DTV reception is much more difficult than analog

[Richard]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
an extremely frustrating experience.

One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!

The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
station which is VERY good news.
To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
miles away.
I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
unwatchable during bad weather.
The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
receive the digital signal!

I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.

All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.

I welcome any constructive advice.

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2pd841lc0kcesj3ajeavurnn4eticin7n0@4ax.com...
>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
> an extremely frustrating experience.
>
> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>
> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
> station which is VERY good news.
> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
> miles away.
> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
> unwatchable during bad weather.
> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
> receive the digital signal!
>
> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>
> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>
Every person in my area that I have that I talked to has given up trying
to receive all the local stations. Most get two or three but not all five
and
all are within 15 miles of the towers. My first hand experence is that DTV
is
not plug & play, far from it. You could end up spending more money the
antenna than the DTV receiver.

> I welcome any constructive advice.
>
> Richard
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

All I can say is the next generation of receiver chips are supposed to
be allot better and may help your case. The LG 5th generation chip is
supposed to be very good, but when it is available is up in the air. I
would expect to see some news on new receivers by Fall and suggest you
not give up hope, but consider your current difficulties temporary.
There will be a fix over time as better chips come on-line.

IB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Here's the story
http/broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_sinclair_praises_new/

Sinclair praises new LG Electronics DTV receiver chips

Jun 11, 2004

Sinclair Broadcast Group, a severe critic of early DTV reception, said
in the latest generation of DTV receiver technology that significant
improvements will mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals
using simple indoor antennas.

Sinclair's previous concerns were based on 8-VSB modulation standard
DTV signals with strong dynamic multipath (ghosts) and varying signal
levels. Earlier-generation receivers were unable to handle these signal
conditions.

Nat Ostroff, Sinclair's vice president of new technology, said that
he is pleased to see the progress made by Zenith (a brand of L.G.
Electronics) that will allow consumers to easily receive free digital
television broadcasts in their homes. He said that broadcasters and
consumers could now look forward to a robust DTV service delivered
over-the-air without having to subscribe to cable or satellite.

He added that this is especially timely because of the FCC-mandated
rollout of millions of large-screen HDTV receivers with integrated
over-the-air tuners beginning this summer.

Informal joint field tests, conducted last month in Baltimore by
representatives from Sinclair and Zenith, involved testing reception at
sites Sinclair had previously identified as having difficult multipath
conditions. Many of these sites did not have successful reception with
early generations of receivers investigated by Sinclair.

Sinclair said results of the new trials show dramatically improved
reception with the receiver built around a new DTV chip developed by LG
Electronics. The fifth-generation integrated circuit allows it to lock
onto signals in severe multipath environments even when the ghosts have
long delays or are larger than the main signal.

Ostroff said that, with indoor reception now more viable, broadcasters
need to examine their current transmitting power levels to assure that
they deliver an adequate signal inside the home, and consumer
electronics manufacturers need to ensure that breakthrough technologies
such as this are available in the market.

Field data was collected from multiple DTV stations at numerous sites,
including parking garages and sidewalk locations, many without direct
line of sight to the transmitter. Simple indoor antennas were used to
explore the improvements that have been made in indoor reception and
ease-of-use in moderate and strong signal areas.

The fifth-generation receiver chipset tested will be introduced by LG
Electronics later this summer.

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8QY0e.5440$TZ.3638@okepread06...
>
> "Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2pd841lc0kcesj3ajeavurnn4eticin7n0@4ax.com...
>>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>> an extremely frustrating experience.
>>
>> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>
>> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>> station which is VERY good news.
>> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>> miles away.
>> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>> unwatchable during bad weather.
>> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>> receive the digital signal!
>>
>> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>
>> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>
> Every person in my area that I have that I talked to has given up trying
> to receive all the local stations. Most get two or three but not all five
> and
> all are within 15 miles of the towers. My first hand experence is that DTV
> is
> not plug & play, far from it. You could end up spending more money the
> antenna than the DTV receiver.
>
>> I welcome any constructive advice.
>>
>> Richard

Sorry you guys are having so much trouble. Analog television has always been
a bitch here [behind one major mountain range, and one more large hill, ~20
miles from NYC], but I've used 6 different DTV receivers here at one time or
another, [PC cards and Directv receivers] the OTA DTV signals appear to
practically jump into the sets.

