cut back their news programming with more cuts to come. MHz has one great newscast after another. These are produced for a US audience so they cover as much or more US news as US networks, plus news of their countries, plus international news. I love it. I'm particularly impressed and surprised by Al Jazeera. Their English service is trying to out BBC the BBC. High quality and smart analysis with no propaganda. They also broadcast RT, which is a bit like Fox. Annoying disinformation. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 8:44 PM, John Duncan Yoyo johnduncany...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 5:12 PM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Jan 1, 2010, at 11:03 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: Apparently the FCC didn't test many if any digital VHF broadcasts when they were running both analog and digital. VHF has some nice propagation properties with requard to longer ranges that they wanted to keep but significant downsides in the digital transmission. During the test period they were on a UHF frequency for the digital test signal which worked better close in. I found that placing an aluminum pie pan on top of my fancy indoor antenna brought the signal strength for 9 from around 10 to around 80. Reception is now okay. An antenna with a tin foil hat. I'll try that with the pie pan I got laying around. Ok that worked amazingly well. I now get a solid signal on both 5 and 9 with numbers in the high eighties. I had to put the pie pan on at a rakish angle and made a ring of tinfoil to hold up the pan. It did degrade the signal on a bunch of the MHZ stations but I don't speak Japanese or any of the other languages. It is one of those UFO shaped round antennas that is designed to be external but I never needed to have outside. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:52 AM, t.piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:43 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: I'm pretty close to where you were in Vienna. When the switch over happened we lost the OTA digital signals for 5, 7 and 9. Now 7 is solid, 5 is spotty and 9 is non-existent on my brand new HDTV. Chanel 9 must be doing something wrong. I'm just south of Dupont Circle, about 60 feet off the ground with a fancy indoor antenna in the window. Many stations max out the meter at 100. The only station I consistently have trouble with is 9. 9 is a VHF signal and has trouble propagating as a digital signal. Apparently the FCC didn't test many if any digital VHF broadcasts when they were running both analog and digital. VHF has some nice propagation properties with requard to longer ranges that they wanted to keep but significant downsides in the digital transmission. During the test period they were on a UHF frequency for the digital test signal which worked better close in. I found an interesting soruce from the FCC for transmission maps. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
Really great site, thanks. Richard P. I found an interesting source from the FCC for transmission maps. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Jan 1, 2010, at 11:03 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: Apparently the FCC didn't test many if any digital VHF broadcasts when they were running both analog and digital. VHF has some nice propagation properties with requard to longer ranges that they wanted to keep but significant downsides in the digital transmission. During the test period they were on a UHF frequency for the digital test signal which worked better close in. I found that placing an aluminum pie pan on top of my fancy indoor antenna brought the signal strength for 9 from around 10 to around 80. Reception is now okay. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:43 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: I'm pretty close to where you were in Vienna. When the switch over happened we lost the OTA digital signals for 5, 7 and 9. Now 7 is solid, 5 is spotty and 9 is non-existent on my brand new HDTV. Chanel 9 must be doing something wrong. I'm just south of Dupont Circle, about 60 feet off the ground with a fancy indoor antenna in the window. Many stations max out the meter at 100. The only station I consistently have trouble with is 9. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:43 PM, John Duncan Yoyo johnduncany...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pretty close to where you were in Vienna. When the switch over happened we lost the OTA digital signals for 5, 7 and 9. Now 7 is solid, 5 is spotty and 9 is non-existent on my brand new HDTV. Digital TV tuners are all over the place in terms of sensitivity and being able to provide for high quality images. The only way for a consumer to find out how well any set will be able to receive broadcasts is to read up on user reports. No manufacturer that I know of provides any info about their tuner section. They overemphasize such things as contrast ratio, LCD response times, viewing angle, how slim and sleek the set is, leaving out the most important aspect of them all which is how well the set receives and displays the TV signal. One set I have can get no more than around half of the channels I can receive on