Q: Is Digital over-the-air reception worse than Analog?

[[email protected]]

In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
(a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
(b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.

Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)

Any truth to that?


I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.

[Obveeus]

> wrote:
> Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
> these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
> will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
>
> Any truth to that?

That is how it works with a cable box. Analog cable with 'bad reception'
equals ghosting. Digital cable with 'bad reception' equals a blank blue
screen.

With cable, the solution is to demand the problem gets fixed and keep
demanding it until the cable company finally gives up and hires an outside
company to fix the problem they are unable to fix with their own lines.

With over-the-air digital, your guess is as good as mine as to whom you
could complain to. Basically, if lots of people in your area have the
problem, it will likely get fixed. The fewer the number of people with the
problem, the more likely they are to just write you off completely. So, if
you live in a canyon or on the wrong side of a big building or something,
you are screwed.

[Mark]

On Jan 24, 11:32 am, wrote:
> In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
> Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
> (a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
> (b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.
>
Multiple images does not mean the signal is too strong, it means the
signal is reflected and gets to you via several paths.

What kind of antenna are you using?

Is it aimed at the station?

A directional antenna aimed at the station may help you.

Digital TV can work with weak signals and is designed to reject
reflections but there is a limit to how strong the reflections can be
before the signal is unusable...

this is a simplified explination..
Mark

[[email protected]]

Obveeus wrote:
> > wrote:
> > Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users,
> > many of these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The
> > digital decoder will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
> > Any truth to that?
>
> With over-the-air digital, your guess is as good as mine as to
> whom you could complain to. Basically, if lots of people in
> your area have the problem, it will likely get fixed.

You can't really "fix" over-the-air reception. It depends upon Nature
and nobody controls nature. Result: Sometimes I can watch channel 17
even though its sixty miles away. And sometimes I can't. It varies
with the weather.



I just checked www.antennaweb.com ---- doesn't really answer my
question of "Will I be able to receive weak stations?" But I did
notice some oddball things. A lot of the analog stations don't seem to
have a digital equivalent. In other words, they're not listed for my
17602 zipcode.

WTXF-29, WPSG-57, WPHL-17 (my only MNT affiliate), WITF-33, WHP-21,
WBAL-11, WJZ-13, WHYY-12 (pbs/classic movies channel)

So if I switch to a Digital Set, these stations will just disappear &
I'll never be able to watch them again. That kinda sucks. :-|

[Richard Crowley]

> wrote...
> In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
> Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
> (a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
> (b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.
>
> Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
> these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
> will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
>
> Any truth to that?
>
> I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
> Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
> may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
> a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.

I expect that digital television will be significantly worse
(i.e. nonexistent) compared to analog for marginal and DX
(long-distance) reception.

While there is some advantage to digital in terms of ability
to recover the data in less-than-ideal conditions, I suspect
that they will set the threshold pretty high (meaning only
good, strong, local stations) to avoid customer complaints.
DX performance has never been a "deliverable" for main-
stream consumer vendors.

Enjoy your DX while we are in the last days of analog
terrestrial broadcasting. It will be dead in a few years.
The FCC is already auctioning off the bandwidth to other
services.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>I just checked www.antennaweb.com ---- doesn't really answer my
>question of "Will I be able to receive weak stations?" But I did
>notice some oddball things. A lot of the analog stations don't seem to
>have a digital equivalent. In other words, they're not listed for my
>17602 zipcode.

The answer depends a huge amount on your antenna and your receiver.

>WTXF-29, WPSG-57, WPHL-17 (my only MNT affiliate), WITF-33, WHP-21,
>WBAL-11, WJZ-13, WHYY-12 (pbs/classic movies channel)
>
>So if I switch to a Digital Set, these stations will just disappear &
>I'll never be able to watch them again. That kinda sucks. :-|

Some stations have yet to move to digital, although the clock is ticking
down on them. However, if you get a digital set, most of them have some
limited ability to get analogue channels as well.

Note that most TV sets have lousy tuners that are designed as an afterthought,
with poor sensitivity and selectivity. This is because everyone is expected
to have cable today. Check out the RF section on a typical 1970 television
and a typical modern television and the degree things have regressed is
shocking.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Obveeus]

> wrote:

> Obveeus wrote:
>> With over-the-air digital, your guess is as good as mine as to
>> whom you could complain to. Basically, if lots of people in
>> your area have the problem, it will likely get fixed.
>
> You can't really "fix" over-the-air reception. It depends upon Nature
> and nobody controls nature.

Not true. If you live near another 100,000 people with the same problem,
the chances are pretty good that the station will put in a bigger
transmitter to reach you or atleast some sort of relay signal boosting
transmitter in your area (subject to whatever laws apply, of course). On
the other hand, if there are only a few hundred of you, the station really
isn't going to care and you are out of luck.

Realistically, I'm not sure this problem is any different than the coverage
for cell phones. If enough people live in a specific area, providers will
make sure the signal gets to that area. If not enough people live in that
area to make a tower/booster/whatever profitable, then those people are out
of luck...forever.

[UCLAN]

wrote:

> I just checked www.antennaweb.com ---- doesn't really answer my
> question of "Will I be able to receive weak stations?" But I did
> notice some oddball things. A lot of the analog stations don't seem to
> have a digital equivalent. In other words, they're not listed for my
> 17602 zipcode.
>
> WTXF-29, WPSG-57, WPHL-17 (my only MNT affiliate), WITF-33, WHP-21,
> WBAL-11, WJZ-13, WHYY-12 (pbs/classic movies channel)
>
> So if I switch to a Digital Set, these stations will just disappear &
> I'll never be able to watch them again. That kinda sucks. :-|

Tuners in digital TVs also still receive analog NTSC signals as well.
So, you will still receive those analog signals as long as the station
continues to transmit them.

[Daniel Mandic]

wrote:

> I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
> Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
> may have been the better system after all, since it will always
> produce a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.


I know Analog TV (PAL), since I can think.
The last big discussions about its quality I cannot understand. It's a
good invention, in this Times, IMO.

Of course, HDTV 1080 on a biiiig screen may impress in the first
moments, but it cannot hide its digital source. (lags, still pictures,
krrkkrzzz pppeeep and other stories. Sometimes it works for hours
seemingly error-free, but it isn't. A stable analog Cable-Station is
more reliable! Also a good antenna and a CAPABLE TV-Station, as well,
of course...)

Animations and deep-picture impression is still better on PAL/NTSC.
Don't forget, you get a double picture with the half of picture-data
(lines, of course). Makes a total of 4x :)
Not to forget the 'analogue harmonic distortions', when having a bad
reception, which is a watchable picture even if reception is not ideal.

I have here Cable TV, with an outstanding analog Quality. I can watch
5H Snooker in Eurosport w/o one receptable error.
That's not the Imperfect World I know, going with Digital TV.

Well, that's my taste. Someone likes the sharp and sterile Pictures and
can live with some errors a day...
not my case.

