What new Digital channels are you enjoying?

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Haven't noticed any difference in my Dish Network reception...

I have. The History Channel has become the UFO DaVinci Code MonsterQuest Channel.


:thumbsdown:

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I got 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from...

I've got 70 channels or so on cable. I wish there were 13 of those that were "only" shit.

I can't believe nobody got the reference...:music:

I got it. DTV gave me a strong urge to fly :^D

I didn't. Probably due to my wild, staring eyes.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I got 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from...

I've got 70 channels or so on cable. I wish there were 13 of those that were "only" shit.

I can't believe nobody got the reference...:music:

oh man!

I am ashame and disappoint all at once (at myself).

Vera!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Haven't noticed any difference in my Dish Network reception...

I have. The History Channel has become the UFO DaVinci Code MonsterQuest Channel.


:thumbsdown:

:| yep. sucks. I've noticed that the good war documentaries tend to come on early morning, so I have to set the DR for then. They seem to go through cycles where they will show the good stuff for a few weeks every evening, then replace that with months of Axe men, Ice Road truckers, and other worthless BS.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: KK
Is it normal for someone with just flat basic analog cable to pick up pretty much all the regular digital channels just from hooking the cable into a atsc/qam tuner?

Yes. I have been doing that for almost 2 years on my office and guest room TVs.

MotionMan

yeah, it works. all depends on the cable provider and whether or not they filter all, or some of their HD broadcasts. depending on where you are, some can get ESPN HD, HD net, etc by simply hooking a cable with active signal (just basic will do) to a QAM (QAM is for cable; ATSC = OTA) tuner.

most providers, however, let some free HD through while blocking or muting others. I wasn't able to get ESPN HD in Chicago through QAM, and HD net and HD net movies was muted :|

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: KK
Is it normal for someone with just flat basic analog cable to pick up pretty much all the regular digital channels just from hooking the cable into a atsc/qam tuner?

Yes. I have been doing that for almost 2 years on my office and guest room TVs.

MotionMan

yeah, it works. all depends on the cable provider and whether or not they filter all, or some of their HD broadcasts. depending on where you are, some can get ESPN HD, HD net, etc by simply hooking a cable with active signal (just basic will do) to a QAM (QAM is for cable; ATSC = OTA) tuner.

most providers, however, let some free HD through while blocking or muting others. I wasn't able to get ESPN HD in Chicago through QAM, and HD net and HD net movies was muted :|

On my channels 87.x thru 90.x seem to be the on demand type stuff. What's interesting is that it's like its programs that other people are watching. Flipping thru you may find a decent porno on and you will notice that it gets fast forwarded thru the boring parts.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I'm enjoying 5-26. It's called the grammar channel and it teaches me how to use English. You should try it, OP.

also, I've had a po-dunk 10 dollar antennae for 3 years that been picking up digital OTA HD channels through the ATSC tuner in my TV. Not sure why I'd need a "good outdoor antennae" for that. Please explain.

really don't understand?

You must be close to the towers. Digital reception is much like digital everything else. Either on or off, though since its video, there is an in-between but terrible experience.

The digital tv signals don't go out nearly as far for good reception. With analog TV, you could pick them up for quite far from the towers and still get signal. Granted, it might be a little snowy, but it came in. This gave a perception that you could get a ton of channels.

With digital, a lot of people either aren't getting the channels that were further away, or are getting picture that is extremely blocky, or might be on and off and the reception is finicky.

So it'll take stronger antennas to pick up the weaker signals (because don't outdoor antennas also amplify the signal?). I've had that problem myself but outside of my room my back, I don't need antenna reception as at school we have cable and my family has cable.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Haven't noticed any difference in my Dish Network reception...

I have. The History Channel has become the UFO DaVinci Code MonsterQuest Channel.


:thumbsdown:

:| yep. sucks. I've noticed that the good war documentaries tend to come on early morning, so I have to set the DR for then. They seem to go through cycles where they will show the good stuff for a few weeks every evening, then replace that with months of Axe men, Ice Road truckers, and other worthless BS.

The better stuff moved to the other History channel derivatives, like Military History channel.

 

[Pshawn5]

Originally posted by: IHAVEAQUESTION
Well, let's see. I lost Channel 7 KABC and Channel 9 KCAL. Anyone in LA using the over the air signal experience the same thing?

i had the same problem, just had to re-scan for channels and everything showed up.

 

[IHAVEAQUESTION]

Originally posted by: Pshawn5

Originally posted by: IHAVEAQUESTION
Well, let's see. I lost Channel 7 KABC and Channel 9 KCAL. Anyone in LA using the over the air signal experience the same thing?

i had the same problem, just had to re-scan for channels and everything showed up.

Rescan million times already.

This morning I just lost Channel 11 (KTTV). Great. This digital conversion is really working out for me.

 

[dfuze]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
The rabbit ears im using suck so I'm not getting jack shit.

My understanding is the rabbit ears only do VHF, and the digitals are all broadcasting on UHF, so give a UHF antenna a shot or build one yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

I made one of those a couple of months back and it does work great. Just gotta hide it because it is really ugly.

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
The Megan Fox channel is pretty cool. Seems like she would put clothes on some of the time though.

:laugh:

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
The rabbit ears im using suck so I'm not getting jack shit.

My understanding is the rabbit ears only do VHF, and the digitals are all broadcasting on UHF, so give a UHF antenna a shot or build one yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

Somewhat true. There are many stations that are using the upper VHF channels. The problem is that ATSC format itself is terrible at correcting for loss. It also has a very hard time with multipath. Multipath occurs when the signal bounces off a building or anything large and arrives a fraction of a second behind the original signal. On analog that showed up as ghosting. On digital , it can knock out the picture completely.

My brother lives near a major highway and his picture goes out every time a semi truck and trailer goes by. The signal he is receiving comes from the other direction, but because it is bouncing off the truck , it becomes multipath.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
I hate how digital channels skip. At least with the older format you could still see and hear the picture if the reception was bad. Now you hear "Wha.....do.......mor......I.......ups......doop......morp........gip.........lip......and that's the secret to earing 1 Million Dollars in 1 week!"

My concern is when we have hurricanes. One of the reasons why they didn't want to put DTV in the lower bands is because it is easy to disrupt the signal with other noise sources. One of those is lightning. When lightning occurs in areas with DTV each flash can generate enough noise to completely knock out the transmission for that second. With analog that showed up as a flicker or static on the screen. With digital the signal is lost and takes a few seconds to come back because the receiver has to get enough bits back to reconstruct the stream.

So I hope during hurricanes that tv doesn't become a bunch of intermittent slide shows.


I stand by my opinion that the switch to digital was not a necessary or good thing.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: destrekor


With digital, a lot of people either aren't getting the channels that were further away, or are getting picture that is extremely blocky, or might be on and off and the reception is finicky.

So it'll take stronger antennas to pick up the weaker signals (because don't outdoor antennas also amplify the signal?). I've had that problem myself but outside of my room my back, I don't need antenna reception as at school we have cable and my family has cable.

I'm running into that now helping seniors in the area with the switch. Most get nothing, some get one or two stations. They just don't have the money to put up outside antennas and many are angry that they now will have to in order to get tv, where before rabbit ears worked fine.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I'm enjoying 5-26. It's called the grammar channel and it teaches me how to use English. You should try it, OP.

also, I've had a po-dunk 10 dollar antennae for 3 years that been picking up digital OTA HD channels through the ATSC tuner in my TV. Not sure why I'd need a "good outdoor antennae" for that. Please explain.

really don't understand?

You must be close to the towers. Digital reception is much like digital everything else. Either on or off, though since its video, there is an in-between but terrible experience.

The digital tv signals don't go out nearly as far for good reception. With analog TV, you could pick them up for quite far from the towers and still get signal. Granted, it might be a little snowy, but it came in. This gave a perception that you could get a ton of channels.

With digital, a lot of people either aren't getting the channels that were further away, or are getting picture that is extremely blocky, or might be on and off and the reception is finicky.

So it'll take stronger antennas to pick up the weaker signals (because don't outdoor antennas also amplify the signal?). I've had that problem myself but outside of my room my back, I don't need antenna reception as at school we have cable and my family has cable.

This is completely opposite of the experience of a lot of people.