another, and with both using the same antenna system. If you cannot even receive the station to begin with, all that stuff about viewing angles and contrast ratio is pretty meaningless. Additionally, and from what I found out in my quest for information about what sets have the best tuners, it appears as though the price of the set has little bearing on the issue, and neither does the brand name, although some brands appear to use better tuners than do other brands. Not surprisingly, some of the more popular and recognizable brands seem to have the worst tuner sections even though the quality of their display may be somewhat better. One TV brand stood out in stark contrast to all the others in the online research I did on tuner sections, and I needed to do that research given how far I live from station transmitters. Toshiba was, by far, the most mentioned brand when it came to tuner quality and sensitivity. In fact, Toshiba was the one and only brand that I ever came across where users would typically praise the tuner when writing reviews. I read not a single review of any other brand of TV set where specific mention was made about how excellent the tuner was. Most reviews that even mentioned tuners, and they were very few in number, would use terms such as adequate or works okay or typical sensitivity. User reviews that compared one set to another always said that Toshiba came out on top in tuner sensitivity. Strangely, when converter boxes became available, tuner sensitivity was a much reviewed aspect of those devices. I suppose that was because at the time of the transition, it was assumed that viewers would expect the ability to get all the stations they had become accustomed to receiving. When I got my converter box, I made sure that I got the one that had the highest rated tuner section. The Toshiba set that I eventually bought after moving out to Fauquier County clearly matches the tuner sensitivity of that converter box, and appears to somewhat exceed it. I still use that converter box with one older analog set, and on the same antenna system, the Toshiba set gets every station the box receives, and often a bit more. I had been using a simple bow tie antenna and a digital tuner box with the antenna laying behind the TV now I have a better antenna which is amplified in my house slightly above where the bow tie was. I will put up an external antenna eventually but It is a back up. An external antenna is the way to go because at the frequencies these TV signal use, they do not have a lot of ability to penetrate solid surfaces such as walls, and especially the stations that employ UHF frequencies. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
Here's another weird case: we can GET 4, 5, 7, and 9, but we can't RECORD from 7 (and probably 9). (We live in Aspen Hill, near the intersection of Georgia and Connecticut.) We have a combined VCR-DVD player and recorder that has never refused to do our bidding before. I wonder if the signal strength has something to do with this, or if it's a quirk of the VCR. (At least, we get those stations when there isn't traffic in the street outside. It's remarkable how you get used to sudden interruptions in what you're watching, when the picture suddenly pixillates into strange patterns, or disappears entirely.) --Constance Warner On Dec 31, 2009, at 8:52 AM, t.piwowar wrote: On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:43 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: I'm pretty close to where you were in Vienna. When the switch over happened we lost the OTA digital signals for 5, 7 and 9. Now 7 is solid, 5 is spotty and 9 is non-existent on my brand new HDTV. Chanel 9 must be doing something wrong. I'm just south of Dupont Circle, about 60 feet off the ground with a fancy indoor antenna in the window. Many stations max out the meter at 100. The only station I consistently have trouble with is 9. ** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** ** *** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
Constance would you believe that, that still happens to us and we have cable? It has something to do with the local TV stations and our Cable company but occasionally we still get pixalization and dropped signal on broadcast programs. Right when they get interesting. Stewart At 10:03 AM 12/31/2009, you wrote: (At least, we get those stations when there isn't traffic in the street outside. It's remarkable how you get used to sudden interruptions in what you're watching, when the picture suddenly pixillates into strange patterns, or disappears entirely.) --Constance Warner * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net wrote: It is a commentary on what TV's are bought for nowadays that emphasizes everything but the tuner. I do not disagree with you at all. In the US by far the largest percentage of viewers receive their TV through another medium other than broadcasting. Dish or Cable. (FIOS is not a huge player yet.) So TV's emphasize how well they play someone else's content. Plus the proliferation of DVD players etc. TV's are mainly display screens on a larger format. Manufactures do not really count on you having to pull in TV stations with their tuner. If a device is marketed and sold as being a