Interesting that a cracking, or slightly cracking Record (LP) does not
disturb me, but a lagging TV do so. I think a Record does supercede
that mistake with outstanding music-playback quality. The same goes to
Analog TV, IMO.
Although, Digital TV is cracking more than Analog TV :), on the other
side....



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Daniel Mandic]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Note that most TV sets have lousy tuners that are designed as an
> afterthought, with poor sensitivity and selectivity. This is because
> everyone is expected to have cable today. Check out the RF section
> on a typical 1970 television and a typical modern television and the
> degree things have regressed is shocking.
> --scott


Hi Scott!


I like to watch TV via my S-VHS Recorder. The picture gets even more
chubby and I like the deep-black, which let me seperate the analog
colours easier.

Sharp? What's that :)..... 80x192?
Gr.Mode 7, ATARI VCS?? :))))
Better lines than pixel. Half-way more towards the Real, in my Eyes.


Of course, a big Antenna (~1 yard :)) receipting from a well equipped
TV-Station is the real thing.
My biggest Antenna have been an indoor-aerial of the seventies. I had
the idea to clean that antenna with chrome/copper-polish to increase
the magnetic-flow.
Funny, after that I felt current, touching by both Hands on the broad
sides/wings (Aluminium).

After all, I am very satisfied with Analog Cable, except the one time,
they have placed stations from digital-cable, into the analog-cable. It
lasted some weeks...

The Trials to annihilate Analog TV (cutting BigHouse-Antennas; changing
analog recepting House-dishes to digital. No, they do not place a
second dish, just exchanging, and you can toast your Analog Receiver
next morning... Best on a <200W Digital receiver [of course no place,
or no direction to put your own dish. Or no allowance to montage one,
at all]; Putting digital pictures into analog-cable, having seperate
big-dishes for analog satellites; Digitizing-Fond -my Money; etc.), are
almost Mad to me.



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

[UCLAN]

wrote:

> In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
> Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
> (a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
> (b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.
>
> Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
> these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
> will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
>
> Any truth to that?

It depends on your antenna. The digital signal will not "fade out"
as does an analog signal. It will either be there, or it won't - with
a rather nasty period of "pixelization" or "freeze-frame" at the
weakest possible signal point (before it completely disappears.)

> I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
> Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
> may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
> a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.

Your digital TV will also receive those analog signals.

[UCLAN]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> A different, but more relevant subject to this forum

To what forum? This thread - as well as your response - was
cross posted to FOUR newsgroups, three of which were video
related. If you consider the Dolby 5.1 being transmitted with
many digital TV stations, it's an audio subject as well.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/24/2007, posted this:
> In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
> Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
> (a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.

A minor correction here. The multiple images are not due to a strong
signal but to a multipath signal. Because of "reflectors" in your area
(i.e., things such as tall buildings that literally reflect the TV
signal), you are getting the signal directly from the station's antenna
and also getting one or more reflected signals. Of course, the
reflected signals, since they are coming to you over a longer path,
take longer to get to your receiving antenna and show up therefore as a
ghost of the first signal.

The presence of signals coming to you over two or more paths is the
reason the phenomenon is called "multipath", naturally.

I always enjoy it when the most noticeable reflection is from an
airplane flying nearby - the ghost can vary in strength and timing,
making for a kind of dance on the screen. I've got a touch of
masochism, I guess.

<SNIP>

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> > wrote...
>
>>In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
>>Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
>>(a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
>>(b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.
>>
>>Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
>>these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
>>will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
>>
>>Any truth to that?
>>
>>I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
>>be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
>>Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
>>may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
>>a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
>
>
> I expect that digital television will be significantly worse
> (i.e. nonexistent) compared to analog for marginal and DX
> (long-distance) reception.
>
> While there is some advantage to digital in terms of ability
> to recover the data in less-than-ideal conditions, I suspect
> that they will set the threshold pretty high (meaning only
> good, strong, local stations) to avoid customer complaints.
> DX performance has never been a "deliverable" for main-
> stream consumer vendors.
>

It was for radio stations WSM and KVOO.

> Enjoy your DX while we are in the last days of analog
> terrestrial broadcasting. It will be dead in a few years.
> The FCC is already auctioning off the bandwidth to other
> services.
>
>

The region I am in now gets roughly 25 HD channels, on a
rooftop antenna. That's actually an improvement over
NTSC, unless you put up a big mast to beat curvature.

--
Les Cargill

[Julian]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:57:08 -0500, "Obveeus" > wrote:

>
> wrote:
>> You can't really "fix" over-the-air reception. It depends upon Nature
>> and nobody controls nature.
>
>Not true. If you live near another 100,000 people with the same problem,
>the chances are pretty good that the station will put in a bigger
>transmitter to reach you or atleast some sort of relay signal boosting
>transmitter in your area (subject to whatever laws apply, of course). On
>the other hand, if there are only a few hundred of you, the station really
>isn't going to care and you are out of luck.

It doesn't work that way. At least not in the US. I don't know which
country's broadcast laws you are referring to. In the US the
broadcast bands are so clogged for any medium or large sized city and
most rural areas too fro that matter that boosting power is not an
option. The existing facilities have used up all the bandwidth that
is available and any further power increases would just interfere with
other already licensed operations.

>Realistically, I'm not sure this problem is any different than the coverage
>for cell phones. If enough people live in a specific area, providers will
>make sure the signal gets to that area. If not enough people live in that
>area to make a tower/booster/whatever profitable, then those people are out
>of luck...forever.

No, it is far different. the cell phone bandwidth is not used up and
what you say is possible for cell phone service, but not possible for
broadcast service.

Julian

[Peter Kendell]

My experience, derived from 4+ years of watching DTT in the UK, is that the
digital service is generally superior to analogue; and this despite the low
ERPs emitted by digital transmitters in the currrent digital / analogue
hybrid situation. I expect the service to improve when the analogue
transmitters are switched off and the digital transmitters can output at
full power.

....Peter

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
> Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
> (a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
> (b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.
>
> Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
> these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
> will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
>
> Any truth to that?
>
>
> I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
> Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
> may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
> a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
>

[Daniel Mandic]

Peter Kendell wrote:

> > I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no
> > longer be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
> > Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
> > may have been the better system after all, since it will always
> > produce a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
> >


What helps that, when it's received half-powered??

I mean, you need extra power at home, to receive something at all. How
much Power do you need more????????

When the digital TV were effective as the digital usenet is, I would
say nothing, but so it is just a waste of energy and in my Eyes a more
worse quality as well....
even if it were better (which is impossible with digital tech, so far
the CPU is not becoming infinite fast)... the argument stays: "analog
is cheaper and quite well!". More 'Modern'... etc.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:32:14 -0500, wrote
(in article . com>):

> In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
> Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
> (a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
> (b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.
>
> Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
> these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
> will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
>
> Any truth to that?
>
>
> I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
> Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
> may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
> a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
>

There is no such thing as a digital antenna for Digital TV. That's all hype.

