Aaron62

With as much work as I've had to do to get better reception of dtv signals, is this article really true?

From - TVB | Survey Says: Digital TV Comes in Better than Analog

It's hard to believe.

1inxs

In the homes I have changed over to DTV it is definitely true. You can have poor analog reception and the DTV reception will be excellent.

bicker

I have no reason to doubt it. Our own OTA reception is fantastically improved. We are much more seriously considering doing away with cable this fall than in previous years. Our reception is now rock solid and free of snow, on all four broadcast networks, where 90% of our fall and spring programming come from.

allah.ollah

What DTV cheerleaders don't tell you or refuse to admit is that DTV signals ARE HARDER TO RECEIVE than analog signals. The ones who posted above are the fortunate ones who can receive them and do not live on the fringe of a TV stations signal or have inadequate antennas. Those unfortunate folks can pick up a noisy, yet viewable signal with analog , but, cannot do so with DTV because their tv tuner, CECB, etc. will not hold and lock on to the signal. As far as reception being better, the DTV signals do give a better picture quality, but only if you can receive them. If you receive a DTV signal at say 35%, or the same at 95%, the picture quality is the same.

CptlA

Funny, thought I was the only one. PBS on analog would never come through, on digital we're showing 80% on the status bar. Just my $.02 here. Rarely will you see people take the time to compliment something, especially if the Government is involved. I'd guess that 20-25% of the people complaining here haven't even taken the proper steps to connect their antennas correctly and do a auto channel scan (of course this doesn't apply to you Aaron ).

It's a tough call to say with confidence whether DTV signals are better or worse than analog. Even if they are worse for some fringe areas, the FCC is working on fixes as we get closer to the transition.

FCC Gives Nod to DTV 'Replacement' Translators

bicker

89% of stations actually gain viewers with the digital transitions. I know some of you are in that 11%, and I'm sorry for you, but no need to make disparaging remarks about people by calling them names, as you have.

HTNut

Time to get out the pom poms, we're all cheerleaders.

Give me a D

Give me a T

Give me a V

What's that spell???

It's probably frustrating for some people who are having to modify or purchase another antenna but the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. Isn't DTV more power efficient too?

DTVuser2009

The truth is that the pictures are much better (no fuzz or staticy audio) but the downside is that OTA viewing falls flat on its face as easily as Satellite TV reception in the same conditions, even for those in well-received areas (Rain/wind/Snow fade)

The extra channels and satellite-picture quality of DTV outweighs the costs of analog, i still say it shouldn't be forced upon everyone as it takes away the freedom of choice in favor of all or nothing, borg type philosophy also to those in fringe areas who have zero DTV reception what's going to happen then? go without it or buy satellite?

Not to mention i'm sure the Government has more than just DTV up their sleeve; after this i'm sure they'll force other ways of life we all must live with, i.e., the apitamy of a dictatorship of sheeple.

Orrymain

Here's how I look at it. We're stuck with DTV because analog is about to be dead. So, if it actually does some good for folks in places, that's awesome. It's too bad for the folks who have problems, but it seems to me it was pretty much that way with antenna TV reception anyway. I could have clear reception and my friend ten miles away had yucky reception. I don't think there's a 100% answer here.

andrew25

I noticed that analog reception has always been weak when it comes to DTV ones. And the survey results completely agree with the ones we experience unlike the other surveys where the results would be different from the real experience.