Attention TV Viewers: DTV signals are weaker than analog signals...
- Status
Let us review:
Ones and zeroes will be less likely to be distorted, but they will also be less likely to do anything!
I would take distortion over a black screen.
I never (or almost never) got distortion with analog.
New info:
In the time of analog, I could do better with a $10 indoor antenna than a fancy outdoor antenna.
Don't get me wrong. I think DTV is a good idea. However, it is also poorly executed.
Ones and zeroes will be less likely to be distorted, but they will also be less likely to do anything!
I would take distortion over a black screen.
I never (or almost never) got distortion with analog.
New info:
In the time of analog, I could do better with a $10 indoor antenna than a fancy outdoor antenna.
Don't get me wrong. I think DTV is a good idea. However, it is also poorly executed.
I was refering to the examples here. Which are of course amplified where required, sometimes multiple times, if we are talking really big complexes, they may even have a commercial-grade headend put in aswell. Most landlords here are happy to foot the bill because it adds value to the property, they can ask for more rent p/w, and in some states; if the building was built with TV outlets then the tenant can force the landlord to have them connected anyway. Most people if they found they moved into an apartment without OTA would get very annoyed, very fast. Of course there are also those that own their apartments aswell.
The only people who have had serious problems with ATSC are those who live in cities (multipath), and those in deep fringe areas (weak signal). These were the same people who had the same problems, to varying degrees, with NTSC.
I enjoy my 38 SD and HD channels, and I would never go back to a handful of snowy 480i analog channels.
I enjoy my 38 SD and HD channels, and I would never go back to a handful of snowy 480i analog channels.
If you want more channels, attempt some of what was suggested to you in your other thread, or if you dont like outlaying on a risk, arrange a professional.
You currently have an antenna with a low-mid VHF/UHF gain, that was probably put up in the first spot you decided on, not where it necessarily works best. And you dont have a pre-amp.
Even your TVFool shows that signals from 3 different markets are likely within your grasp (take your pick!), yet all you are getting is a few LOS stations.
Some people would kill for a TVFool report like yours, upgrade your system and bring in the signals you want! They are within your grasp!
You currently have an antenna with a low-mid VHF/UHF gain, that was probably put up in the first spot you decided on, not where it necessarily works best. And you dont have a pre-amp.
Even your TVFool shows that signals from 3 different markets are likely within your grasp (take your pick!), yet all you are getting is a few LOS stations.
Some people would kill for a TVFool report like yours, upgrade your system and bring in the signals you want! They are within your grasp!
Last edited:
Well I have a mountain between myself and the, quite distant, transmitter. Both a weak signal, and also "blocked" by a mountain so no LOS. But I did not have any, what I would call, "trouble" with the NTSC. This apparently is because VHF can somehow get over or propagate around the mountain, and none of my main channels were snowy or otherwise poor with NTSC. And all my main channels back then were vhf. Now with ATSC, and with the help of re-mapping, 3 of my main channels, specifically 2, 4, and 5 became uhf. I have only been able to re-capture 5 now after upgrading to the 91 element uhf antenna.
Sure I can spend more and do better, which I intend to do, but the point is my ability to receive ota degraded significantly. If they were going to change vhf channels to uhf they can figure it is not going to propagate over or around a mountain as well, so should put a repeater on top of the mountain for the MANY people who live on the distant side of it.
So no that's not true, to say the only people that have trouble with digital are those that had trouble with analog, if that's what you are saying. Not true in my case, for instance.
Sure I can spend more and do better, which I intend to do, but the point is my ability to receive ota degraded significantly. If they were going to change vhf channels to uhf they can figure it is not going to propagate over or around a mountain as well, so should put a repeater on top of the mountain for the MANY people who live on the distant side of it.
So no that's not true, to say the only people that have trouble with digital are those that had trouble with analog, if that's what you are saying. Not true in my case, for instance.
You shouldn't have to.
If I had to choose one, I would choose the Arkansas market.
Even your TVFool shows that signals from 3 different markets are likely within your grasp (take your pick!), yet all you are getting is a few LOS stations.
Some people would kill for a TVFool report like yours, upgrade your system and bring in the signals you want! They are within your grasp!
Some people would kill for a TVFool report like yours, upgrade your system and bring in the signals you want! They are within your grasp!
Last edited:
That isnt ATSCs problem though, the FCC has moved those channels, and UHF has worse propagation chracteristics. OTOH stations that moved the other way may become receivable where they werent before. Luck of the draw.
If they moved and NTSC was still in use, you would still get similar issues.
They likely didnt put a repeater on top because possibly most of the population isnt affected (if most of them live behind you, then chances are its diffracting to them just fine), or because OTA having diminished importance in the US, they cant justify it. (Here, you might get a transmitter put up for a couple of thousand people, sometimes even less if its controlled by a local council or community group)
If they moved and NTSC was still in use, you would still get similar issues.
They likely didnt put a repeater on top because possibly most of the population isnt affected (if most of them live behind you, then chances are its diffracting to them just fine), or because OTA having diminished importance in the US, they cant justify it. (Here, you might get a transmitter put up for a couple of thousand people, sometimes even less if its controlled by a local council or community group)
I am sure you had snowy reception before... "to varying degrees"
But at any rate, what did your reception in was most likely the switch to UHF. Yea, they should put a translator on the mountain, but they probably won't - because the FCC is taking away the frequencies needed for those translators. Where I live, local counties fund these translators for the most part, and they are getting a bit worried that they may lose the frequencies they use, leaving them with useless broadcasting equipment.
I depend on translators and LP stations for 100% of my reception, and I am worried that I will lose a good portion of my channels when spectrum is confiscated.
But at any rate, what did your reception in was most likely the switch to UHF. Yea, they should put a translator on the mountain, but they probably won't - because the FCC is taking away the frequencies needed for those translators. Where I live, local counties fund these translators for the most part, and they are getting a bit worried that they may lose the frequencies they use, leaving them with useless broadcasting equipment.
I depend on translators and LP stations for 100% of my reception, and I am worried that I will lose a good portion of my channels when spectrum is confiscated.
Sounds like a good argument for shared multiplexes if you ask me (coupled with MPEG4 compressions, and eventually ATSC 2.0).
See the UK's Freeview HD multiplex for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeview_(UK)#Freeview_HD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_Kingdom#Terrestrial
- Status