Digital TV does mute (blank) when multipath confuses the receiver front end.
I get that here in Baltimore with my HDTV receiver where I'm about 8 miles
from TV Hill.

I went to a set of rabbit ears to reduce the amount of RF getting to the
receiver and that fixed the problem. Rabbit ear placement is critical and it
took a bit of experimentation to get the right spot.

Try rabbit ears for the local OTA stuff.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[[email protected]]

UCLAN wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > WTXF-29, WPSG-57, WPHL-17 (my only MNT affiliate), WITF-33, WHP-21,
> > WBAL-11, WJZ-13, WHYY-12 (pbs/classic movies channel)
> > So if I switch to a Digital Set, these stations will just disappear
> > & I'll never be able to watch them again. That kinda sucks. :-|
>
> Tuners in digital TVs also still receive analog NTSC signals



But after Feb 2009, all those stations will disappear. I won't be able
to receive them via the Digital tuner, because the signal is too weak.

Man. Digital sucks. I liked Analog better... fuzzy but I could still
watch Baltimore/Philly stations.

;-)

[[email protected]]

Les Cargill wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> > Enjoy your DX while we are in the last days of analog
> > terrestrial broadcasting. It will be dead in a few years.
>
> The region I am in now gets roughly 25 HD channels, on a
> rooftop antenna. That's actually an improvement over
> NTSC......


Hmmm. How many do you get with the Analog tuner?

I'm using nothing exotic - just a setup antenna. And I can receive 15
analog stations. According to antennaweb, that number will drop to
only 5 when Digital takes over.

[[email protected]]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> A different, but more relevant subject to this forum is HIDEF Radio,
> http://www.hidefradio.com/ , the Ibiquity scheme.


Whoever named that site made a mistake.
HD radio = Hybrid Digital radio. *not* hi-def.

As for the actual quality, FM is only broadcasting at 128 kbits/second
or even 96 kbps. How is that any way considered "good"??? 128 sucks
and to my ears sounds worse than analog FM.

[[email protected]]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> A different, but more relevant subject to this forum is HIDEF Radio,
> http://www.hidefradio.com/ , the Ibiquity scheme.


Whoever named that site made a mistake.
HD radio = Hybrid Digital radio. *not* hi-def.

As for the actual quality, FM is only broadcasting at 128 kbits/second
or even 96 kbps. How is that any way considered "good"??? 128 sucks
and to my ears sounds worse than analog FM.

I'm all for upgrading to new standards if they are an improvement (like
hi def tv), but this Hybrid Digital scheme will either be Worse, or
Identical in quality, to what we have now!!!! What a ripoff for the
american consumers.

[[email protected]]

UCLAN wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> > be able to watch Philadelphia/Wilmington/
> > Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
> > may have been the better system after all, since it will always
> > produce a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
>
> Your digital TV will also receive those analog signals.



Even after the February 2009 shut-off date? Then my favorite
Philly/Baltimore/Wilmington stations will disappear.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>UCLAN wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
>> > be able to watch Philadelphia/Wilmington/
>> > Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog
>> > may have been the better system after all, since it will always
>> > produce a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
>>
>> Your digital TV will also receive those analog signals.
>
>Even after the February 2009 shut-off date? Then my favorite
>Philly/Baltimore/Wilmington stations will disappear.

I seriously doubt that. They will be making the digital transition as
well.

Now, YOUR question is how much additional signal strength will you need to
receive these stations properly, compared with what you need to see their
analogue carriers today. A secondary question is whether you can get that
additional strength with an improved antenna or taller mast.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:32:14 -0500,
> >
> > I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> > be able to watch Philadelphia/Wilmington/
> > Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog may have
> > been the better system after all, since it will always produce
> > a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
> >
>
> There is no such thing as a digital antenna for Digital TV.


(1) I never used the words "digital antenna". I used the phrase
"digital tuner" which refers to the new ATSC standard.

(2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
invented in the 1940s.



> Digital TV does mute (blank) when multipath confuses the
> receiver front end. I get that here in Baltimore with my
> HDTV receiver where I'm about 8 miles from TV Hill.

That sucks. I fear the same will be true with Lancaster where I'm only
about 5 miles from the WGAL-8 transmitter.

Vice-versa, I won't be able to watch any Baltimore stations (as I do
now), because the digital signal will be too weak. 60 miles is no big
deal for an analog tuner, but the digital tuner won't accept it.



> I went to a set of rabbit ears to reduce the amount of RF getting to the
> receiver and that fixed the problem. Rabbit ear placement is critical and it
> took a bit of experimentation to get the right spot.

I'll keep that in mind! Thanks.. :-)

[Tim Streater]

In article m>,
wrote:

> Ty Ford wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:32:14 -0500,
> > >
> > > I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> > > be able to watch Philadelphia/Wilmington/
> > > Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog may have
> > > been the better system after all, since it will always produce
> > > a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
> > >
> >
> > There is no such thing as a digital antenna for Digital TV.
>
>
> (1) I never used the words "digital antenna". I used the phrase
> "digital tuner" which refers to the new ATSC standard.
>
> (2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
> represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
> invented in the 1940s.

1930s, I suspect. The BBC had regular TV broadcasts starting in 1936,
with 405 lines. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/405_line

-- tim

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> Digital TV does mute (blank) when multipath confuses the
>> receiver front end. I get that here in Baltimore with my
>> HDTV receiver where I'm about 8 miles from TV Hill.
>
>That sucks. I fear the same will be true with Lancaster where I'm only
>about 5 miles from the WGAL-8 transmitter.

Do you see ghosts when you watch the analogue channel? If you don't see
ghosts, multipath is a non-issue. If you DO see ghosts, fix your antenna
system so you don't.

>Vice-versa, I won't be able to watch any Baltimore stations (as I do
>now), because the digital signal will be too weak. 60 miles is no big
>deal for an analog tuner, but the digital tuner won't accept it.

60 miles can be a lot or a little, depending on where those 60 miles are.
You need to know actual signal strength at the antenna terminals before
you can make any estimate about what to expect.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Tim Streater > wrote:
>In article m>,
> wrote:
>>
>> (2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
>> represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
>> invented in the 1940s.
>
>1930s, I suspect. The BBC had regular TV broadcasts starting in 1936,
>with 405 lines. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/405_line

405 line standard is gone. The American NTSC standard wasn't really
finalized until 1939, and it was used for the World's Fair broadcasts.

However, the current timing and waveform dates back to 1954, when the
frame rate and blanking were altered a little bit in order to make room
for the color subcarrier. A TV set from 1939 will have no problem getting
modern analogue TV broadcasts, however there is no guarantee that a modern
TV set, taken back to 1939, would properly lock on to the broadcasts then.