There was some futzing of course, and after some experimenting the $25
Channel-Master 3021 works best. Luckily, all of the channels that matter are
UHF.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

LG could afford to put out the LST-4200A. Why should a LST-4200A
modified with a 5th chip be more expensive? It does not make any
sense. LG knows there is a analogue cut-off date coming and more and
more people want OTA receivers. Why would they spend millions of
dollars on a new chip design and then not use it?

BTW Have you tested a prototype of the proposed RCA-Thompson OTA
receiver? Will it use the Casper chip?

IB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sounds pretty bleak. But why is it more expensive that their own
LST-4200A?

What about ATI and Samsung? Is there hope they will come up with
something better? ATI claims their new chip is better than the LG
chip. Can you ask them for a sample so you can verify this?

IB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard wrote:
> I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
> an extremely frustrating experience.
>
> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>
> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
> station which is VERY good news.
> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
> miles away.
> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
> unwatchable during bad weather.
> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
> receive the digital signal!
>
> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>
> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>
> I welcome any constructive advice.
>
> Richard
>
I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
It is something else in the front end of that receiver.

But we did test a prototype receiver last summer that received all
channels we could see on a spectrum analyzer at numerous sites that all
were problematic for digital and in some cases analog. This reception
was made using a $2.00 loop antenna and we did not mess with the antenna
leaving it in the first position we placed it in, taped to a window and
hanging on a plant near a window in two locations.

The problem is getting any manufacturer to make such a receiver. No one
seems very interested. No on seems to have much faith in the US OTA
market. When the one working the hardest to get a decent 8-VSB receiver
is also the harshest critic of 8-VSB I think you have a problem.

Hours after our successful test last year Hisense said they would use
this 5th gen receiver chip in a new receiver and have it out by last
Christmas. LG said they would have one out in the first quarter. NEITHER
HAS OR WILL HAPPEN. Now I have talked to TEN other manufacturers all
with no luck.

This can be done but it will take money to get someone off their ***.
Otherwise we will shuffle on with our stagnant DTV transition.

BTW LG's reason for not producing such a workable receiver is cost.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Here's the story

>
> The fifth-generation receiver chipset tested will be introduced by LG
> Electronics later this summer.
>

That was last summer. NO receiver in sight. In fact LG now says that
they will not make any such receiver because it will cost too much.

I have five folks from LG in Seoul visiting Monday morning maybe I will
know more after that but I doubt it.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> LG could afford to put out the LST-4200A. Why should a LST-4200A
> modified with a 5th chip be more expensive? It does not make any
> sense. LG knows there is a analogue cut-off date coming and more and
> more people want OTA receivers. Why would they spend millions of
> dollars on a new chip design and then not use it?
>
> BTW Have you tested a prototype of the proposed RCA-Thompson OTA
> receiver? Will it use the Casper chip?
>
> IB
>
The last talk I had with RCA went like this.

I hear you have new low cost integrated HD sets coming to market this
year. Is it possible that they will include the Linx chip?

RCA
No we will be using standard receiver technology for these products.

We respond..
Would you be interested in using 5th generation LG chips in your
products? We have tested this technology and it is the first 8-VSB
receivers that we think have a chance of working plug and play. Our
business model requires such a receiver for cities like New York and San
Francisco.

RCA
No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated
sets with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This
group of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver
value to those customers.

(Hint, code for we are putting in the cheapest junk receivers we can
possibly construct)

We respond...
Well we think that there is a great market for plug and play receivers
for OTA irrespective of cable and satellite. We think you could sell
large quantities by addressing the OTA head on and building receivers
that are identified as having the best receiver technology instead of a
generic receiver of unknown quality. We think that their is an eager
market for such a receiver and that the word of mouth would be
especially good if we could demonstrate it in New York.

