FOX TV New Antenna (Patent Pending) Data and research and news.
Mountain topping with my antenna
Mountain topping at 2300 feet. Furthermost channel received 136 miles away. Going back today to use Spectrum Analyzer to compare my antenna to the C-2 with actual data, and not just channels received with a picture. Channels listed below were received with a Haier portable 12 volt TV, and my antenna design. Ran out of time, so another trip is required.
Longitude 37.05683
Latitude 80.06707
Virtual Channel - Actual Channel - Distance in Miles - Lat 37.05683 Lon 80.06707
2.1 WFMY 51 82.8
4.1 WUNC 25 92.2
5.1 WRAL 48 128.3
8.1 WGHP 35 86.7
13.1 WSET 13 29.8
15.1 WBRA 3 10.8
16.1 Ion ? ??
20.1 WWCW 20 30.1
22.1 WLFL 27 128.3
24.1 WEFC 24 27.6
28.1 WRDC 28 127.9
30.1 WRAY 42 136.3
35.1 WRLH 26 139.5
40 WYAT Analog 40 27.3
40.1 WUVC 38 122.6
44.1 ???? ?? ???
45.1 WXLV 29 83.1
47.1 WGSR 15 60.3
48.1 WMYV 33 83.1
Channels received with a portable TV Haier Model HLT71
Spectrum Analyzer detected 28 RF channels
TV Fool
Several Channels not listed in TVFOOL such as 16.1 ION
Mountain topping at 2300 feet. Furthermost channel received 136 miles away. Going back today to use Spectrum Analyzer to compare my antenna to the C-2 with actual data, and not just channels received with a picture. Channels listed below were received with a Haier portable 12 volt TV, and my antenna design. Ran out of time, so another trip is required.
Longitude 37.05683
Latitude 80.06707
Virtual Channel - Actual Channel - Distance in Miles - Lat 37.05683 Lon 80.06707
2.1 WFMY 51 82.8
4.1 WUNC 25 92.2
5.1 WRAL 48 128.3
8.1 WGHP 35 86.7
13.1 WSET 13 29.8
15.1 WBRA 3 10.8
16.1 Ion ? ??
20.1 WWCW 20 30.1
22.1 WLFL 27 128.3
24.1 WEFC 24 27.6
28.1 WRDC 28 127.9
30.1 WRAY 42 136.3
35.1 WRLH 26 139.5
40 WYAT Analog 40 27.3
40.1 WUVC 38 122.6
44.1 ???? ?? ???
45.1 WXLV 29 83.1
47.1 WGSR 15 60.3
48.1 WMYV 33 83.1
Channels received with a portable TV Haier Model HLT71
Spectrum Analyzer detected 28 RF channels
TV Fool
Several Channels not listed in TVFOOL such as 16.1 ION
Last edited:
The above RF Channel count revealed 58 program streams. It also included a Unavision station for those who are of Latin decent..That's a lot of free TV, that the Government wants to snuff out for the benefit of the broadband industry. Such a shame that the Dollar ALWAYS trumps the needs of the people.
Thanks for the info, but the WWCW info is not a misprint. That is the station I worked for, so I know it is accurate, and I received a picture and viewed the stations logo bug on the screen, so I know it is true. These are only the stations I received with a 12 volt portable TV and my antenna and actually saw a picture and a station ID. It was not supposed to be an accurate inventory it any way.
I did a spectrum analyzer RF detection test only just to see how many stations it detected, and to see the actual RF channels my antenna was receiving to see how well it covered the TV band. A spectrum analyzer is much more sensitive to detecting RF signals than is a portable TV, and will show RF signals that the TV won't actually produce a picture on.
Doing an actual full analysis of each channel would take at least a day, and I have not had time to go back and do the exhaustive analysis that I nee since job searches are much more important right now.
I did a spectrum analyzer RF detection test only just to see how many stations it detected, and to see the actual RF channels my antenna was receiving to see how well it covered the TV band. A spectrum analyzer is much more sensitive to detecting RF signals than is a portable TV, and will show RF signals that the TV won't actually produce a picture on.
Doing an actual full analysis of each channel would take at least a day, and I have not had time to go back and do the exhaustive analysis that I nee since job searches are much more important right now.
I thought maybe TVFool had the misprint, since they list 21.1 (you have 20.1) as the virtual channel number. But now I see when I pull up WWCW on Wikipedia, it also says virtual number 21.1, so I guess they're both wrong! Or maybe it has two virtual numbers? I notice WCWG, 83 miles away, also has VCN = 20.1
I understand. I just thought it was a little unusual that you got stations like WUVC (Tropo, NM = -18.7) and WYAT (1Edge, NM = -14.2), but not WTLU (LOS, NM = +18.2) or WDBJ (2Edge, NM = +37.7)
I can certainly appreciate that! Just wanted you to know somebody's paying attention.
Thx,
Rick
I understand. I just thought it was a little unusual that you got stations like WUVC (Tropo, NM = -18.7) and WYAT (1Edge, NM = -14.2), but not WTLU (LOS, NM = +18.2) or WDBJ (2Edge, NM = +37.7)
I can certainly appreciate that! Just wanted you to know somebody's paying attention.
Thx,
Rick
Thanks Rick, Nice to know someone is looking, and after reviewing my list again, I did make an error on the WWCW channel number. WWCW is actually using channel 20, with a virtual channel of 21.1. I simply wrote it wrong on my list as habit from working there, and always referring to it as channel 20. TVFOOL is correct that the virtual channel number should be 21.1. WCWG is actually using their old channel number as their virtual channel now, but they could conflict if the data was incorrect since the WWCW signals do get into their market.
WWCW had to use a directional antenna for analog to avoid interference with the WCWG analog signal back in the day since WCWG analog was actually on channel 20, and WWCW analog was on channel 21. The WWCW digital signal was also on channel 20, and WWCW actually got the Digital channel 20 assignment, and WCWG is now on another RF channel.
The channels received on the TV, and even on a spectrum analyzer are still line of sight, no matter what the elevation is. I am not sure how accurate the TVFOOL data is at over 2300 feet since it is only accurate to 500 feet or less. I am also using Longitude latitude coordinates from a GPS unit, instead of zip codes. This could explain the discrepancy, and the spec analyzer showed RF signals that the TV would not receive a picture on. This could be due to signals below the threshold of the TV's Chipset that the spec analyzer can detect but the TV cannot detect. They both showed different results using the very same antenna.
TV FOOL also uses the predicted coverage database from the Longley-Rice modeling software, and my experience in actual field strength tests shows a big variance in actual results when compared to real time field strength tests and the results generated by the Longley-Rice modeling software.
This could also be due to antenna aiming since my antenna is much more directional than other designs. Movement of just an inch can drop signals 1 to 3 db, and if already at the chipset threshold, it may not produce a picture on a TV set that the spec analyzer can detect, but this is my intent with this design since multi-path is such a big issue with DTV signals, and it was my intention in the design to reject multi-path signals the the maximum extent possible.
TV sets use the pilot carrier to detect a signal but they also "LOOK" for data streams to lock onto. The spec analyzer "LOOKS' for Rf energy as its main focus, and then analyzes the data it contains, so this is another possible reason for the differences in channel data shown that may or may not be received by a TV set.
There are also many other possibilities that can cause a lack of reception on a TV set such as a mis-tuned transmitter exciter, or non linear transmitter amplifier tuning, or even a station running at reduced power due to problems with the transmitter, antenna, or the Rf transmission system etc. Transmitters have many built in safety systems that can reduce power, or even shut it down if problems are detected. There can also be maintenance being done to a transmitter or tuning in progress that requires reduced power levels. there are many reasons that could explain why something listed in TVFOOL may not be receivable at certain times.
This directionality of my antenna can also present problems when scanning for new channels with a chipset that does not allow manual entry of channels, which a lot of them do not allow. I am running into this problem with newer sets, but I can get around it with an older tuner I have that does allow manual channel entry.
This issue should be addressed by chipset designers since channels can come from multiple directions in many markets, and with highly directional antennas now being used, not all channels will be detected, and without manual entry, they will not be viewable, even though the signal is available to them that is coming from a different direction. this is a big problem that should be addressed, or set up in an industry standard basic spec sheet for all TV tuner chipset manufacturers.
WWCW had to use a directional antenna for analog to avoid interference with the WCWG analog signal back in the day since WCWG analog was actually on channel 20, and WWCW analog was on channel 21. The WWCW digital signal was also on channel 20, and WWCW actually got the Digital channel 20 assignment, and WCWG is now on another RF channel.
The channels received on the TV, and even on a spectrum analyzer are still line of sight, no matter what the elevation is. I am not sure how accurate the TVFOOL data is at over 2300 feet since it is only accurate to 500 feet or less. I am also using Longitude latitude coordinates from a GPS unit, instead of zip codes. This could explain the discrepancy, and the spec analyzer showed RF signals that the TV would not receive a picture on. This could be due to signals below the threshold of the TV's Chipset that the spec analyzer can detect but the TV cannot detect. They both showed different results using the very same antenna.
TV FOOL also uses the predicted coverage database from the Longley-Rice modeling software, and my experience in actual field strength tests shows a big variance in actual results when compared to real time field strength tests and the results generated by the Longley-Rice modeling software.
This could also be due to antenna aiming since my antenna is much more directional than other designs. Movement of just an inch can drop signals 1 to 3 db, and if already at the chipset threshold, it may not produce a picture on a TV set that the spec analyzer can detect, but this is my intent with this design since multi-path is such a big issue with DTV signals, and it was my intention in the design to reject multi-path signals the the maximum extent possible.
TV sets use the pilot carrier to detect a signal but they also "LOOK" for data streams to lock onto. The spec analyzer "LOOKS' for Rf energy as its main focus, and then analyzes the data it contains, so this is another possible reason for the differences in channel data shown that may or may not be received by a TV set.
There are also many other possibilities that can cause a lack of reception on a TV set such as a mis-tuned transmitter exciter, or non linear transmitter amplifier tuning, or even a station running at reduced power due to problems with the transmitter, antenna, or the Rf transmission system etc. Transmitters have many built in safety systems that can reduce power, or even shut it down if problems are detected. There can also be maintenance being done to a transmitter or tuning in progress that requires reduced power levels. there are many reasons that could explain why something listed in TVFOOL may not be receivable at certain times.
This directionality of my antenna can also present problems when scanning for new channels with a chipset that does not allow manual entry of channels, which a lot of them do not allow. I am running into this problem with newer sets, but I can get around it with an older tuner I have that does allow manual channel entry.
This issue should be addressed by chipset designers since channels can come from multiple directions in many markets, and with highly directional antennas now being used, not all channels will be detected, and without manual entry, they will not be viewable, even though the signal is available to them that is coming from a different direction. this is a big problem that should be addressed, or set up in an industry standard basic spec sheet for all TV tuner chipset manufacturers.
Last edited:
Dang! Another thing to be on the qui vive for. The TVFool report actually says 500 ft, and you had said 2300. Got to take TVFool at its word, and that explains a lot.
Instead of waiting for an industry standard, is there any way you could address it yourself? I was thinking of including multiple antennas in different packages that swivel and combine in such a way as to avoid multipath. Not omnidirectional ... multidirectional. :thumb:
R.
Instead of waiting for an industry standard, is there any way you could address it yourself? I was thinking of including multiple antennas in different packages that swivel and combine in such a way as to avoid multipath. Not omnidirectional ... multidirectional. :thumb:
R.
Quote "Instead of waiting for an industry standard, is there any way you could address it yourself? I was thinking of including multiple antennas in different packages that swivel and combine in such a way as to avoid multipath. Not omnidirectional ..."
The issue is very complicated due to the timing factor involved in Digital signals, and the scan speed of most receivers. It seems like it would be difficult to know where to stop the rotating antenna just at the right time. Multiple antennas may work, but the rejection factor of the multiple antennas would have to be very high, and if they did see some signal due to reflections the timing would still be off.
I have a small TV in my kitchen with an indoor antenna, and my main TV in the Living room. The one in the living room is hooked to an outdoor antenna with about 50 feet of coax and with both of them on at the same time, I hear a definite echo that sounds like re verb. I believe is due just to the different lengths of coax involved and the time it takes the signal to propagate the longer cable run. I have tried multiple antennas that were not matched as far as cable length, and they cancel each other out.
Most of the omni designs were done to try and address this issue, but we know how good omni works on digital. I think this is a hard issue to deal with, and there was an attempt some years back to develop a smart antenna, but it dropped by the wayside, and they had lots of money to try and develop this idea that never worked very well.
The issue is very complicated due to the timing factor involved in Digital signals, and the scan speed of most receivers. It seems like it would be difficult to know where to stop the rotating antenna just at the right time. Multiple antennas may work, but the rejection factor of the multiple antennas would have to be very high, and if they did see some signal due to reflections the timing would still be off.
I have a small TV in my kitchen with an indoor antenna, and my main TV in the Living room. The one in the living room is hooked to an outdoor antenna with about 50 feet of coax and with both of them on at the same time, I hear a definite echo that sounds like re verb. I believe is due just to the different lengths of coax involved and the time it takes the signal to propagate the longer cable run. I have tried multiple antennas that were not matched as far as cable length, and they cancel each other out.
Most of the omni designs were done to try and address this issue, but we know how good omni works on digital. I think this is a hard issue to deal with, and there was an attempt some years back to develop a smart antenna, but it dropped by the wayside, and they had lots of money to try and develop this idea that never worked very well.
Last edited:
FOX, huh? Give us a freeking break ... what you wrote is absolute nonsense. Everything OTA available to you is arriving to you at the speed of light and I highly doubt your ears can detect doppler at light speeds.
FACT: the reason for the audio (and video) time-shift you are seeing is based on the processor speeds of different digital tuners or converter boxes: some are faster than others and it has nothing to do with cable lengths.
Jim
FACT: the reason for the audio (and video) time-shift you are seeing is based on the processor speeds of different digital tuners or converter boxes: some are faster than others and it has nothing to do with cable lengths.
Jim
Last edited:
I was just thinking that Fringe/Jim's solution to his tough reception problem was several specially cut Yagi's pointed in different directions and combined. Now you say your antenna is very directional. That leaves the frequency problem. But not ALL frequencies can interfere with all others ... right ... ??? I'm sure you're on it, and know a hellovalot more than I do aboudit.
My belief on the smart antennas is that the technology works as advertised. They have the numbers to back it up, and the big antenna mfgs wouldn't fake those numbers. It's just that making an antenna twice as large works just as well, and the metal is less expensive than the circuitry plus enforcing a standard across different antennas and boxes. So they concentrated on indoor antennas where really small antennas are supposedly required. Then half the people who got them didn't realize you had to match the box to the antenna to get any benefit, and many negative reviews ensued -- a marketing fiasco. :duh:
But look carefully at those old reviews on Amazon, etc. You have a genuine precentage of real people saying "Amazing ... better than anything else ... dozens of stations!", and then you have nearly as many clueless, one star reviews that brought average ratings way down. One of the many times capitalism didn't gel optimally.
My belief on the smart antennas is that the technology works as advertised. They have the numbers to back it up, and the big antenna mfgs wouldn't fake those numbers. It's just that making an antenna twice as large works just as well, and the metal is less expensive than the circuitry plus enforcing a standard across different antennas and boxes. So they concentrated on indoor antennas where really small antennas are supposedly required. Then half the people who got them didn't realize you had to match the box to the antenna to get any benefit, and many negative reviews ensued -- a marketing fiasco. :duh:
But look carefully at those old reviews on Amazon, etc. You have a genuine precentage of real people saying "Amazing ... better than anything else ... dozens of stations!", and then you have nearly as many clueless, one star reviews that brought average ratings way down. One of the many times capitalism didn't gel optimally.
You need to give me a break, and use your brain before insulating that I am full of it or lying. What you say is not true at all. I am very aware of processor speeds, since I am a computer technician with 14 years experience, so you now are implying that I am a liar and an idiot based on your reply. Processor speed that is not the entire equation.
I have tried switching the 2 tv's to the different antennas, and the audio phenomenon stays the same where the audio on the short antenna cable ALWAYS LEADS the one on the longer antenna cable, even when the tv's are switched to the different antennas. Maybe this is a perception that I have no way of electrically measuring, short of having a Time Domain Reflectometer, which I cannot afford.
And since your comment smacks of extreme criticism, and implies that I don't know what I am talking about, I took the time and hooked up two identical COUPON BOXES ( MAGNAVOX ) to the different antennas, and the audio phenomenon is still there, and TO MY EAR "seems" to be the same.
You have not considered all of the possible factors before you jump to conclusions and insinuate that I am a liar and an idiot. Could it be that one of the antennas is receiving a reflected signal, and combined with the 50 foot cable length is actually inducing a humanly delectable delay?
How much of a delay do you think it takes to produce a reverb effect in an audio amplifier which was designed for that purpose? It is in the order of milliseconds, and that timing factor could very well be responsible for the effect I hear, even when using IDENTICAL BOXES WITH IDENTICAL CHIPSETS, and for your information, this time scale is selectable in the antenna analyzer I use to identify multi path signals in the TV data stream analyzer I have.
The reason for that is the extreme distances that a multi path signal signal can take. You used to be able to identify in analog video about how far out in miles the reflected signal was, just by how far the shadow image was from the strong or main image. I bet you did not know that one did you?
Yes, electrical signals do travel at the speed of light in "FREE SPACE" but when they encounter resistance such as that induced by COPPER CONDUCTORS, that speed is effected in a small, but detectable way. (AND JUST SO YOU KNOW...Radar uses wave guides with air as the the transmission medium, NOT COPPER LINE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF METALLIC CONDUCTOR to get the signal to the amplifier!!!!!!!! )
There is no argument in my mind that difference in speeds of electrical energy and signals can be detected by Time Domain Reflectometers, which are used to tune transmitter antennas, and for many other signal diagnostic uses such as finding cable faults, and in fact are the basis of radar receivers in their simplest forms.
Since the same IDENTICAL MAGNAVOX chipsets were used, how do you explain the difference in the audio timing in the second scenario MR. SMART ASS KNOW IT ALL? Sometimes we encounter phenomenon we simply cannot explain, but being human we still try to do so.
You accusing me of LYING so it seems, and that is where I draw the line. This forum is dying, and when you accuse someone of lying, it detracts greatly from the integrity and believability of this forum as a place to find TRUE INFORMATION!
What reason do I have for lying on here, and in fact what reason do I have for contributing here anymore when one doubter that I thought was a friend takes it upon himself to call me a liar in an indirect way?
Once someone gets elevated to a position of ""IMPORTANCE" here ( IN THEIR OWN MIND) they reserve the right to call someone a liar. YOUR INSINUATIONS ARE SIMPLY WRONG, AND OUT OF PLACE, AS WELL AS INSULTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And some folks wonder why I avoid this forum, when I used to be a regular contributor. You need not look any further, for you have found the reason right here. Think before you insult is a real good moto to live by, and PRACTICE on here.
I have tried switching the 2 tv's to the different antennas, and the audio phenomenon stays the same where the audio on the short antenna cable ALWAYS LEADS the one on the longer antenna cable, even when the tv's are switched to the different antennas. Maybe this is a perception that I have no way of electrically measuring, short of having a Time Domain Reflectometer, which I cannot afford.
And since your comment smacks of extreme criticism, and implies that I don't know what I am talking about, I took the time and hooked up two identical COUPON BOXES ( MAGNAVOX ) to the different antennas, and the audio phenomenon is still there, and TO MY EAR "seems" to be the same.
You have not considered all of the possible factors before you jump to conclusions and insinuate that I am a liar and an idiot. Could it be that one of the antennas is receiving a reflected signal, and combined with the 50 foot cable length is actually inducing a humanly delectable delay?
How much of a delay do you think it takes to produce a reverb effect in an audio amplifier which was designed for that purpose? It is in the order of milliseconds, and that timing factor could very well be responsible for the effect I hear, even when using IDENTICAL BOXES WITH IDENTICAL CHIPSETS, and for your information, this time scale is selectable in the antenna analyzer I use to identify multi path signals in the TV data stream analyzer I have.
The reason for that is the extreme distances that a multi path signal signal can take. You used to be able to identify in analog video about how far out in miles the reflected signal was, just by how far the shadow image was from the strong or main image. I bet you did not know that one did you?
Yes, electrical signals do travel at the speed of light in "FREE SPACE" but when they encounter resistance such as that induced by COPPER CONDUCTORS, that speed is effected in a small, but detectable way. (AND JUST SO YOU KNOW...Radar uses wave guides with air as the the transmission medium, NOT COPPER LINE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF METALLIC CONDUCTOR to get the signal to the amplifier!!!!!!!! )
There is no argument in my mind that difference in speeds of electrical energy and signals can be detected by Time Domain Reflectometers, which are used to tune transmitter antennas, and for many other signal diagnostic uses such as finding cable faults, and in fact are the basis of radar receivers in their simplest forms.
Since the same IDENTICAL MAGNAVOX chipsets were used, how do you explain the difference in the audio timing in the second scenario MR. SMART ASS KNOW IT ALL? Sometimes we encounter phenomenon we simply cannot explain, but being human we still try to do so.
You accusing me of LYING so it seems, and that is where I draw the line. This forum is dying, and when you accuse someone of lying, it detracts greatly from the integrity and believability of this forum as a place to find TRUE INFORMATION!
What reason do I have for lying on here, and in fact what reason do I have for contributing here anymore when one doubter that I thought was a friend takes it upon himself to call me a liar in an indirect way?
Once someone gets elevated to a position of ""IMPORTANCE" here ( IN THEIR OWN MIND) they reserve the right to call someone a liar. YOUR INSINUATIONS ARE SIMPLY WRONG, AND OUT OF PLACE, AS WELL AS INSULTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And some folks wonder why I avoid this forum, when I used to be a regular contributor. You need not look any further, for you have found the reason right here. Think before you insult is a real good moto to live by, and PRACTICE on here.
Last edited:
A quote about my antenna design from a real and true TV and Radio signal tester who does this for a living !!
And a sure fire ndicator that I don't know what I am talking about as was insinuated in the above post !!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE FROM AN E_MAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF MY DTV ANTENNA DESIGN !!
I was able to use your antenna doing some of my field measurements. At one
location I was able to measure a station based in Harlan Ky. sitting on
top of a hill in Wytheville Va. (AAPPROXIMATELY 150 MILES ) I have used this spot before and been able to measure this station, but I always had to sit there waiting for propagation to be just right and I usually had only a couple minute Window to make my measurement.
Using you antenna the signal was very strong with full quieting, which was a huge improvement for my use. And that was with me just sitting in the drivers seat with the door open holding the antenna as high as I could, peaking it on the signal. Which might turn out to be the simplest way for me to use the antenna(s). So
suffice to say, you can consider me your first paying customer, and I will in fact buy this antenna from you if it's available for purchase, depending on the price.
I don't know if you've thought about pricing yet as compared to what the other antennas commercially available sell for, but this one seems to be doing a good job. Granted I haven't tried the C-2 or any of the clones, but this one does a fine job for my needs. I have a 45 miles commercially available Wineguard consumer antenna I use doing my DirecTV tests I am going to try also, just to see how that compares to yours.
And a sure fire ndicator that I don't know what I am talking about as was insinuated in the above post !!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE FROM AN E_MAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF MY DTV ANTENNA DESIGN !!
I was able to use your antenna doing some of my field measurements. At one
location I was able to measure a station based in Harlan Ky. sitting on
top of a hill in Wytheville Va. (AAPPROXIMATELY 150 MILES ) I have used this spot before and been able to measure this station, but I always had to sit there waiting for propagation to be just right and I usually had only a couple minute Window to make my measurement.
Using you antenna the signal was very strong with full quieting, which was a huge improvement for my use. And that was with me just sitting in the drivers seat with the door open holding the antenna as high as I could, peaking it on the signal. Which might turn out to be the simplest way for me to use the antenna(s). So
suffice to say, you can consider me your first paying customer, and I will in fact buy this antenna from you if it's available for purchase, depending on the price.
I don't know if you've thought about pricing yet as compared to what the other antennas commercially available sell for, but this one seems to be doing a good job. Granted I haven't tried the C-2 or any of the clones, but this one does a fine job for my needs. I have a 45 miles commercially available Wineguard consumer antenna I use doing my DirecTV tests I am going to try also, just to see how that compares to yours.
Fringe reception is correct about the echo, the time for cable propagation is tiny, it is imperceptibly short. The time for processing is much larger but even it only makes a small difference, what you are hearing is that some TVs maintain a larger memory buffer of the incoming stream (if different models) and/or also that the the distance the sound has to travel through the air the distance between your two TVs (all else being equal). The speed of sound is perceptible over relatively short distances (343m will provide a full second of delay, 34m will provide .1 seconds of delay ).
For all intents and purposes the OTA signal is reaching all sets at in your home the same time.
OTA signal down RG6 cable is travelling at a significant portion of the speed of light (~66%). The speed of light being 300,000km/sec or 186,000mi/sec
Even in 0.00001 of a second (much much much less what you can perceive), your OTA signal has travelled ~2km or ~1.25 miles down your cable.
Even using identical boxes is not foolproof as if they are connected to different sets, they will be buffered for different lengths of time for image and audio processing.
For all intents and purposes the OTA signal is reaching all sets at in your home the same time.
OTA signal down RG6 cable is travelling at a significant portion of the speed of light (~66%). The speed of light being 300,000km/sec or 186,000mi/sec
Even in 0.00001 of a second (much much much less what you can perceive), your OTA signal has travelled ~2km or ~1.25 miles down your cable.
Even using identical boxes is not foolproof as if they are connected to different sets, they will be buffered for different lengths of time for image and audio processing.
Last edited:
opcorn:I think you're missing the part where FOX said he tested this by switching the leads to different sets. Let's be real. FOX is an antenna designer, and does many, many tests. He can't line-item every detail of every test, such as how far his ears are from each TV, or whether he moves his head midtest.
The other part we're missing is the two coax leads are connected to two different antennas at two different heights and positions. They are picking up two different versions of the same signal, slightly out of phase. It's just like the examples I mentioned in another thread, where 2Edge and Tropo signals were reaching the same antenna at the same time -- just a little out of phase -- thus confusing the tuner.
It's not a common thing, but you can find such examples as easily as I did, on the TVFool message boards and elsewhere. Google is your friend. :cheers:
Rick
The other part we're missing is the two coax leads are connected to two different antennas at two different heights and positions. They are picking up two different versions of the same signal, slightly out of phase. It's just like the examples I mentioned in another thread, where 2Edge and Tropo signals were reaching the same antenna at the same time -- just a little out of phase -- thus confusing the tuner.
It's not a common thing, but you can find such examples as easily as I did, on the TVFool message boards and elsewhere. Google is your friend. :cheers:
Rick
None of us have hit upon every possible cause for this phenomenon, and I agree with some of the points about buffering, BUT, since I am using AV from the Magnavox receivers, and a 6 inch CRT portable on one antenna and receiver, and a 13 inch CRT analog TV set, both with A/V inputs with the other antenna, The only thing I am moving is the two different Magnavox receivers (COUPON BOXES) which puts both antennas and TV sets on the same and equal footing in my experiments.
Given all of this, how do you explain in your infinite wisdom why the antenna on my Kitchen counter with only about 4 foot of RG-6 ALWAYS LEADS THE ONE HOOKED UP TO THE ROOFTOP ANTENNA WITH OVER 50 FEET OF CABLE HOOKED TO IT ,and is mounted 30 feet in the air????
In theory, the processor speeds and even your buffer scenario should be the same on both COUPON BOXES since they both are identical models with the a base motherboard, and the plug in riser card chipset installed. If you have ever had one of these boxes open you will know what I refer to. Some of the later magnavox COUPON BOXES were of a integrated motheboard design, but I have the early riser card type with IDENTICAL CHIPSETS. ( OR AT LEAST THE NUMBERS SAY THEY ARE THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
If this was an issue with buffering, or processor speed differences between the two converter boxes, the difference would move with the converter boxes, BUT IT DOESN'T. Just so you know, I agree with your opinions when referring to two different TV brands with different chipsets.
None of us have the equipment to prove or DISPROVE what I am saying, and we are all expressing THEORY, and OPINIONS. All I know is that THIS IS HAPPENING for SOME UNDEFINED REASON, and I have proven it to myself that it is real in as scientific a way I have available to me. Everything stays the same except for switching the converter boxes, and the ANTENNA IN MY KITCHEN WITH THE SHORT COAX RUN ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS LEADS THE OTHER ONE.
EVEN WHEN I FIRST NOTICED IT USING TWO DIFFERENT LCD TV'S FROM DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS. THAT IS WHY I POSTED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHAT I DID NOT EXPECT WAS TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO I HAVE AGREED WITH 100% OF THE TIME IN THE PAST TO ACCUSE ME OF BEING AN IDIOT AND A LIAR. THAT IS NOT CALLED FOR, PROPER OR FRIENDLY. AND DOES NOT GIVE A GOOD IMPRESSION OF THIS FORUM, ESPECIALLY AS LIKE JASON SAYS.."FROM CONTRIBUTORS" I HAVE NO REASON TO RING MY OWN BELL, OR CONVINCE MYSELF THAT THIS IS REAL AND IS IN FACT HAPPENING, FOR I WITNESS IT EVERY NIGHT AT SUPPER TIME !!!!!!!!!
And he isnt the only on who deals with antennas and audio systems on a day-to-day basis. I need to understand things like this to try and reduce the reverb in open area PA systems as an example
Even most home theatre receivers ask you how far away each speaker is from your listening position, this is so the sound arrives to you at the same time. Sound, relatively speaking, is rather slow.
Imagine your cable, each 3 foot of cable produces a massive delay of only 4ns (4 billionths of a second) compared to a TV that is closer
In the open air, RF waves are near enough to full light speed, and each extra 3 foot of propagation path adds an extra 3ns compared to an antenna that is closer
Over any realistically sized home, the delay will be imperceptible.
The delay of audio on the other hand becomes perceptible over no more than a few metres.
The position you stand/sit in to hear both sets is likely closer to the Kitchen.
If you reread my post i specifically state that the processing issues only refer to sets of different models. The sound issue is universally applicable.
I beleive you that they sound like one is "ahead" of the other, Im trying to explain that it is nothing to do with the cable as per your original assertion.
Calm down mate, noone called you a liar or an idiot...
Fringe said "what you wrote is absolute nonsense" (emphasis mine). Which from a physics standpoint is absolutely correct. There is a big difference between saying an opinion is nonsense and calling someone a liar/idiot. Fringe did not do that, and it would be well out of character for him if ever he did.
Please also note noone has said you arent hearing a delay, we are just trying to explain why you are hearing it.
FWIW FOX TV; The same kind of phenomenon occurs in my own home. And my explanation of why is entirely consistent with it.
Even most home theatre receivers ask you how far away each speaker is from your listening position, this is so the sound arrives to you at the same time. Sound, relatively speaking, is rather slow.
Imagine your cable, each 3 foot of cable produces a massive delay of only 4ns (4 billionths of a second) compared to a TV that is closer
In the open air, RF waves are near enough to full light speed, and each extra 3 foot of propagation path adds an extra 3ns compared to an antenna that is closer
Over any realistically sized home, the delay will be imperceptible.
The delay of audio on the other hand becomes perceptible over no more than a few metres.
The position you stand/sit in to hear both sets is likely closer to the Kitchen.
If you reread my post i specifically state that the processing issues only refer to sets of different models. The sound issue is universally applicable.
I beleive you that they sound like one is "ahead" of the other, Im trying to explain that it is nothing to do with the cable as per your original assertion.
Calm down mate, noone called you a liar or an idiot...
Fringe said "what you wrote is absolute nonsense" (emphasis mine). Which from a physics standpoint is absolutely correct. There is a big difference between saying an opinion is nonsense and calling someone a liar/idiot. Fringe did not do that, and it would be well out of character for him if ever he did.
Please also note noone has said you arent hearing a delay, we are just trying to explain why you are hearing it.
FWIW FOX TV; The same kind of phenomenon occurs in my own home. And my explanation of why is entirely consistent with it.
Last edited:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G | FOXnation - XFinity | Questions and Answers | 0 | |
| B | Fox Nation "live"? | DirecTV | 0 | |
| D | FOX shows missing on On-Demand | DirecTV | 0 |
Similar threads
-
-
B
-
D