The British 405 line standard may predate NTSC by a little bit. For some
info on that, go to www.405alive.com.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
> >UCLAN wrote:
>
> >> Your digital TV will also receive those analog signals.
> >
> >Even after the February 2009 shut-off date? Then my favorite
> >Philly/Baltimore/Wilmington stations will disappear.
>
> I seriously doubt that. They will be making the digital
> transition as well.


Not on my set. 60 miles is okay for analog viewing, but will be too
far for digital reception. (According to antennaweb.org.)



> Now, YOUR question is how much additional signal strength will you need to
> receive these stations properly, compared with what you need to see their
> analogue carriers today.

I guess? I wouldn't even know how to begin answering that question.
Especially since I don't control the power output at TV Hill,
Baltimore.



> A secondary question is whether you can get that
> additional strength with an improved antenna or taller mast.

antennaweb.org seems to think 'no'.
17602 is my zip if you want to doublecheck.

I'm rather disappointed with this whole affair. I currently get 15
analog stations (and with nothing more than a settop antenna). After
2009's digital transition, that will drop to only 4-5 stations. I'm
starting to feel anger towards the FCC for this debacle.

:-|

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> >UCLAN wrote:
>>
>> >> Your digital TV will also receive those analog signals.
>> >
>> >Even after the February 2009 shut-off date? Then my favorite
>> >Philly/Baltimore/Wilmington stations will disappear.
>>
>> I seriously doubt that. They will be making the digital
>> transition as well.
>
>Not on my set. 60 miles is okay for analog viewing, but will be too
>far for digital reception. (According to antennaweb.org.)

How does antennaweb.org know? They have no idea what kind of antenna
system you have. I don't either.

>> Now, YOUR question is how much additional signal strength will you need to
>> receive these stations properly, compared with what you need to see their
>> analogue carriers today.
>
>I guess? I wouldn't even know how to begin answering that question.
>Especially since I don't control the power output at TV Hill,
>Baltimore.

That's the question you need to answer and until you can answer that
question, you don't have any clue what to expect.

You don't control the power output at the transmit site, but you DO control
the antenna gain, pattern, and height on your end.

>> A secondary question is whether you can get that
>> additional strength with an improved antenna or taller mast.
>
>antennaweb.org seems to think 'no'.
>17602 is my zip if you want to doublecheck.

How does it know?

>I'm rather disappointed with this whole affair. I currently get 15
>analog stations (and with nothing more than a settop antenna). After
>2009's digital transition, that will drop to only 4-5 stations. I'm
>starting to feel anger towards the FCC for this debacle.

So get a decent antenna system and throw out the set top antenna. Remember
that you can count on 10 dB for every 10 feet you raise the antenna in a
typical environment. Add on to that the antenna gain, and you will be
amazed at how much a real antenna system actually buys you in terms of
signal strength at the input to the tuner.

60 miles is nothing. Hell, I regularly listen to FM radio from Washington
DC, 200 miles away over flat terrain with high ground conductivity. I
just have a good antenna.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill]

wrote:

> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Enjoy your DX while we are in the last days of analog
>>>terrestrial broadcasting. It will be dead in a few years.
>>
>>The region I am in now gets roughly 25 HD channels, on a
>>rooftop antenna. That's actually an improvement over
>>NTSC......
>
>
>
> Hmmm. How many do you get with the Analog tuner?
>

Somewhat less - say 18 or so.

> I'm using nothing exotic - just a setup antenna. And I can receive 15
> analog stations. According to antennaweb, that number will drop to
> only 5 when Digital takes over.
>

--
Les Cargill

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:00:40 -0500, wrote
(in article m>):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:32:14 -0500,
>>>
>>> I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
>>> be able to watch Philadelphia/Wilmington/
>>> Baltimore tv (too weak). Sounds like analog may have
>>> been the better system after all, since it will always produce
>>> a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.
>>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as a digital antenna for Digital TV.
>
>
> (1) I never used the words "digital antenna". I used the phrase
> "digital tuner" which refers to the new ATSC standard.

I wasn't being conteniouos.I was explaining.
>
> (2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
> represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
> invented in the 1940s.

I know. You know I know.

>
>> Digital TV does mute (blank) when multipath confuses the
>> receiver front end. I get that here in Baltimore with my
>> HDTV receiver where I'm about 8 miles from TV Hill.
>
> That sucks. I fear the same will be true with Lancaster where I'm only
> about 5 miles from the WGAL-8 transmitter.
>
> Vice-versa, I won't be able to watch any Baltimore stations (as I do
> now), because the digital signal will be too weak. 60 miles is no big
> deal for an analog tuner, but the digital tuner won't accept it.

Maybe, maybe not. Yes, so far long range may be a problem for DTV. For me,
the rabbit ears allow less RF into the set. That seems to help.

>
>> I went to a set of rabbit ears to reduce the amount of RF getting to the
>> receiver and that fixed the problem. Rabbit ear placement is critical and it
>> took a bit of experimentation to get the right spot.
>
> I'll keep that in mind! Thanks.. :-)


No Prob.

Ty



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[UCLAN]

wrote:

>>Tuners in digital TVs also still receive analog NTSC signals
>
> But after Feb 2009, all those stations will disappear.

Wanna bet? ;)

> I won't be able
> to receive them via the Digital tuner, because the signal is too weak.

And you know this...how? Are they transmitting their digital signal
yet? Is it stonger/weaker/the same strength as their analog signal?

Could be that no change is required, or be as simple as using a better
antenna.

[UCLAN]

wrote:

> Vice-versa, I won't be able to watch any Baltimore stations (as I do
> now), because the digital signal will be too weak. 60 miles is no big
> deal for an analog tuner, but the digital tuner won't accept it.

The digital tuner may need a better antenna. It doesn't know that you
have learned to accept fuzzy, snowy video. I simply bought a better
set-top indoor antenna, and get great reception from stations 60-70
miles away. Their digital counterparts? Don't know yet. Many stations
have petitioned the FCC for tower site changes or transmitter power
upgrades for their digital transmissions. Bottom line is you don't
know if you'll receive them until you try.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:54:35 -0500, UCLAN wrote
(in article >):

> wrote:
>
>> Vice-versa, I won't be able to watch any Baltimore stations (as I do
>> now), because the digital signal will be too weak. 60 miles is no big
>> deal for an analog tuner, but the digital tuner won't accept it.
>
> The digital tuner may need a better antenna. It doesn't know that you
> have learned to accept fuzzy, snowy video. I simply bought a better
> set-top indoor antenna, and get great reception from stations 60-70
> miles away. Their digital counterparts? Don't know yet. Many stations
> have petitioned the FCC for tower site changes or transmitter power
> upgrades for their digital transmissions. Bottom line is you don't
> know if you'll receive them until you try.