RCA...
We would not be interested at this time but once you are up and running
we would take a second look if you want.

Bob Miller

BTW the House Commerce Committee's hearing before last featured RCA with
one of their $300 HDTV sets working in the hearing room. During a voting
intermission someone touched the antenna killing reception. In talking
to the person responsible for that hearing the conversation went like this.

"No, no it was no big problem. We lost reception but it was restored
after a few minutes of fiddling with the antenna. It works better than
NTSC reception and we were told that if someone gets anywhere decent
NTSC reception that digital perfect reception is guaranteed. RCA
guarantees that will be true with their new line of HDTV sets that they
will introduce if we have a transition deadline."

At the moment it appears that the DTV policy of the US rest on the
guarantees of RCA and a demonstration of one of their low cost
integrated sets.

They do not want to hear anything about anything else. But they will.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sounds pretty bleak. But why is it more expensive that their own
> LST-4200A?
>
> What about ATI and Samsung? Is there hope they will come up with
> something better? ATI claims their new chip is better than the LG
> chip. Can you ask them for a sample so you can verify this?
>
> IB
>

Why is it more expensive that their own LST-4200A? I don't know that
they have a price since they say they will not make it.

I have asked ATI for a sample or a customer of theirs that would give me
a sample receiver. First was Hisense since Hisense said they would do
5th gen then declined because they said ATI was better, cheaper and more
available. While waiting for Hisense I went on looking finding the firm
that I am presently dealing with who had both ATI and 5th gen.

I didn't know they had 5th gen and in asking them for a sample receiver
with ATI they volunteered that they had 5th gen and thought it was far
superior to ATI.

So I am not looking for ATI receivers at the moment. They are reticent
to have me test their chips anyway.

I would love to test Samsung but have heard nothing about what they have.

Remember when LG had something good they knew where to go to get it
tested for real, Sinclair. They also sent me one overnight rush as soon
as I requested it.

Their behavior told me that the receiver was something special before I
got it. Most 8-VSB manufacturers have requested non-disclosures before
letting anyone test them. LG wanted a press release and are sending a
film crew right now for more publicity. Do I understand this? Not a bit
and I never understood LG's insane insistence on 8-VSB from the start
even though they owned the IP. They would have made a lot more money on
high margin HD displays over the last five years if they had dropped
8-VSB and praised COFDM.

ATI's behavior since 1999 tells me exactly what to expect from their chips.

Bob Miller

The simple fact is that in the 8-VSB world very few manufacturers are
interested in making receivers while in the COFDM world most
manufacturers are very eager to be making receivers. That includes those
that make both 8-VSB and DVB-T like SAMSUNG.

http/www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/set-top-boxes/samsung-dvb-t.asp

And LG

http/www.dba.org.au/newsletter/IB-SepOct04-full.asp#PRODUCT2

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> RCA
> No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated sets
> with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This group
> of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver value to
> those customers.

I couldn't agree more.

There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically viable
systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial broadcast TV.

The only reason it still exist, is the government made it a right of passage
to gain access to other people's systems.
If it wasn't for that, then terrestrial broadcast TV would have died a long
time ago.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

SATAN wrote:
>>RCA
>>No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated sets
>>with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This group
>>of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver value to
>>those customers.
>
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically viable
> systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial broadcast TV.
>
> The only reason it still exist, is the government made it a right of passage
> to gain access to other people's systems.
> If it wasn't for that, then terrestrial broadcast TV would have died a long
> time ago.
>
>
Agreed, without must carry broadcasters would have turned off their
transmitters in many markets and gone out of business long ago.

But I disagree on the future. With a better modulation or a better 8-VSB
receiver OTA can flourish.

The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite
and cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think so.
Long term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and
portable. With 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable and
satellite in the dustbin of history.