television, then it is a current requirement of United States law that it be equipped with a digital tuner. That being the case, any piece of crap tuner will fill the bill since there are no governmental or even industry standards that specify how sensitive or how well a tuner actually has to be able to perform. Now, if a video display device is marketed and sold as a monitor, it does not have to have any sort of tuner at all. However, most folks in the United States would not even understand what a monitor is, and such a term would be confusing and confounding to them. Therefore, and although they are more costly to make by virtue of having to have a tuner, almost all video display devices that are sold, including those intended solely to display content that is not over-the-air TV, are marketed as being televisions. I have no seen a CR magazine in a little while but do you know if they even reviewed the Tuners on LCD TV's? I know of none. However, as I stated earlier, tuner sections were fairly heavily reviewed when it came to converter boxes, but I think that was only due to the initial desires of viewers to be able to get the same stations they had become accustomed to being able to receive under the old analog system. As you pointed out already, most folks buy a television set these days and then never use the TV side of it at all. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Constance Warner cawar...@his.com wrote: Here's another weird case: we can GET 4, 5, 7, and 9, but we can't RECORD from 7 (and probably 9). (We live in Aspen Hill, near the intersection of Georgia and Connecticut.) We have a combined VCR-DVD player and recorder that has never refused to do our bidding before. I wonder if the signal strength has something to do with this, or if it's a quirk of the VCR. Your recorder should record, even if there is pixellation taking place or no image at all. I dunno what is going on in your case. Is this a stand-alone recorder that is taking a feed from video and audio outputs of your TV receiver? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
It is a stand-alone recorder that won't record Channel 7 (but, fortunately, does record most everything else). It just doesn't seem to accept the signal from Channel 7. --Constance On Dec 31, 2009, at 12:53 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Constance Warner cawar...@his.com wrote: Here's another weird case: we can GET 4, 5, 7, and 9, but we can't RECORD from 7 (and probably 9). (We live in Aspen Hill, near the intersection of Georgia and Connecticut.) We have a combined VCR-DVD player and recorder that has never refused to do our bidding before. I wonder if the signal strength has something to do with this, or if it's a quirk of the VCR. Your recorder should record, even if there is pixellation taking place or no image at all. I dunno what is going on in your case. Is this a stand-alone recorder that is taking a feed from video and audio outputs of your TV receiver? Steve ** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** ** *** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Constance Warner cawar...@his.com wrote: It is a stand-alone recorder that won't record Channel 7 (but, fortunately, does record most everything else). It just doesn't seem to accept the signal from Channel 7. Quite strange if it is receiving video from a composite video output. Does it get the sound? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
Speaking personally, it does not matter to me if TV broadcasting is ended. With the switch from analog to digital, I am able to receive only two local digital broadcasts despite having a very large VHF-UHF antenna mounted 10 feet above the roof of my 2-story house. I dwell in Vienna, VA, which is on the Capital Beltway only 10 miles from the transmission towers. Prior to the switch, I could receive at least 14 TV broadcasts. Effectively, TV broadcasting is ended for me and I must rely on cable for TV viewing. I don't know how important TV broadcasting is in smaller cities or in rural areas. Perhaps it is more important there. There are still some good programs on broadcast TV. I think the telcos don't like it because they can't make money from free broadcast television, so they invent a problem that doesn't exist [like PHARMA does]--bandwidth needed from DTV, and use that for an excuse to kill broadcast TV--even though they're obviously lying about needing the bandwidth from the TV spectrum. When digital TV first started broadcasting last Winter, we could get one, maybe two channels, using a converter box. Then we got a Radio Shack U-75R outdoor antenna for $35 and installed it in the attic, plus got a deal on a 24 digital TV to put upstairs. With a bit of manipulation, we have the antenna pointed so that we can get at least 20 channels, including the secondary channels, and Univision. We're happy. With cable or satellite, we could get either Philly or Baltimore stations, not both, but most come in using the new antenna. There are several videos on YouTube and elsewhere that show how to make a digital antenna--CHEAP. Here are some good instructions, follow measurements carefully: http://www.tvantennaplans.com/. Robert - we live near Elkton, Maryland, much further from TV towers than where you live. Buy or make an antenna. Use it with a TV that has a good digital tuner, or with a good converter box. New TV is good, http://is.gd/5Ihpu- . Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:40 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: If broadcast TV is forced to undergo yet another transition, That would be the death of broadcasting. I wonder if this isn't just a scheme by cell providers to force stations to rent space on their towers. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
At 12:18 PM 12/30/2009, tjpa wrote: On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:40 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: If broadcast TV is forced to undergo yet another transition, That would be the death of broadcasting. I wonder if this isn't just a scheme by cell providers to force stations to rent space on their towers. Highly likely. Fred Holmes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: I wonder if this isn't just a scheme by cell providers to force stations to rent space on their towers. I do not think that cell providers can force placement of their antennas on anyone or anywhere...at least not yet. The FCC has already said that they would consider such a TV broadcasting scheme in order to provide for more frequencies to be be effectively used by the cell industry. However, I do not think that the FCC intended for TV broadcasters to have to make their initial changeover to digital as it transpired, and then to have to set up an entirely different scheme shortly thereafter just to satisfy cell providers. The FCC pretty clearly wanted it to be one way or the other from the outset, and all parties agreed to the plan that was adopted, including those who got that old TV spectrum, which includes cell providers. But, cell companies now want to provide so many additional services that they are crying for more frequencies. They are not really responding to demands on the part of the public, but rather to their own greedy desires to sell more services that they are conjuring up as they claw each other to pieces in their quests for market domination. Folks who simply want to be able to continue to enjoy free TV should not be the ones to have to bear the consequences, not should it be on the backs of the broadcast TV industry. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
Speaking personally, it does not matter to me if TV broadcasting is ended. With the switch from analog to digital, I am able to receive only two local digital broadcasts despite having a very large VHF-UHF antenna mounted 10 feet above the roof of my 2-story house. I dwell in Vienna, VA, which is on the Capital Beltway only 10 miles from the transmission towers. Prior to the switch, I could receive at least 14 TV broadcasts. Effectively, TV broadcasting is ended for me and I must rely on cable for TV viewing. I don't know how important TV broadcasting is in smaller cities or in rural areas. Perhaps it is more important there. phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Broadcast television is likely to undergo yet another major change similar to what was seen as it transitioned from analog to digital about a year ago. Cellular providers are arguing for yet even more bandwidth, and this time they want TV broadcasters to give up spectrum yet again. Cellular providers argue that digital TV transmissions are preventing them from using adjacent frequencies that could be made available for mobile data devices, commonly referred to as cell phones. ATT, Sprint, et al, say that TV broadcasts from single locations upon tall towers radiate spurious signals that can mess with cellular transmissions on nearby frequencies. They want TV broadcasters to switch to low power antennas that are scattered throughout the coverage area of the various TV stations. The FCC earlier had given tacit approval to such a scheme, but because of serious technical difficulties associated with such a plan, along with much higher cost, such a plan was, for the most part, not employed when TV switched from analog to digital. However, cellular providers now have their undies in a knit because they are finding they they are promising much more than they can actually deliver with the situation as it currently stands. If broadcast TV is forced to undergo yet another transition, this time it could have quite an impact upon that industry. Viewers have been through this once already, and will probably react unfavorably is they have to go through it yet again. Multiple transmission sites will create a lot of problems for both the stations as well as viewers. Signals that arrive at a TV receiving antenna from multiple directions, which would be the case in most scenarios where a number of separate transmitters are being used, will cause multipath interference, resulting in ghosting of images, echo effects, even loss of signal when out-of-phase signals collide. In many markets, dependent in great part upon the lay of the land, the expected quality of digital broadcast can be severely eroded, and there will not be much that can be done about it. Broadcasters can make some signal adjustments at the various broadcasting antenna sites that they would be using, but those adjustments would basically be of a one size fits all type that could fix problems for some viewers while leaving others still dealing with a mess. An awful lot of consumers have sunk a lot of money into new digital televisions, and they want and expect to get the quality images that they have paid to be able to receive. Many viewers re going to be plenty upset if this change comes to pass, and cable and satellite TV companies are already salivating and licking their lips in anticipation. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
We haven't touched broadcast TV for over a decade at least. On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Robert Carroll carrollcompu...@gmail.comwrote: Speaking personally, it does not matter to me if TV broadcasting is ended. With the switch from analog to digital, I am able to receive only two local digital broadcasts despite having a very large VHF-UHF antenna mounted 10 feet above the roof of my 2-story house. I dwell in Vienna, VA, which is on the Capital Beltway only 10 miles from the transmission towers. Prior to the switch, I could receive at least 14 TV broadcasts. Effectively, TV broadcasting is ended for me and I must rely on cable for TV viewing. I don't know how important TV broadcasting is in smaller cities or in rural areas. Perhaps it is more important there. phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Broadcast television is likely to undergo yet another major change similar to what was seen as it transitioned from analog to digital about a year ago. Cellular providers are arguing for yet even more bandwidth, and this time they want TV broadcasters to give up spectrum yet again. Cellular providers argue that digital TV transmissions are preventing them from using adjacent frequencies that could be made available for mobile data devices, commonly referred to as cell phones. ATT, Sprint, et al, say that TV broadcasts from single locations upon tall towers radiate spurious signals that can mess with cellular transmissions on nearby frequencies. They want TV broadcasters to switch to low power antennas that are scattered throughout the coverage area of the various TV stations. The FCC earlier had given tacit approval to such a scheme, but because of serious technical difficulties associated with such a plan, along with much higher cost, such a plan was, for the most part, not employed when TV switched from analog to digital. However, cellular providers now have their undies in a knit because they are finding they they are promising much more than they can actually deliver with the situation as it currently stands. If broadcast TV is forced to undergo yet another transition, this time it could have quite an impact upon that industry. Viewers have been through this once already, and will probably react unfavorably is they have to go through it yet again. Multiple transmission sites will create a lot of problems for both the stations as well as viewers. Signals that arrive at a TV receiving antenna from multiple directions, which would be the case in most scenarios where a number of separate transmitters are being used, will cause multipath interference, resulting in ghosting of images, echo effects, even loss of signal when out-of-phase signals collide. In many markets, dependent in great part upon the lay of the land, the expected quality of digital broadcast can be severely eroded, and there will not be much that can be done about it. Broadcasters can make some signal adjustments at the various broadcasting antenna sites that they would be using, but those adjustments would basically be of a one size fits all type that could fix problems for some viewers while leaving others still dealing with a mess. An awful lot of consumers have sunk a lot of money into new digital televisions, and they want and expect to get the quality images that they have paid to be able to receive. Many viewers re going to be plenty upset if this change comes to pass, and cable and satellite TV companies are already salivating and licking their lips in anticipation. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Robert Carroll carrollcompu...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking personally, it does not matter to me if TV broadcasting is ended. I do not think that there is any imminent danger of over-the-air TV coming to an end as a result of the cellular industry trying to grab more spectrum. Chances are they are not going to get what they want from the FCC, at least not under the current administration. Not to mention that too much has already been invested in the current system by the TV broadcasters, the viewing public as well as government. With the switch from analog to digital, I am able to receive only two local digital broadcasts despite having a very large VHF-UHF antenna mounted 10 feet above the roof of my 2-story house. I dwell in Vienna, VA, which is on the Capital Beltway only 10 miles from the transmission towers. Prior to the switch, I could receive at least 14 TV broadcasts. Effectively, TV broadcasting is ended for me and I must rely on cable for TV viewing. I lived in Dunn Loring, just outside Vienna, as the transition to digital took place. I had an antenna at ground level in a low spot, yet could get all the local digital broadcasts. There would be occasional interference from passing vehicles and aircraft due to multipath, but I did get the stations, even Baltimore on occasion. I now live out in Fauquier County and can still get all the local DC stations, sometimes Baltimore and even Charlottesville, Petersburg and Richmond occasionally with the same antenna, albeit roof mounted now. Perhaps you are just in a bad location for general reception, there is something amiss in your antenna system, or your tuner is not as good as it could be. It is hard to get info on tuner specifications, but under digital broadcasting, that component is much more important than it ever was under analog broadcasting. I dunno, but you should be able to get better reception than what you have indicated. How do any of your neighbors fare? A lot of folks used those analog to digital converters when the switch to digital first happened, and there are now many of them just laying around as users of those boxes eventually bought digital TV receivers. See if you can beg or borrow one from somebody, hook it up to your antenna, plug it into your set and see how well it receives the local stations. If it gets better reception that what you are currently using, that could mean that your tuner is weak. Better reception, but yet not great, could still mean there a problem with your antenna system and it is not providing sufficient signal. I don't know how important TV broadcasting is in smaller cities or in rural areas. Perhaps it is more important there. Over-the-air TV can be important in rural areas because, for the most part, those portions of the country are devoid of cable providers. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: We haven't touched broadcast TV for over a decade at least. For me, TV isn't really all that great anyway, be it over-the-air, cable or satellite. I like OTA TV because I do not have to pay a monthly fee to see mostly mediocre stuff. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Here we go again....
I'm pretty close to where you were in Vienna. When the switch over happened we lost the OTA digital signals for 5, 7 and 9. Now 7 is solid, 5 is spotty and 9 is non-existent on my brand new HDTV. I had been using a simple bow tie antenna and a digital tuner box with the antenna laying behind the TV now I have a better antenna which is amplified in my house slightly above where the bow tie was. I will put up an external antenna eventually but It is a back up. On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:42 PM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Robert Carroll carrollcompu...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking personally, it does not matter to me if TV broadcasting is ended. I do not think that there is any imminent danger of over-the-air TV coming to an end as a result of the cellular industry trying to grab more spectrum. Chances are they are not going to get what they want from the FCC, at least not under the current administration. Not to mention that too much has already been invested in the current system by the TV broadcasters, the viewing public as well as government. With the switch from analog to digital, I am able to receive only two local digital broadcasts despite having a very large VHF-UHF antenna mounted 10 feet above the roof of my 2-story house. I dwell in Vienna, VA, which is on the Capital Beltway only 10 miles from the transmission towers. Prior to the switch, I could receive at least 14 TV broadcasts. Effectively, TV broadcasting is ended for me and I must rely on cable for TV viewing. I lived in Dunn Loring, just outside Vienna, as the transition to digital took place. I had an antenna at ground level in a low spot, yet could get all the local digital broadcasts. There would be occasional interference from passing vehicles and aircraft due to multipath, but I did get the stations, even Baltimore on occasion. I now live out in Fauquier County and can still get all the local DC stations, sometimes Baltimore and even Charlottesville, Petersburg and Richmond occasionally with the same antenna, albeit roof mounted now. Perhaps you are just in a bad location for general reception, there is something amiss in your antenna system, or your tuner is not as good as it could be. It is hard to get info on tuner specifications, but under digital broadcasting, that component is much more important than it ever was under analog broadcasting. I dunno, but you should be able to get better reception than what you have indicated. How do any of your neighbors fare? A lot of folks used those analog to digital converters when the switch to digital first happened, and there are now many of them just laying around as users of those boxes eventually bought digital TV receivers. See if you can beg or borrow one from somebody, hook it up to your antenna, plug it into your set and see how well it receives the local stations. If it gets better reception that what you are currently using, that could mean that your tuner is weak. Better reception, but yet not great, could still mean there a problem with your antenna system and it is not providing sufficient signal. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