That's right. ::Envisioning the return of the big-ass Yagi::

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[~consul]

wrote:
> UCLAN wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> WTXF-29, WPSG-57, WPHL-17 (my only MNT affiliate), WITF-33, WHP-21,
>>> WBAL-11, WJZ-13, WHYY-12 (pbs/classic movies channel)
>>> So if I switch to a Digital Set, these stations will just disappear
>>> & I'll never be able to watch them again. That kinda sucks. :-|
>> Tuners in digital TVs also still receive analog NTSC signals
> But after Feb 2009, all those stations will disappear. I won't be able
> to receive them via the Digital tuner, because the signal is too weak.
> Man. Digital sucks. I liked Analog better... fuzzy but I could still
> watch Baltimore/Philly stations.

I would think that all those analogue stations will change to digital. You do
realize that practically no tv station broadcasting right now will just disappear?

The only concern I might think you would have is if say wanted to receive Philly
NBC and Baltimore NBC at the same time. But I also feel that they wouldn't be on
the same digital channel, like it may be different 4 digit numbers.

--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[Adrian Tuddenham]

> wrote:


>
> (2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
> represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
> invented in the 1940s.

The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.

By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
currently use; it had been developed by a team which included
A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> (2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
>> represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
>> invented in the 1940s.
>
>The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.
>
>By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
>currently use; it had been developed by a team which included
>A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.

Not really. That was the 405-line standard which is no longer in use
in the UK. The current frame rate, synch standard, and channel
allocations in the UK didn't come about until the change to color,
unlike in the US where we are still using a modification of the original
1939 standard.

For a while you could buy TV sets in the UK which were switchable between
405 and 625 line standards and the amount of rube goldberg stuff required
to do that was amazing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[GMAN]

In article nvalid>, (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> (2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
>> represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
>> invented in the 1940s.
>
>The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.
>
His version was mechanical, the TV system that you and i have used for the
last 75 + years is electronic teleision which was invented ny Philo T
Farnsworth. Bairds electronic Tv didnt work as good and the bbc liscenced
Philo's tech.

Read this chapter from the book

The Boy Who Invented Television
A Story of Inspiration, Persistence, and Quiet Passion
by Paul Schatzkin


http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-part08.html



>By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
>currently use; it had been developed by a team which included
>A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.
>

[Les Cargill]

GMAN wrote:

> In article nvalid>, (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>(2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
>>>represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
>>>invented in the 1940s.
>>
>>The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.
>>
>
> His version was mechanical, the TV system that you and i have used for the
> last 75 + years is electronic teleision which was invented ny Philo T
> Farnsworth. Bairds electronic Tv didnt work as good and the bbc liscenced
> Philo's tech.
>
> Read this chapter from the book
>
> The Boy Who Invented Television
> A Story of Inspiration, Persistence, and Quiet Passion
> by Paul Schatzkin
>
>
> http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-part08.html
>
>
>
>
>>By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
>>currently use; it had been developed by a team which included
>>A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.
>>

Also:

Tube: The Invention of Television
by David E. Fisher, Marshall Jon Fisher

--
Les Cargill

[GMAN]

In article >, wrote:
>GMAN wrote:
>
>> In article nvalid>,
> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
>>>>represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
>>>>invented in the 1940s.
>>>
>>>The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.
>>>
>>
>> His version was mechanical, the TV system that you and i have used for the
>> last 75 + years is electronic teleision which was invented ny Philo T
>> Farnsworth. Bairds electronic Tv didnt work as good and the bbc liscenced
>> Philo's tech.
>>
>> Read this chapter from the book
>>
>> The Boy Who Invented Television
>> A Story of Inspiration, Persistence, and Quiet Passion
>> by Paul Schatzkin
>>
>>
>> http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-part08.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
>>>currently use; it had been developed by a team which included
>>>A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.
>>>
>

Um, did you even read the chapter i linked to?

[Julian]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:32:17 -0800, ~consul
> wrote:

wrote:
>> UCLAN wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> WTXF-29, WPSG-57, WPHL-17 (my only MNT affiliate), WITF-33, WHP-21,
>>>> WBAL-11, WJZ-13, WHYY-12 (pbs/classic movies channel)
>>>> So if I switch to a Digital Set, these stations will just disappear
>>>> & I'll never be able to watch them again. That kinda sucks. :-|
>>> Tuners in digital TVs also still receive analog NTSC signals
>> But after Feb 2009, all those stations will disappear. I won't be able
>> to receive them via the Digital tuner, because the signal is too weak.
>> Man. Digital sucks. I liked Analog better... fuzzy but I could still
>> watch Baltimore/Philly stations.
>
>I would think that all those analogue stations will change to digital. You do
>realize that practically no tv station broadcasting right now will just disappear?

If HD TV is anything like HD radio is turning out to be, what was
barely useable "fringe area" reception will totally disappear with all
digital.

Julian

[Julian]

On 25 Jan 2007 06:46:05 -0800, wrote:

>
>Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> A different, but more relevant subject to this forum is HIDEF Radio,
>> http://www.hidefradio.com/ , the Ibiquity scheme.
>
>
>Whoever named that site made a mistake.
>HD radio = Hybrid Digital radio. *not* hi-def.

I'm not sure what it really stands for but it is obviously a ploy to
get consumers think it is hi-def when in fact it is not.

>As for the actual quality, FM is only broadcasting at 128 kbits/second
>or even 96 kbps. How is that any way considered "good"??? 128 sucks
>and to my ears sounds worse than analog FM.

It is 96, not 128 but it sounds better than 128 kbps mp3 IMO. When
stations use multiple program streams on the same channel however they
must divide the 96 up. like 64, 32, or 32, 32, 32. A 64kbps HD
channel sounds almost as good as 96 on but 32 sucks big time.

Julian

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> (2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
> >> represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
> >> invented in the 1940s.
> >
> >The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.
> >
> >By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
> >currently use; it had been developed by a team which included
> >A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.
>
> Not really. That was the 405-line standard which is no longer in use
> in the UK.

The number of lines differed in different countries and at different
times (as did polarity and sound modulation), but the basic analogue
television waveform with 'blacker then black' synch pulses was common to
them all.

That was the key point of Blumlein's invention, it was the first system
to succesfully overcome the problem of including synchronising
information within the analogue signal. We still use it.



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Paul Repacholi]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

> Not really. That was the 405-line standard which is no longer in
> use in the UK. The current frame rate, synch standard, and channel
> allocations in the UK didn't come about until the change to color,
> unlike in the US where we are still using a modification of the
> original 1939 standard.

The UK changed to 625 line quite some time before PAL hut the
air. This was more due to EU than anything else.

> For a while you could buy TV sets in the UK which were switchable
> between 405 and 625 line standards and the amount of rube goldberg
> stuff required to do that was amazing.

Multi standard sets are the ONLY ones you can sell in EU.

For extra cookies:

What was the first official BBC colour broadcast?

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

[Scott Dorsey]

Julian > wrote:
>If HD TV is anything like HD radio is turning out to be, what was
>barely useable "fringe area" reception will totally disappear with all
>digital.