I should qualify that with; Cable could survive if it becomes more
broadband than cable like. That is if its bandwidth is massively
increased and is driven into the neighborhood further either wired or
wireless.

Of course the mobile replacement for current broadcasters is already
taking shape above channel #51 with Crown Castle and Qualcomm the first
new age broadcasters in the mobile market. When broadcasters wake up and
get greedy you can bet that the needed change in modulation will be made
in a heartbeat so that they can compete with these upstarts in mobile
reception. Most of broadcasters attention has been directed at must
carry of multicast so far. Once they lose that struggle or it becomes
more irrelevant expect them to get involved in OTA.

Competition does things like that.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

> The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite and
> cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think so. Long
> term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and portable. With
> 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable and satellite in the
> dustbin of history.

For subscription based services, that is true. But BB, or any of the other
pay services does not pose any direct threat to free OTA, or free satellite
based services.

The only threat that they pose is the way they are implemented. A person
will have more stick'tion to a condensed, multi channel, multiprogramming
steam.

The person can usually find some channel from that source, that holds their
attention. So they usually have no reason to turn to another programming
source. While OTA is limited in programming, and channel selection. They
quickly search through all the channels, and usually find nothing to watch,
so they go to a different programming source, that being cable, and pay
satellite..

And since the other source holds their attention, then they never turn back
to OTA. So the only option in the OTA broadcaster's minds is to try and get
into the satellite/cable programming stream.

That way, they can still collect viewers that have become stuck on the multi
channel programming stream.

There is a break over point on the channel selection. Anything fewer than X
channels, and you can't hold the viewer's attention. Anything over X, and
you can usually hold the viewer's attention. Free programming sources have a
lower value of X. Pay sources have a higher value of X. People have a habit
of getting irritated at poor channel selection from something they pay for.

FM radio just meets these requirements, for that type of media. It exceeds
the break over point in channels that can be heard in any one place. With a
cheap 5 dollar radio, I can get 15 stations. And with a good radio I can get
over 20. With a good antenna I can get over 30 to 50+ stations. Something on
that band will usually hold my attention. AM radio and short wave is also a
good program source.

That is why people that discover the miracle of SW is usually hooked for
life. You can spend months listening to the radio, and never turn on a TV.
There is always something a few Khz down that grabs your attention.

One access point, with a wide variety of information. That is what cable and
pay satellite has went to.

If advertising supported broadcasters want to compete, they need to go to a
condensed delivery stream. It can not be a bandwidth limited delivery
stream. A maximum of sixty some stations is not adequate.
(US TV channels) If you had 30 broadcast TV stations viewable at any
location, then OTA broadcast TV could compete. But the normal 3 or 5, or
even 10 with a good antenna, is never going to hold the attention of the
viewer.

You need a stream that can deliver at lest 20 to 30 stations minimum to each
and every customer. For pay TV services, you need to have at lest a 50 or
more channels. That is why voom failed.

If the advertising supported broadcasters in one area or state, (over 30or
so) condensed all their broadcast feeds on to one satellite, and avoided
duplicating each other's programming, while still offering local targeted
news and information, then the program source would have incredible sticking
power for the viewer.

Yes, the satellite would cover the entire united states, but the programming
would be targeted to the local viewers. Yes, they could watch programming
from other states, and people in other states can watch their programming,
but they usually won't. Like me watching northwest cable news. (I am on the
east coast.) I can watch it all day long, but I usually get tired of it in a
few minutes, and turn to a local station. If I had access to a satellite
delivered set of local stations, that actually had local content, I would
not mess with the other TV stations from the west.

There is no need for enforced control over who can see a local satellite
broadcast based on where you live. If the station is targeting their
programming to that area, then the viewers will naturally gravitate as long
as you have an adequate selection.

But all in all, OTA TV broadcasting does not have enough bandwidth to offer
the necessary variety to compete. So, by default, it has no future and is a
dead man walking..