Here in Vancouver there are people pulling in the Seattle DTV stations from 160 miles+ away, and are getting much better reception now that the analog is gone. Same with southern Ontario and all the NY stations.

Most people are still using VHF antennas. While some stations are broadcasting in the VHF-HI range, most are well into the UHF. If they spent a few bucks on a decent antenna, they'd get a lot more stations.

All antennas amplify signal. That's what they do. You can add an in-line signal pre-amp to boost the signal, but this will only help if you are using splitters and long runs of coax after the pre-amp as it amplifies the noise from the antenna as well.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: silverpig


This is completely opposite of the experience of a lot of people.

Here in Vancouver there are people pulling in the Seattle DTV stations from 160 miles+ away, and are getting much better reception now that the analog is gone. Same with southern Ontario and all the NY stations.

BS. You are not going to get a signal, much less a DTV signal from 160 miles away unless both the sender and receiver have 100% line of sight and are on a mountain tops above all the noise, even then it would require extremely tuned systems. There isn't enough power in the transmission signal to go that far to cover atmospheric loss.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I'm enjoying 5-26. It's called the grammar channel and it teaches me how to use English. You should try it, OP.

also, I've had a po-dunk 10 dollar antennae for 3 years that been picking up digital OTA HD channels through the ATSC tuner in my TV. Not sure why I'd need a "good outdoor antennae" for that. Please explain.

really don't understand?

You must be close to the towers. Digital reception is much like digital everything else. Either on or off, though since its video, there is an in-between but terrible experience.

The digital tv signals don't go out nearly as far for good reception. With analog TV, you could pick them up for quite far from the towers and still get signal. Granted, it might be a little snowy, but it came in. This gave a perception that you could get a ton of channels.

With digital, a lot of people either aren't getting the channels that were further away, or are getting picture that is extremely blocky, or might be on and off and the reception is finicky.

So it'll take stronger antennas to pick up the weaker signals (because don't outdoor antennas also amplify the signal?). I've had that problem myself but outside of my room my back, I don't need antenna reception as at school we have cable and my family has cable.

This is completely opposite of the experience of a lot of people.

Here in Vancouver there are people pulling in the Seattle DTV stations from 160 miles+ away, and are getting much better reception now that the analog is gone. Same with southern Ontario and all the NY stations.

Most people are still using VHF antennas. While some stations are broadcasting in the VHF-HI range, most are well into the UHF. If they spent a few bucks on a decent antenna, they'd get a lot more stations.

All antennas amplify signal. That's what they do. You can add an in-line signal pre-amp to boost the signal, but this will only help if you are using splitters and long runs of coax after the pre-amp as it amplifies the noise from the antenna as well.

This is gonna make me sound like an ass, but I have to speak up.

I was in the Navy for 9 years. I was an Electronics Technician. I only worked on Comm systems.
All antennas do NOT amplify signals. In fact because they are metal conductors they actually lose a tiny little bit of signal strength as they convert RF to line current and funnel it down to the reciever. You are correct about the ability of a pre-amp to increase noise, but the purpose of all recievers is to take whatever RF they can find and turn it into IF and then AF. Theres no promise your final intelligence would be full of static just because you amplified the RF, even with amplitude modulation. Amplifiers can be useful in all situations so long as your input to the reciever isnt too high, and most recievers (even cheap commercial ones) can actually handle quite a bit more power than the minimum they need just to get an intelligence out of the signal.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: silverpig


This is completely opposite of the experience of a lot of people.

Here in Vancouver there are people pulling in the Seattle DTV stations from 160 miles+ away, and are getting much better reception now that the analog is gone. Same with southern Ontario and all the NY stations.

BS. You are not going to get a signal, much less a DTV signal from 160 miles away unless both the sender and receiver have 100% line of sight and are on a mountain tops above all the noise, even then it would require extremely tuned systems. There isn't enough power in the transmission signal to go that far to cover atmospheric loss.

There's an entire forum dedicated to it

A lot of people there are pulling in hdtv from 160 miles away.

 

[eplebnista]

None. On Comcast analog cable.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: silverpig


This is completely opposite of the experience of a lot of people.

Here in Vancouver there are people pulling in the Seattle DTV stations from 160 miles+ away, and are getting much better reception now that the analog is gone. Same with southern Ontario and all the NY stations.

BS. You are not going to get a signal, much less a DTV signal from 160 miles away unless both the sender and receiver have 100% line of sight and are on a mountain tops above all the noise, even then it would require extremely tuned systems. There isn't enough power in the transmission signal to go that far to cover atmospheric loss.

There's an entire forum dedicated to it

A lot of people there are pulling in hdtv from 160 miles away.

They are full of it unless they have spent serious cash on towers, antennas, and amplifiers, even then it is unlikely. The physics don't lie. The power output vs the distance makes it near impossible without serious work.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

This is gonna make me sound like an ass, but I have to speak up.

I was in the Navy for 9 years. I was an Electronics Technician. I only worked on Comm systems.
All antennas do NOT amplify signals. In fact because they are metal conductors they actually lose a tiny little bit of signal strength as they convert RF to line current and funnel it down to the reciever. You are correct about the ability of a pre-amp to increase noise, but the purpose of all recievers is to take whatever RF they can find and turn it into IF and then AF. Theres no promise your final intelligence would be full of static just because you amplified the RF, even with amplitude modulation. Amplifiers can be useful in all situations so long as your input to the reciever isnt too high, and most recievers (even cheap commercial ones) can actually handle quite a bit more power than the minimum they need just to get an intelligence out of the signal.

Antenna research and development thread

Gain Figures For Similar Large-Sized UHF Antennas

Channel 4228 4228HD PR-8800 DB-8 DBGH M-8

14 10.00 13.15 12.50 11.00 14.34 14.93
19 12.00 13.75 13.70 12.00 17.17 15.63^
27 14.00 13.85 14.50 13.50 17.83 16.40^
35 15.50 13.05 14.40 14.20 18.26 16.77^
43 15.70 13.25 12.00 15.00 16.53 17.07^
52 15.00 13.85 10.50 16.00 8.92* 17.25
60 14.00 13.85 10.00 16.60 NA 16.07

17 dBi of gain isn't amplification?

With hdtv the killer usually isn't weak signal, it's poor signal to noise. There is generally some noise floor which you have to use your antenna to amplify your signal above in order to get a decent S/N ratio (actually you can receive ATSC signals with a S/N of ~1 if you have some good filters). An inline preamp will boost signal, but it will also boost any noise that comes in and will not improve signal to noise at all at that point. Where it becomes useful is when you have splitters and long lines of cable AFTER the preamp that would normally add a significant amount of noise to a weak signal. By boosting the signal and the noise, any noise added later is lessened in effect. This is why the preamp always goes as close to the antenna as possible.

 

[DonaldC]

Now I finally get my local PBS station as DTV. In fact, there are 4 PBS channels now. I knew before they were out there but too weak for me to receive. About time.

 

[Xylitol]

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
The rabbit ears im using suck so I'm not getting jack shit.

nice

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

They are full of it unless they have spent serious cash on towers, antennas, and amplifiers, even then it is unlikely. The physics don't lie. The power output vs the distance makes it near impossible without serious work.

There is significant work going on in that forum to optimize antennas, and plans for the do it yourselfer. You can spend $50-75 on materials and get yourself a pretty awesome antenna which absolutely will do what they say. There is some dependence on location (I'm in the middle of some concrete towers so my reception is shit, but a nice southern exposure will do fine here), but yes, many people in Vancouver get the Seattle stations. Google maps says it's 224 km, so that's 140 miles.

edit:

The physics does work out.

tvfool data for my location

The Noise Margin for the weakest stations listed there (tvfool is really conservative with its estimations of what is receivable), is -11 dB at 131 miles away. The DBGH antenna from the forums, which is quite simple to build, has a gain of about 18 dBi. That gives you about 7 dBi of losses in your lines, antenna placement, etc before you can't get the signal.

NM(dB)]

This is the predicted Noise Margin (NM) of each channel "in the air" at your location, specified in dB. You must add/subtract any gains/losses you get from your antenna, building penetration, amps, cables, splitters, and other factors present in your situation. Hypothetically speaking, you need to end up with an NM value above 0 in order to pick up a station.