No, it's actually not badly-designed. Fringe performance may actually
be better than with the Japanese system, even.

IBOC-FM degrades to analogue in fringe areas, in part because the actual
digital carrier bandwidth is so low in order to shoehorn it on top of an
existing FM allocation. That's not the case for the DTV. Compare actual
coverage area between IBOC-FM and the Eureka-147 digital radio systems in
use in Europe, for instance. Good coverage _is_ possible.

IBOC-AM has serious problems in both fringe areas and in town, because
it was designed by idiots who were given impossible requirements. If it
doesn't destroy the AM band completely I'll be surprised.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, consul wrote
(in article >):

> The only concern I might think you would have is if say wanted to receive
> Philly NBC and Baltimore NBC at the same time. But I also feel that they
> wouldn't be on the same digital channel, like it may be different 4 digit
> numbers.

What?

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Daniel Mandic]

wrote:

> and to my ears sounds worse than analog FM.


My dear, you have never heard a reference (expensive) Tuner.

I have an Onkyo 4711-T (Cologne Water ;-)) FM/AM Tuner (bought for
200bucks, because the tech is so ooooold. Not my problem, bez it's 1000
bucks worth).
The only reaction when listened by friends of mine is quiescent. I
mean, they do not praise the sound nor criticize it. It's just good
Radio sound.
Well, it depends to the station.... but some of them, I listen, do play
records as well, Tape Machines etc... MP3-Harddisk supported FM-stations
I do not listen... it's a waste of time, because such edited
titles/songs do not have 'Time' anymore, in my ears. Samples that
are, everytime when played, they have the same timing. Also the 'pure'
digital Stations received via Digital Radio is even more worse than a
MP3 equipped FM-Station. It hurts in my ears, that's Trash... just
treble, no bass, TERRIBLE Sound.

Better results are made by using good digital source-machines and then
supporting them, into an analog broadcast service.
I mean, even if MP3 is crap for me... but it sounds better on analog
FM, at least.
Also using a crisp LCD with a good Antenna, analog of course, looks
better than LCD and Digital Antenna.
Or, a Tube TV-Set (CRT) watched with Digital Antenna, looks better than
a Digital TV-Set (LCD/TFT) receiving Digital Broadcast. The CRT warms
up (softens) the harsh sterile pixxy digital Picture a bit and makes it
more analog.




Germany has been watching the Soccer World Championsship 2006 last
year, with indoor-aerials connected to biiiiig Plasmas (PAL+ '16:9',
50Hz). You can imagine the face of the American guests in Germany,
watching that quality and seeing just a small indoor-aerial connected :)



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: A good new and reliable analog system, would be the most
innovative way for the USA. I am sure America can develope an
outstanding Analog Video-System. Better than anything seen before,
except Cinema 24/36 pictures per second ..Celluloid and Light :-)

[Tim Streater]

In article >,
Paul Repacholi > wrote:

> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
> > Not really. That was the 405-line standard which is no longer in
> > use in the UK. The current frame rate, synch standard, and channel
> > allocations in the UK didn't come about until the change to color,
> > unlike in the US where we are still using a modification of the
> > original 1939 standard.
>
> The UK changed to 625 line quite some time before PAL hit the
> air.

Yes in the '60s.

> This was more due to EU than anything else.

Not sure what you mean by this, the EU didn't exist then.

> > For a while you could buy TV sets in the UK which were switchable
> > between 405 and 625 line standards and the amount of rube goldberg
> > stuff required to do that was amazing.
>
> Multi standard sets are the ONLY ones you can sell in EU.

And this is what allows me to watch NTSC tapes here. The VCR converts it
to pseudo-PAL colour, and the TV syncs to 60Hz, 525 lines.

> For extra cookies:
>
> What was the first official BBC colour broadcast?

Oh go on, tell us! You know you want to!

-- tim

[~consul]

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, consul wrote
>> The only concern I might think you would have is if say wanted to receive
>> Philly NBC and Baltimore NBC at the same time. But I also feel that they
>> wouldn't be on the same digital channel, like it may be different 4 digit
>> numbers.
> What?

I meant that PhillyNBC would be fer example, 5014 and BaltimoreNBC would be
6813, the channels that it is broadcasted on. Or would the NBC for any given are
would only be one, which would not register any other, like a cell phone tower.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[Morph]

~consul wrote:

> I meant that PhillyNBC would be fer example, 5014 and BaltimoreNBC would be
> 6813, the channels that it is broadcasted on. Or would the NBC for any given are
> would only be one, which would not register any other, like a cell phone tower.

Was this written by Yogi Berra?

--
And did you exchange a walk-on part in the war
for a lead role in a cage?

[[email protected]]

On 2007-01-26 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Julian > wrote:
>>If HD TV is anything like HD radio is turning out to be, what was
>>barely useable "fringe area" reception will totally disappear with
>>all digital.
>IBOC-AM has serious problems in both fringe areas and in town,
>because it was designed by idiots who were given impossible
>requirements. If it doesn't destroy the AM band completely I'll be
>surprised.
Already has for the most part, not that there's much there
worth listening to these days.

FOlks who depend on such former blowtorches as wwl NEw
ORleans when the weather gets weird along the gulf coast now
find they can't get good reception of wwl thanks to the iboc
stuff.

I miss the days when you could still get national sporting
events such as teh world SEries and superbowl on the radio.
SInce KMOX no longer is the flagship for the CArdinals
baseball team even getting cardinals games sucks, and I
should be able to hera them from near MEmphis.
Best outlet's a source on 1010 khz here in TEnnessee that is
poor at best, whetehr on the little ferrite loop am antenna
or on my hf ham radio rig with some wire in the air. IT's
listenable for the game in the afternoon, but toward evening
...
IN Des MOines who should be good, at one time I can remember
riding down the road in this part of the world listening to
them just before sundown but these days even it's got a
poorer signal thanks to close by qrm from iboc.
DUmb idea mandated by bean counters to try to sell more crap
and maximize their short term bottom line at the expense of
all else.



Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for
dinner. Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

[Max Haltermann]

"GMAN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>>GMAN wrote:
>>
>>> In article nvalid>,
>> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>>>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(2) There is such a thing as digital tv. It uses 1s and 0s to
>>>>>represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
>>>>>invented in the 1940s.
>>>>
>>>>The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.
>>>>
>>>
>>> His version was mechanical, the TV system that you and i have used for
>>> the
>>> last 75 + years is electronic teleision which was invented ny Philo T
>>> Farnsworth. Bairds electronic Tv didnt work as good and the bbc
>>> liscenced
>>> Philo's tech.
>>>
>>> Read this chapter from the book
>>>
>>> The Boy Who Invented Television
>>> A Story of Inspiration, Persistence, and Quiet Passion
>>> by Paul Schatzkin
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-part08.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
>>>>currently use; it had been developed by a team which included
>>>>A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.
>>>>
>>
>
> Um, did you even read the chapter i linked to?