That is why I seen multicasting as the only way local OTA broadcasting could
compete. It would push the number of viewable channels up to the critical
value in most areas. Or a more robust transmission system that would allow
you to receive a station on almost every channel setting. But the same hand
full of channels in HD will not cut it.

If all the broadcasters from the east condensed their programming onto DVB
feeds on one satellite. And all the broadcasters in the west condensed all
their programming on a second satellite. Where anyone in the east/west side
of united states could get all their local channels by putting up a small
dish, And a small receiver, without paying a penny in subscription charges.

And the Broadcast companies worked with the stores to get low cost DVB
satellite receivers to the store shelves. They are already selling for under
a $100 with the dish antenna included from small mom an pop shops. They
could easily hit the $50 tag for a complete system that would allow you to
watch your local stations in digital quality, anywhere in the united states.
And if all the local stations had nothing on them worth anything at that
moment, then you could just switch over to see what the Florida stations are
playing at that moment.. But most importantly, you will not turn to another
program source. They would no longer feel a need to keep a pay service to
have something to watch.

If they did that, all the people paying for basic cable service to get local
channels will switch. All the people that pay for satellite TV with a basic
package, just so they can get local channels will switch. And a large chunk
of people that just pay for satellite/cable service to get something to
watch once in a while, will also switch. Once they watch it for a while,
then paying for 50 or so channels will seem stupid. Then local broadcasters
will finally have a foot hold of their own, without relying on must carry
rules.

The only way I see for local broadcasting to survive is by breaking away
from terrestrial OTA TV, and going to a more bandwidth/channel rich delivery
method.

If they stay on the path they are on, It's guarantied suicide.

A viewer should be able to watch a minimum of twenty stations without
moving/rotating an antenna, or re-pointing a dish. Any system that doesn't
meet that specification should be ignored as a possible delivery option for
advertising supported local broadcast TV.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:xmi1e.4702$gI5.2529@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> SATAN wrote:
>>>RCA
>>>No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated
>>>sets with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver.
>>>This group of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to
>>>deliver value to those customers.
>>
>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>>
>> There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically
>> viable systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial
>> broadcast TV.
>>
>> The only reason it still exist, is the government made it a right of
>> passage to gain access to other people's systems.
>> If it wasn't for that, then terrestrial broadcast TV would have died
>> a long time ago.
>>
>>
> Agreed, without must carry broadcasters would have turned off their
> transmitters in many markets and gone out of business long ago.
>
> But I disagree on the future. With a better modulation or a better
> 8-VSB receiver OTA can flourish.
>
> The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite
> and cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think
> so. Long term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and
> portable. With 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable
> and satellite in the dustbin of history.
>
> I should qualify that with; Cable could survive if it becomes more
> broadband than cable like. That is if its bandwidth is massively
> increased and is driven into the neighborhood further either wired or
> wireless.

This is potentially possible with the use of fiber optic cables. Indeed,
it offers one advantage over satellite that won't easily go away. I'm
referring to interactivity. When the recipients of a broadcast can
actually interact with the facility that is transmitting, or even
producing it, the whole state of the art moves along a notch.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <%M21e.4059$gI5.762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Richard wrote:
>> I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>> an extremely frustrating experience.
>>
>> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>
>> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>> station which is VERY good news.
>> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>> miles away.
>> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>> unwatchable during bad weather.
>> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>> receive the digital signal!
>>
>> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>
>> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>
>> I welcome any constructive advice.
>>
>> Richard
>>
> I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
> Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
> solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
> it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
> It is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>
BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.

(Front end quality can affect high signal level handling,
proper pick up of all channels due to filtering effects,
proper effective behavior of 'antennas', etc.)

It is exactly the 'single issue' type people like Bob who deflect the
issue away from the real, true troubles. Admittedly, neither 8VSB nor
COFDM derived systems are perfect, but the junky front end design
that I have seen is EXACTLY most of the reception problems that I have
had.

Being an EE (a real one), not just a hobby-type person, I understand
the matching issues, and I am sometimes amazed that some of the consumer
junk works as well as it does... The problem is NOT with the quality of
the design engineers, but the design tradeoffs that are forced for cost
and marketing reasons.

Nowadays, designing a ruler-flat, rock-solid front end that doesn't need
all of the filters before the first stage (put some of the filters after
the 1st stage), would give better/easier front end matching along with
adequate intermod type performance. Nowadays, the RF transistors can
provide less than 1dB NF while also pushing 100mw out... This is
coincedental with 10-15dB of gain, and better than 10dB return loss,
so there is more than enough ability to deal with hot RF signals (use
an attenuator when needed.)

When a front end is badly matched, then (depending upon the architecture
of the rest of the system), then the effects of a directional antenna can
be made less optimal. (But that is not the only problem with the front
ends that I have seen.)

My suggestion is the following:

VHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN1 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN3 \
DIPLEXER -- ATTEN5 -- TUNER
UHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN2 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN4 /

ATTEN1 and ATTEN2 is to mitigate signals that are too hot.
ATTEN3 and ATTEN4 provide a 'better' match to the diplexer.
ATTEN5 forces a prefect 75ohm source impedance to the TUNER.
DIPLEXER is a true diplexer and not just a splitter. (Diplexer
does a frequency dependent mixing.)

Each preamp shouldn't provide more than 16dB of gain, but 10dB
would be better (even for an indoor antenna, even though more
gain might be good.) The preamps MUST be capable of high signal
level in most areas.

I use exactly the setup above, and happen to use a 30dB preamp (because
it was the only one that I have) for the UHF side.

Using various combinations, the results above (with indoor antennas)
is the best. ATTEN5 is important. In high signal level situations,
the PREAMPS might be unneeded (but I need them for my indoor reception
10-15miles away for best reception.)

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <%M21e.4059$gI5.762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>>>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>>>receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>>>reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>>>an extremely frustrating experience.
>>>
>>>One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>>>broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>>>stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>>>channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>>>located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>>>ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>>
>>>The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>>>will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>>>station which is VERY good news.
>>>To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>>>along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>>>cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>>>channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>>>miles away.
>>>I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>>>UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>>>there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>>>Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>>>the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>>>is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>>>unwatchable during bad weather.
>>>The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>>>channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>>>do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>>>possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>>>To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>>>antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>>>antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>>>here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>>>receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>>>antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>>>receive the digital signal!
>>>
>>>I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>>>in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>>>during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>>
>>>All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>>>receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>>>HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>>>is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>>
>>>I welcome any constructive advice.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>>
>>
>>I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
>>Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
>>solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
>>it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
>>It is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>>
>
> BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
> vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
> a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
> alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
> se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
> issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.

Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
receivers for less than $60 that will work in the most extreme multipath
environments such as mobile. The same cannot be said for 8-VSB where
even the BEST receiver anyone has seen so far and one which I would
endorse as decent enough for reception in a fixed environment is easily
defeated by motion or just standing in a particular position relative to
the antenna.

And, (drum roll) LG does not want to build that receiver because of TOO
HIGH COST!!!

Major difference I am afraid.

Bob Miller
>
> (Front end quality can affect high signal level handling,
> proper pick up of all channels due to filtering effects,
> proper effective behavior of 'antennas', etc.)
>
> It is exactly the 'single issue' type people like Bob who deflect the
> issue away from the real, true troubles. Admittedly, neither 8VSB nor
> COFDM derived systems are perfect, but the junky front end design
> that I have seen is EXACTLY most of the reception problems that I have
> had.
>
> Being an EE (a real one), not just a hobby-type person, I understand
> the matching issues, and I am sometimes amazed that some of the consumer
> junk works as well as it does... The problem is NOT with the quality of
> the design engineers, but the design tradeoffs that are forced for cost
> and marketing reasons.
>
> Nowadays, designing a ruler-flat, rock-solid front end that doesn't need
> all of the filters before the first stage (put some of the filters after
> the 1st stage), would give better/easier front end matching along with
> adequate intermod type performance. Nowadays, the RF transistors can
> provide less than 1dB NF while also pushing 100mw out... This is
> coincedental with 10-15dB of gain, and better than 10dB return loss,
> so there is more than enough ability to deal with hot RF signals (use
> an attenuator when needed.)
>
> When a front end is badly matched, then (depending upon the architecture
> of the rest of the system), then the effects of a directional antenna can
> be made less optimal. (But that is not the only problem with the front
> ends that I have seen.)
>
> My suggestion is the following:
>
> VHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN1 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN3 \
> DIPLEXER -- ATTEN5 -- TUNER
> UHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN2 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN4 /
>
> ATTEN1 and ATTEN2 is to mitigate signals that are too hot.
> ATTEN3 and ATTEN4 provide a 'better' match to the diplexer.
> ATTEN5 forces a prefect 75ohm source impedance to the TUNER.
> DIPLEXER is a true diplexer and not just a splitter. (Diplexer
> does a frequency dependent mixing.)
>
> Each preamp shouldn't provide more than 16dB of gain, but 10dB
> would be better (even for an indoor antenna, even though more
> gain might be good.) The preamps MUST be capable of high signal
> level in most areas.
>
> I use exactly the setup above, and happen to use a 30dB preamp (because
> it was the only one that I have) for the UHF side.
>
> Using various combinations, the results above (with indoor antennas)
> is the best. ATTEN5 is important. In high signal level situations,
> the PREAMPS might be unneeded (but I need them for my indoor reception
> 10-15miles away for best reception.)
>
> John

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"SATAN" <satan@hell.net> wrote in message
news:iVk1e.11851$cg1.2991@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite and
>> cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think so. Long
>> term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and portable. With
>> 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable and satellite in the
>> dustbin of history.
>
> For subscription based services, that is true. But BB, or any of the other
> pay services does not pose any direct threat to free OTA, or free
> satellite based services.
>
> The only threat that they pose is the way they are implemented. A person
> will have more stick'tion to a condensed, multi channel, multiprogramming
> steam.
>
> The person can usually find some channel from that source, that holds
> their attention. So they usually have no reason to turn to another
> programming source. While OTA is limited in programming, and channel
> selection. They quickly search through all the channels, and usually find
> nothing to watch, so they go to a different programming source, that being
> cable, and pay satellite..
>
> And since the other source holds their attention, then they never turn
> back to OTA. So the only option in the OTA broadcaster's minds is to try
> and get into the satellite/cable programming stream.
>
> That way, they can still collect viewers that have become stuck on the
> multi channel programming stream.
>
> There is a break over point on the channel selection. Anything fewer than
> X channels, and you can't hold the viewer's attention. Anything over X,
> and you can usually hold the viewer's attention. Free programming sources
> have a lower value of X. Pay sources have a higher value of X. People have
> a habit of getting irritated at poor channel selection from something they
> pay for.
>
> FM radio just meets these requirements, for that type of media. It exceeds
> the break over point in channels that can be heard in any one place. With
> a cheap 5 dollar radio, I can get 15 stations. And with a good radio I can
> get over 20. With a good antenna I can get over 30 to 50+ stations.
> Something on that band will usually hold my attention. AM radio and short
> wave is also a good program source.
>
> That is why people that discover the miracle of SW is usually hooked for
> life. You can spend months listening to the radio, and never turn on a TV.
> There is always something a few Khz down that grabs your attention.
>
> One access point, with a wide variety of information. That is what cable
> and pay satellite has went to.
>
> If advertising supported broadcasters want to compete, they need to go to
> a condensed delivery stream. It can not be a bandwidth limited delivery
> stream. A maximum of sixty some stations is not adequate.
> (US TV channels) If you had 30 broadcast TV stations viewable at any
> location, then OTA broadcast TV could compete. But the normal 3 or 5, or
> even 10 with a good antenna, is never going to hold the attention of the
> viewer.
>
> You need a stream that can deliver at lest 20 to 30 stations minimum to
> each and every customer. For pay TV services, you need to have at lest a
> 50 or more channels. That is why voom failed.
>
> If the advertising supported broadcasters in one area or state, (over 30or
> so) condensed all their broadcast feeds on to one satellite, and avoided
> duplicating each other's programming, while still offering local targeted
> news and information, then the program source would have incredible
> sticking power for the viewer.
>
> Yes, the satellite would cover the entire united states, but the
> programming would be targeted to the local viewers. Yes, they could watch
> programming from other states, and people in other states can watch their
> programming, but they usually won't. Like me watching northwest cable
> news. (I am on the east coast.) I can watch it all day long, but I usually
> get tired of it in a few minutes, and turn to a local station. If I had
> access to a satellite delivered set of local stations, that actually had
> local content, I would not mess with the other TV stations from the west.
>
> There is no need for enforced control over who can see a local satellite
> broadcast based on where you live. If the station is targeting their
> programming to that area, then the viewers will naturally gravitate as
> long as you have an adequate selection.
>
> But all in all, OTA TV broadcasting does not have enough bandwidth to
> offer the necessary variety to compete. So, by default, it has no future
> and is a dead man walking..
>
> That is why I seen multicasting as the only way local OTA broadcasting
> could compete. It would push the number of viewable channels up to the
> critical value in most areas. Or a more robust transmission system that
> would allow you to receive a station on almost every channel setting. But
> the same hand full of channels in HD will not cut it.
>
> If all the broadcasters from the east condensed their programming onto DVB
> feeds on one satellite. And all the broadcasters in the west condensed all
> their programming on a second satellite. Where anyone in the east/west
> side of united states could get all their local channels by putting up a
> small dish, And a small receiver, without paying a penny in subscription
> charges.
>
> And the Broadcast companies worked with the stores to get low cost DVB
> satellite receivers to the store shelves. They are already selling for
> under a $100 with the dish antenna included from small mom an pop shops.
> They could easily hit the $50 tag for a complete system that would allow
> you to watch your local stations in digital quality, anywhere in the
> united states. And if all the local stations had nothing on them worth
> anything at that moment, then you could just switch over to see what the
> Florida stations are playing at that moment.. But most importantly, you
> will not turn to another program source. They would no longer feel a need
> to keep a pay service to have something to watch.
>
> If they did that, all the people paying for basic cable service to get
> local channels will switch. All the people that pay for satellite TV with
> a basic package, just so they can get local channels will switch. And a
> large chunk of people that just pay for satellite/cable service to get
> something to watch once in a while, will also switch. Once they watch it
> for a while, then paying for 50 or so channels will seem stupid. Then
> local broadcasters will finally have a foot hold of their own, without
> relying on must carry rules.
>
> The only way I see for local broadcasting to survive is by breaking away
> from terrestrial OTA TV, and going to a more bandwidth/channel rich
> delivery method.
>
> If they stay on the path they are on, It's guarantied suicide.
>
> A viewer should be able to watch a minimum of twenty stations without
> moving/rotating an antenna, or re-pointing a dish. Any system that
> doesn't meet that specification should be ignored as a possible delivery
> option for advertising supported local broadcast TV.
>

One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
self-serving nonsense.
BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues _exactly
the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
> additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
> newgroup and I hope it stays that way.

There is vast difference between a "lively" debate and repetitive posting
of lies that have been repeatedly debunked with first-hand information.

Nor do I think that there is any sort of serious consideration of the pros
and cons of COFDM vs. 8-VSB. Psycho Bob has thoroughly poisoned that
well.

-- Mark --

http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Ivan wrote:
> Agreed, I can't help noticing that when Bob's not involved this newsgroup
> can go as quiet as the grave for days on end.

And what is wrong with that? Why can't alt.tv.tech.hdtv be about HDTV
news and events, and be quiet when there isn't anything to report at the
current time?

-- Mark --

http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.