Survey Says: DTV Reception better than analog? Say what? - Page 2

allah.ollah · 05-12-2009, 08:08 PM

To BICKER... I used the word "cheerleader" in a figurative sense and I am sorry you are so sensitive that you took it literally. I apologize. However, my post referred to loss of coverage area, not loss of viewers. It is true that 98% of the stations will gain viewers, but that is within the coverage area of the station due generally to the fact that their analog reception was marginal anyway. They did not bother to watch and now they will. However, those on the fringe or with inadequate antennas will lose all reception, period. Check the FCC before/after coverage maps and you will see DTV coverage contours smaller than analog for the majority of stations. Some have increases in coverage due to TPO, antenna HAAT, frequency, etc. See the Centris study on this done last year. Once again, I never said that I was against DTV transmissions. All I pointed out is all those beautiful pictures and all the bells and whistles that go with it are good only if you have reliable reception and it is a fact that analog is received more reliably, all things being equal. By the way, don't feel "sorry" for me. I am not in that 2% that you speak of. I know how to achieve superior tv reception and I'll match my stacked XG-91, low-noise pre amp. quad shield RG-6 cable, rotor, and 60 ft. tower, not to mention my sensitive tv tuner with anybody's.

staticMHZ · 05-12-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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???

.............lol!!!

Boo-Ray · 05-12-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

98% of stations actually gain viewers with the digital transitions. I know some of you are in that 2%, and I'm sorry for you, but no need to make disparaging remarks about people by calling them names, as you have.

If you're referring to that FCC report, your numbers are a little off.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-287579A1.pdf

Quote:

The first report found that approximately 89 percent of stations (1,553 stations) will
experience an overall net gain in the population that can receive their signals. Approximately 11
percent of stations (196 stations) will have an overall net loss in television viewers. The first
report includes a separate map showing the predicted coverage areas for every station and shows
the areas of gain or loss.

1inxs · 05-12-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allah.ollah

I know how to achieve superior tv reception and I'll match my stacked XG-91, low-noise pre amp. quad shield RG-6 cable, rotor, and 60 ft. tower, not to mention my sensitive tv tuner with anybody's.

Now that's what I call an antenna. allah.ollah, What City, State is your antenna setup in?

allah.ollah · 05-12-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1inxs

Now that's what I call an antenna. allah.ollah, What City, State is your antenna setup in?

How nice to reply to someone who wishes to speak of the engineering and technical aspects of all this and not just someone who wants to watch
'pretty pictures". I am located 25 miles from the Louisiana coast, about 50 miles SSW of New Orleans. With my rig, I receive every N O station perfectly,digital and analog. I also receive the major network stations from Baton Rouge, about 89 miles away, both analog and digital. I also receive 2 stations from Lafayette, La. which is about 150 miles away. The analogs are about 75% reliable and digitals about 60% due to me being beyond their LOS over the horizon. I forgot to mention on my last post that I also have a hi-gain vhf antenna with a low noise (2.8) preamp going into a Channel Master combiner along with my XG-91 setup. All this is on a 60 foot tower with an extra heavy duty rotor. My biggest accomplishment with all this is my ability to receive network V's and U's from the Gulf Coast (Biloxi, Gulfport, Mobile, Pensacola, etc.) at a distance of 140-180 miles. There are moderate dropouts sometimes but when even mild tropo comes in, reception improves dramatically. All this is possible due to the nature of my flat, open terrain and the salt water corridor, and my setup, of course. My digital signal strength (not picture quality, are you all listening???) on the Gulf Coast channels average about 40% so there are dropouts however, I tolerate this, since this is the nature of the beast at this distance. Since I live in hurricane country all this has to come down when storms come calling. It takes me almost 2 days to remove everything. However, I am proud of what I have and don't mind the work.

bicker · 05-13-2009, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrymain

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.

Heck that's the way with everything, in practically all aspects of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrymain

I don't think there's a 100% answer here.

Absolutely: Very little, in life, is 100% "good for everyone".

bicker · 05-13-2009, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allah.ollah

It is true that 98% of the stations will gain viewers, but that is within the coverage area of the station due generally to the fact that their analog reception was marginal anyway.

No, it is much more absolute than that: While reception for some folks will become more difficult, the overall impact -- taking everyone into account, not just people on the fringes of reception areas -- taking every one into account, things will be better.

That's the way of the world: Nothing is ever 100% good for everyone. Getting over 70% of people into the "good" range for something is actually pretty decent.

bicker · 05-13-2009, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo-Ray

If you're referring to that FCC report, your numbers are a little off.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-287579A1.pdf

Yup... my memory was dyslexic. 89%, not 98%.

ShowMeRon · 05-13-2009, 05:07 AM

Too bad there isn't a survey for people who were around when TV stations first started broadcasting back in the 40's early 50's and the headaches they faced installing antennas, etc... to receive the signals.

1inxs · 05-13-2009, 06:27 AM

Receiving UHF digital signals from 180 miles is an impressive achievement. What is your procedure for locating, verifying, peaking, tweaking and confirming the station? I would imagine it wouldn't take too long after you initially locate, tune and document a location. Do you have a receiver set up and specified for each location or do you position the antenna and rescan each position? Is your tower also used for ham radio? I always wanted to start a thread for pictures of personal towers as well as the broadcast and translator towers. Maybe we should start the thread with pictures of yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allah.ollah

Since I live in hurricane country all this has to come down when storms come calling. It takes me almost 2 days to remove everything. However, I am proud of what I have and don't mind the work.

That was going to be my next question. It seems there are hurdles of nature in every part of the country to deal with. After spending 2 days to remove the equipment, how much time to set up and secure everything again?
Would lightning and wind be a factor for someone like me in the high mountain desert?


Home \| DTV & HD News \| Today's Posts \| JakesDTVBlog.com Interview \| Join DTV USA Forum