The basic principle to enable all transmissions of pictures by electrical
means was developed by the Russo-German Student Nipkov around the turn of
the previous century.

He developed the idea of dividing the image into lines, scanned one by one
and transmitted sequentially.

Baird would have got nowhere without the Nipkov disc and the photosensitive
cell. However in Nipkov's time there were only 'electrics', no electronics
to amplify the weak signals.

Max.

[Marc Heusser]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
> Many of those stations are poor reception. Either:
> (a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.

Here you need a directed antenna able to sort out multiple reception.

> (b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.
>
> Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
> these stations will no longer be watchable. (i.e. The digital decoder
> will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)
....
> I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
> be able to watch ... Sounds like analog
> may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
> a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.

This is generally true: Digital is better as it can restore the original
signal, IF and only if the signal to noise ratio is above a certain
level. Below it will degrade rapidly, and it is in this area that analog
is better.

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

[[email protected]]

~consul wrote:
> Ty Ford wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, consul wrote
> >> The only concern I might think you would have is if say wanted to receive
> >> Philly NBC and Baltimore NBC at the same time. But I also feel that they
> >> wouldn't be on the same digital channel, like it may be different 4 digit
> >> numbers.
>
> > What?
>
> I meant that PhillyNBC would be fer example, 5014 and BaltimoreNBC would be
> 6813, the channels that it is broadcasted on. Or would the NBC for any given are
> would only be one, which would not register any other, like a cell phone tower.


Uh. What? According to the FCC website, when 2009 arrives, Baltimore-
nbc will be channel 11. Same as now. And Philly-nbc will be channel
2. Same as now.

Where did you come up with that 5012 and 6813 crap?
That's not even close to accurate.

[[email protected]]

Julian wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2007 06:46:05 -0800, wrote:
>
> >As for the actual quality, FM is only broadcasting at 128 kbits/second
> >or even 96 kbps. How is that any way considered "good"??? 128 sucks
> >and to my ears sounds worse than analog FM.
>
> It is 96, not 128 but it sounds better than 128 kbps mp3 IMO.



Heh. Better-sounding crap is still crap. To my ears, music does not
become "transparent" until it hits 256 kbps. And in some cases, 340
kbps. Anything below that, and I can hear digital artifacts.

No 96kbps radio is going to fool me into thinking it's "cd
quality" (what Hybrid Digital proponents claim). Why can't they just
leave radio alone? It was fine the way it was with the analog FM and
AM Stereo

[Paul Repacholi]

Tim Streater > writes:

>> For extra cookies:
>>
>> What was the first official BBC colour broadcast?
>
> Oh go on, tell us! You know you want to!

"The Black and White Minstral's Show"

What else they cry!!

BTW, a friend was running a TV station in Latvia pre WWII.

[~consul]

wrote:
> ~consul wrote:
>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, consul wrote
>>>> The only concern I might think you would have is if say wanted to receive
>>>> Philly NBC and Baltimore NBC at the same time. But I also feel that they
>>>> wouldn't be on the same digital channel, like it may be different 4 digit
>>>> numbers.
>>> What?
>> I meant that PhillyNBC would be fer example, 5014 and BaltimoreNBC would be
>> 6813, the channels that it is broadcasted on. Or would the NBC for any given are
>> would only be one, which would not register any other, like a cell phone tower.
> Uh. What? According to the FCC website, when 2009 arrives, Baltimore-
> nbc will be channel 11. Same as now. And Philly-nbc will be channel
> 2. Same as now.
> Where did you come up with that 5012 and 6813 crap?
> That's not even close to accurate.

I was giving examples of what the digital channel would be. For example, in Los
Angeles analogue NBC is 4. The digital NBC is a 4 digit number.

If there are two competing digital NBC signals in one area, like what you may
have in your area, it will have two different numbers for you to plug in, same
as you do now for analogue.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[[email protected]]

~consul wrote:
> wrote:
> > ~consul wrote:
> >>>
> >> I meant that PhillyNBC would be fer example, 5014 and BaltimoreNBC would be
> >> 6813, the channels that it is broadcasted on.
>
> > Uh. What? According to the FCC website, when 2009 arrives Baltimore-
> > nbc will be channel 11. Same as now. And Philly-nbc will be channel
> > 10. Where did you come up with that 5012 and 6813 crap?
>
> I was giving examples of what the digital channel would be. For example, in Los
> Angeles analogue NBC is 4. The digital NBC is a 4 digit number.



No it isn't.
KNBC analog = 4
KNBC digital = 36

There's no four-digit number there. I think you're either really
confused, or else we're not discussing the same topic. (I am
discussing over-the-air reception with an antenna, not satellite, nor
cable.)


> Or would the NBC for any given are would only be one,
> which would not register any other, like a cell phone tower.

Here's the current situation for me:
Lancaster - nbc = 8
Baltimore - nbc = 11
Philadelphia - nbc = 10

All three of these channels overlap one another in my hometown
(southern lancaster county), and all showing the same NBC content.
That statement will still be true, even after the switch to digital.
I'll still be able to see all three of them, as long as the antenna is
properly adjusted.





















>
> If there are two competing digital NBC signals in one area, like what you may
> have in your area, it will have two different numbers for you to plug in, same
> as you do now for analogue.
> --
> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
> end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
> --till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[Daniel Mandic]

wrote:

> Heh. Better-sounding crap is still crap. To my ears, music does not
> become "transparent" until it hits 256 kbps. And in some cases, 340
> kbps. Anything below that, and I can hear digital artifacts.

CD is also crap, but some Player are made so exceptional that the
Source is not coming so much into calculation.
Have you ever heard a Mini Disc Flagship Component, like the MD-555 ES
from Sony? That's a totally other story.... such a component can sound
better than most of the CD-Player around, even it is only ATRAC3.5
data-reduced Source.
(Don't look the price ;-))

> No 96kbps radio is going to fool me into thinking it's "cd
> quality" (what Hybrid Digital proponents claim). Why can't they just
> leave radio alone? It was fine the way it was with the analog FM and
> AM Stereo

Analogue FM is interesting when the Studio is using Broadcast-Quality
stuff (Tape Machine, DAT, Turntable), othwerwise with MP3 HD-Broadcast
it is just crap for me, even when on FM.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[~consul]

wrote:
> ~consul wrote:
>> I was giving examples of what the digital channel would be. For example, in Los
>> Angeles analogue NBC is 4. The digital NBC is a 4 digit number.
> No it isn't.
> KNBC analog = 4
> KNBC digital = 36
> There's no four-digit number there. I think you're either really
> confused, or else we're not discussing the same topic. (I am
> discussing over-the-air reception with an antenna, not satellite, nor
> cable.)

Well, I meant to say 3 numbers, like when I plug in for KDOC, a PBS stations
it's 56.1, and that is entering 4 units, the numbers and the period. For NBC,
04.1 works as well as 36.

The 4 digit, despite whatever a digital tuner shortcuts uses, is using a 4 digit
dialing, so it can accommodate many more distinct digital channels.

At least as how I saw it.

But on that note, I was not disagreeing with you before. I was just saying that
no matter what you had before in analogue, you would still get those options in
digital.

If the signal was too weak, then one would bug the station broadcaster for a
stronger signal, which they may or may not, as they would have to factor in the
costs for the more power consumption vs any appreciable justification in the
budget due to advertisements.

My cell tower example was that in one location, you could have multiple signals
broadcasting in the same area w/o overlap.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[Alan F]

wrote:
>
> Not on my set. 60 miles is okay for analog viewing, but will be too
> far for digital reception. (According to antennaweb.org.)

If I may put up a late post here: baloney. There are many people who
get digital stations at 70, 80 or even 100+ miles if they live at a high
enough elevation. Digital broadcasting - with the right antenna setup -
is far better than analog for people who live at the outer fringe.

Almost all digital stations are currently broadcasting on UHF because
analog takes up most of the VHF slots. Many stations, including ones
currently broadcasting their analog channel at low VHF channels 2 to 6,
will stay at UHF for their digital signal after the analog shutdown in
2009. Many upper VHF 7 to 13 stations will switch their digital signal
to their current VHF channel in 2009.

So the key to digital reception is a good UHF antenna and in many
areas, capability to receive the upper VHF channels as well. You can
find the list of the channel selections after the analog shutdown at the
FCC website (http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/).

Antennaweb.org for whatever reason is VERY conservative on digital
reception. When entering your zip or the whole address, click on the
options link and enter an antenna height of 100 or 200 feet. I have to
enter 150' for my street address to get a close match of the digital
stations I get with a medium range antenna in my attic. If the antenna
was on the roof, I would get several more stations.

One issue in many smaller markets and rural areas is that many
stations are still at low power on the digital signal. Low power
stations and translators are still almost all only analog. As the
shutdown approaches, many of the low power stations and translators will
do "flash-cut" conversion - that is, kill the analog signal and go full
digital.

Get a recent generation digital ATSC tuner, a good antenna, and
presto, you are usually in business. I get 17 digital stations over the
air out to 50 miles with a $25+ Channel Master 4221 4 Bay UHF antenna
and have another 3 I could get if I wanted to bother with a rotator (but
these are SD only minor stations). On analog, many of the more distant
stations are noisy with poor pictures.

Digital ATSC broadcasting, once we finally get ALL the stations at
full power is easily superior to analog NTSC in getting distant stations.

Alan F

[timepixdc]

In article >,
Paul Repacholi > wrote:

> Tim Streater > writes:
>
> >> For extra cookies:
> >>
> >> What was the first official BBC colour broadcast?
> >
> > Oh go on, tell us! You know you want to!
>
> "The Black and White Minstral's Show"
>
> What else they cry!!
>
> BTW, a friend was running a TV station in Latvia pre WWII.

"The first [British colour] programme was a four-hour live broadcast of
day 6 of the Wimbledon Tennis Championship"

[[email protected]]

~consul wrote:
>
> But on that note, I was not disagreeing with you before. I was just saying that
> no matter what you had before in analogue, you would still get those options in
> digital.


Unless the signal is marginal. A marginal analog signal (like 17 in
philly) can still be watched, despite the degradation to black & white
and blurry.

In contrast, a marginal digital signal won't show anything.

[UCLAN]

wrote:

>>But on that note, I was not disagreeing with you before. I was just saying that
>>no matter what you had before in analogue, you would still get those options in
>>digital.
>
> Unless the signal is marginal. A marginal analog signal (like 17 in
> philly) can still be watched, despite the degradation to black & white
> and blurry.
>
> In contrast, a marginal digital signal won't show anything.

As you have been told, there is NO iron clad reason that a station that
transmits a marginal analog signal will also deliver a marginal digital
signal. Apples and oranges. The ONLY way to determine whether or not you
will receive a signal that is above your tuner's digital threshold is
to TRY. Many stations have even petitioned the FCC to transmit at an
increased power when forced to go all digital. You may be fretting over
nothing.

[Obveeus]

"UCLAN" > wrote:

> The ONLY way to determine whether or not you
> will receive a signal that is above your tuner's digital threshold is
> to TRY.

Yep...and if/when failure occurs, make the move to cable.

>Many stations have even petitioned the FCC to transmit at an
> increased power when forced to go all digital. You may be fretting over
> nothing.

If that is true, it is a strong indication that the potential problem (no
usable over the air signal at all for some fringe areas when the world goes
digital) is very real. It might be premature to panic, but it is also
assinine to spew off a series of 'this is a troll' posts as some have done.

[Troppo]

"Obveeus" > wrote in
:

>
> "UCLAN" > wrote:
>
>> The ONLY way to determine whether or not you
>> will receive a signal that is above your tuner's digital threshold is
>> to TRY.
>
> Yep...and if/when failure occurs, make the move to cable.
>
>>Many stations have even petitioned the FCC to transmit at an
>> increased power when forced to go all digital. You may be fretting
>> over nothing.
>
> If that is true, it is a strong indication that the potential problem
> (no usable over the air signal at all for some fringe areas when the
> world goes digital) is very real. It might be premature to panic [...]

I'm on the other side of the world, and (no doubt) using a different
digital setup, but generally we are finding that digital is more reliable
than analog in a fringe-reception area for some free-to-air.
Contrary to some advice given in this thread, it helps to have a decent
aerial, and new low-loss cable between the aerial and the tuner.
Both signals are coming from the same location. We have a fringe of trees
between us and the transmitter (30km away). Can't chop 'em down - 30m
high and someone else's property. When the trees are wet the free-to-air
disappears but not the digital. On the other hand, if there is a massive
rainstorm between us and the transmitter, then it all disappears :-)

[UCLAN]

Obveeus wrote:

> If that is true, it is a strong indication that the potential problem (no
> usable over the air signal at all for some fringe areas when the world goes
> digital) is very real. It might be premature to panic, but it is also
> assinine to spew off a series of 'this is a troll' posts as some have done.

KCBS or KNBC in Los Angeles (I forget which one) years ago issued a
brief to the FCC indicating that they had calculated a 40% drop in
their market if forced to transmit a digital signal from their current
transmitter site at their licensed power. I followed this story for
many months, but lost track of it. I assumed that the FCC saw things
the station's way. I can receive the analog signals of both KCBS and
KNBC (not well) from my coastal North San Diego County location. Not
yet set up to try for their digital signals.

The problem is real as a whole, but on an individual basis it is just
speculation.

[Daniel Mandic]

timepixdc wrote:

> "The first [British colour] programme was a four-hour live broadcast
> of day 6 of the Wimbledon Tennis Championship"


Hi!


I guess that broadcast you tell about, was smoother and more fluent
than today Dig. Flat-Vision.


;-)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic