DTV Boondoggle

[Samuel M. Goldwasser]

OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable,
satellite, or fiber-optic TV.

With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak
signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound
would survive even lower signal levels.

A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed.

Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with
the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has
become a royal pain to tune in many channels.

The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs
usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna.

Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and
economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine.

But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be
best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal
strength for the channels I care about.

So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+
rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm
not convinced the latter was even working properly).

This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe
most of the transmitters are only a few miles away.

For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop
antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below,
reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the
antenna is oriented.

For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work
very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the
antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time.
Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly.

According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I
care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice.
I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions,
or whether it would even work.

I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a
specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it
might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far.

Thanks!

--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

 

[jakdedert]

OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable,
satellite, or fiber-optic TV.

With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak
signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound
would survive even lower signal levels.

A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed.

Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even with
the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes, it has
become a royal pain to tune in many channels.

The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs
usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna.

Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and
economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine.

But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be
best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal
strength for the channels I care about.

So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+
rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm
not convinced the latter was even working properly).

This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe
most of the transmitters are only a few miles away.

For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop
antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below,
reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the
antenna is oriented.

For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work
very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the
antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time.
Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly.

According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I
care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice.
I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions,
or whether it would even work.

I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a
specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it
might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far.

Thanks!

FWIW, I've heard that most DTV transmitters are on reduced power until
the transition, which may improve things....

jak

 

[Rich Webb]

OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable,
satellite, or fiber-optic TV.

With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak
signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound
would survive even lower signal levels. [snip...snip...]
So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas (loop+
rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified (though I'm
not convinced the latter was even working properly).

Actually, I've been quite surprised at how well the old rabbit ears +
loop antenna has really worked. Aside from occasional episodes of
pixelation during stormy weather (relative motion between TX and RX?)
I'm getting everything that's available, with very clear reception.

This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I believe
most of the transmitters are only a few miles away.

Roughly the same here, except for the little issue of a major naval base
and air field between me and the antenna farm.

For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple loop
antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor below,
reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the
antenna is oriented.

For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems to work
very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling with the
antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time.
Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working correctly.

According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I
care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice.
I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for recommendataions,
or whether it would even work.

I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a
specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it
might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far.

Take a look at http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/

 

[UCLAN]

Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:

[...snip]

But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be
best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal
strength for the channels I care about.

[...snip]

First of all, read:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037779
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=611957
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=186

Secondly, converter boxes and TVs differ on their sensitivity. Some digital
TVs receive weak signals much better than others. Same story with converter
boxes. A good indoor antenna and a good, sensitive converter will work
wonders.

Finally, it's true that *some* of the DTV channels are at reduced power now,
but not all. Things will improve *somewhat* come February, but not on all
channels. A good antenna and a sensitive converter box are your best bet.

 

[Mike S.]

But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might be
best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent signal
strength for the channels I care about.

You might find this thread interesting:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037779

 

[Ken Layton]

What about those of us that live 75 miles (or more) from the
transmitter? I'll damned if I'm going to pay for cable or satellite.

 

[Rich Webb]

What about those of us that live 75 miles (or more) from the
transmitter? I'll damned if I'm going to pay for cable or satellite.

To a first order approximation, if you can get analog broadcast signals
now then you should be able to receive the corresponding digital
stations.

 

[Charles]

To a first order approximation, if you can get analog broadcast signals
now then you should be able to receive the corresponding digital
stations.

So far, that's not true here (Naples, FL). I'd guess the reduced power is
an issue ... only time will tell.

 

[Jim Yanik]

[email protected] (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote in

OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable,
satellite, or fiber-optic TV.

count me in too.
apartment,2nd floor,stucco with metal mesh uunderneath,almost like a
Faraday cage.I lose channels when the upstairs neighbor moves around.

I use an old Gemini amplified rabbit ears with UHF disc antenna.Lost Ch.2
NBC completely(no great loss),but gained PBS Ch.15 out of Daytona Beach(55
miles away),a great benefit.

With analog reception, the picture remains viewable even with a weak
signal, with increasing snow, but nonetheless, usable. The sound
would survive even lower signal levels.

A set of rabbit ears and loop antenna sufficed.

Now, as expected, with DTV, it's either there or it isn't, and even
with the built-in signal strength display on DTVs and converter boxes,
it has become a royal pain to tune in many channels.

The assumption today is that one will use a wired connection so DTVs
usually don't even come with any sort of indoor antenna.

Now, this could probably start a lively discussion on the politics and
economics of the DTV conversion and that's just fine.

But, what I would like input on is what sort of indoor antennas might
be best to use in what is basically an area which should have decent
signal strength for the channels I care about.

So far I've tried using old loop antennas and basic indoor antennas
(loop+ rabbit ears) from Radio Shack, both unamplified and amplified
(though I'm not convinced the latter was even working properly).

This is a residential location with no high structures nearby. I
believe most of the transmitters are only a few miles away.

For a 10 year old TV with a converter box in one location, a simple
loop antenna seems to be fine. For a similar setup on the floor
below, reception is terrible on nearly all channels no matter how the
antenna is oriented.

For a new HDTV at the other end of the house, nothing I've tried seems
to work very well, with some channels requiring very careful fiddling
with the antenna orientation to be acceptable most of the time.
Reception on analog channels is fine and I believe the TV is working
correctly.

According to http://www.antennaweb.org/ , for most of the channels I
care about, a "small multidirectional antenna" should suffice.
I haven't yet tried an antenna like and would hoping for
recommendataions, or whether it would even work.

I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a
specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it
might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far.

Thanks!

Google shows some homebrewed non-amplified antennas that might be
interesting,BUT,they might not be accepted by the SWMBO,not "fit in with
the decor" type problem.

Are you in a place where you can put in an outdoor antenna?
Preferably high up... (UHF antennas are pretty small and 'tolerable')
or put it in the attic.
then use a distribution amp and feed it to all your TVs.

 

[Mike WB2MEP]

[email protected] (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote in

count me in too.
apartment,2nd floor,stucco with metal mesh uunderneath,almost like a
Faraday cage.I lose channels when the upstairs neighbor moves around.

I use an old Gemini amplified rabbit ears with UHF disc antenna.Lost Ch.2
NBC completely(no great loss),but gained PBS Ch.15 out of Daytona Beach(55
miles away),a great benefit.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim,

Both of those channels have relocated their DTV transmitter sites
quite a distance from their original analog sites. Chan. 2 (and chan.
55 when they were still on) broadcast analog from Orange City. Chan.
15
broadcast from west of Daytona Beach. Being a college-based station,
they don't run much power or have a particularly tall tower. I get
snowy, but watchable, reception on 15 in the NE suburbs of Orlando
with a large
rooftop Yagi.

All the central Florida DTV stations have located their DTV
transmitters at the antenna farms east of Orlando, where the Orlando
analog TV and FM stations broadcast from. Channel 2's DTV signal is
actually on Chan. 11, and Chan. 15's DTV is on either 30 or 33. Chan.
68's (college-based PBS out of Melbourne) DTV is on the other. One
advantage to this is that you won't need a rotor to pick up all the
available DTV stations as they
are all broadcasting from the same location. The downside is that
Daytona and Melbourne are at the Northern and Southern ends of the
Orlando coverage area, and the analog stations gave folks in those
cities a strong local PBS signal. With DTV, they will lose the local
signal, and Orlando will end up with three PBS channels.

Mike
WB2MEP

 

[Samuel M. Goldwasser]

[email protected] (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote in


count me in too.
apartment,2nd floor,stucco with metal mesh uunderneath,almost like a
Faraday cage.I lose channels when the upstairs neighbor moves around.

I use an old Gemini amplified rabbit ears with UHF disc antenna.Lost Ch.2
NBC completely(no great loss),but gained PBS Ch.15 out of Daytona Beach(55
miles away),a great benefit.

Google shows some homebrewed non-amplified antennas that might be
interesting,BUT,they might not be accepted by the SWMBO,not "fit in with
the decor" type problem.

Are you in a place where you can put in an outdoor antenna?
Preferably high up... (UHF antennas are pretty small and 'tolerable')
or put it in the attic.
then use a distribution amp and feed it to all your TVs.

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of DTVs, antennas,
and other video equipment, and cable, fiber, and satellite content
providers!

--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

 

[Jim Yanik]

[email protected] (Samuel M. Goldwasser) wrote in

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

C'mon;nobody ever claimed that DTV would only need simple indoor antennas.
DTV's claim was for an improvement over NTSC..in picture quality,and for
better use of existing bandwidth(subchannels).

 

[Roy Starrin]

OK, so I'm one of the 6 people in the Universe who don't have cable,
satellite, or fiber-optic TV.

I realize this is insufficient information for anyone to suggest a
specific remedy other than "get a wired connection", but figured it
might be worthwhile to hear about others' experiences so far.

There might be something of interest here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6647470#post6647470

 

[Jim Yanik]

You and me, pal.


If you can fit a big outdoor antenna into the attic, just laying it on
the attic floor usually works quite well. Nothing small and
convenient will work very well, especially indoors. A mast and rotor
outdoors are the thing to have.

that kinda screws apartment dwellers.(like me)
They can't install outdoor antennas,and usually don't have access to a
attic.

 

[hr(bob) [email protected]]

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of DTVs, antennas,
and other video equipment, and cable, fiber, and satellite content
providers!

--
    sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/
 Repair | Main Table of Contents:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
        | Mirror Sites:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header aboveis
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line.  Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sam:

It might help us if we knew approximately where you live, and the
directions/distances of the signals you are trying to pick up. A good
antenna in the attic with a distribution amplifier as suggested
earlier should work pretty well, especially if the antenna can point
out the gable end of the roof, and you do not have aluminum siding.
Getting a signal thru regular roofing shingles works ok when the roof
is dry, but there is a lot af attenuation when the roof gets wet or
snow-covered as it does here in IL where I live.

Bob Hofmann

 

[UCLAN]

Sure, but this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward, not
back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

?? This entire "DTV thing" was a way for the government (via the FCC) to
raise money by selling off more of the broadcast spectrum.

It is/was a "step forward" technically only for those that benefited by
having a digital signal replace an analog one that was marred by video
noise and signal quality issues. If you can't receive the signal, you no
longer have those issues.

I guess it is a step forward for the manufacturers of DTVs, antennas,
and other video equipment, and cable, fiber, and satellite content
providers!

It is only a step forward for those that can receive/benefit from the SD
or HDTV signal. For those that had/lost a snowy/fuzzy analog signal, hardly
a step forward. Or for those companies (read: Comcast) that are using the
consumers confusion/bad luck to their advantage.

 

[JeffM]

Add one more to your figures.

[...]this entire DTV thing was supposed to be a step forward,
not back to the days where people had to have outdoor antennas!

You are too susceptible to hype.
This wasn't about *better* (as we see, for many it will be WORSE);
DTV is all about **more profitable**.

This entire "DTV thing" was a way for the government (via the FCC)
to raise money by selling off more of the broadcast spectrum.
Bingo!

Now you're on the beam.
Those commercial interests lobbied hard for DTV:

There's the subscription-based distribution industry
-- Rural viewers who could previously get by with a snowy picture
may now need satellite dishes to get anything
and folks who weren't too bothered by multipath (with analog)
may now need cable/sat.

....then there's content providers -- Digital == ***DRM-capable***
http://www.google.com/search?q=gladiators+medium+nbc+drm&num=100

Of course, guys in the electronics services industries
can also cash in on DTV boondoggle
by getting savvy in exactly the theme of this thread:
What do I, Joe Consumer, need to watch terrestrial DTV reliably?

My feeling is that (very local) CATV is about to see an upswing.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/24/1421211&threshold=4&mode=nested#25138447

The analog shutdown in Wilmington, NC will be a useful boilerplate.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/24/1421211&threshold=4&mode=nested#25137579

The coastal plain of NC with its dearth of tall urban structures
won't translate to all areas, of course.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/24/1421211&threshold=4&mode=nested#25137331

I hadn't considered foil-backed insulation as Jeff L mentioned.
That sounds like a high probability glitch for a bunch of folks.

 

[Jim Yanik]

If that's true, then it's likely that your house is RF shielded either
by chicken wire in the walls (stucco) or aluminum foil backed
fiberglass insulation. If so, there's no hope for an indoor antenna.

Try a cheap and simple experiment. Take a length of RG-6/u CATV coax.
Strip back about 20" of the outer jacked and shield. Shove it out the
window, hopefully on the side of the house that faces the TV xmitters.
Crimp an F connector on the other end and connect it to the TV sets
antenna connector. This is a truly attrocious TV antenna but should
work in a strong signal area by moving the antenna outside of your
shielded house. If it works noticably better, you might consider a
better outside antenna, which should improve reception even more.

If you live in an apartment complex, you might consider inspiring the
landlord to resurrect the rooftop community TV antenna system, and
distribute the signal to the entire building. Most CATV coax
distribution system come together in some manner of utility room. It's
easy enough to disconnect your coax cable from the cable company and
reconnect it to a community antenna system.

he could also put an antenna in a window facing the transmitter/antenna
farm,IF he has one facing that way.

Landlords will not go to the trouble or expense of CATV antennas.
They don't get anything for it.

 

[Samuel M. Goldwasser]

There are plenty of other things in the home that block RF besides
chicken wire under the stucco and foil backed insulation. Some
decorative wallpaper has a sheet of thin foil inside. Aluminized
mylar energy efficient windows are an effective RF block. Metal
window and door screens block RF. If you live in a poured concrete
structure, where the inside walls are also concrete, the water in the
concrete will form an RF barrier. Antennas in the attic work
usually well, but if the roofing material is metalized (i.e.
reflective), no RF will pass.

I run into such things all the time with Wi-Fi, where barriers to
2.4GHz is more pronounced than at TV frequencies. A really good way
to test for a problem is to check for indoor cellular coverage. If
cellular works well outside or close to an open window, but the signal
drops severely elsewhere inside, then there's metal in the walls.

OK, some more info:

House is about 90 years old without many modern upgrades. First floor
stucco, second floor redwood siding. I doubt there is any sigificant
insulation (that's for another group and another thread!) or anything
metallic in the walls.

All TVs get excellent analog reception.

TV/DTV convertor box on second floor on side facing antenna farm gets decent
digital reception with only old UHF loop.

TV/DTV convertor box on first floor has basic Radio Shack antenna and now
seems passable but not gerat.

Antenna is placed on top of china closet in dining room.

New Toshiba LCD DTV on opposite side of house is the main problem.
(But analog reception there is so good that a casual observer might think
it is a DTV signal on most channels.)

I like the idea of an experiment hanging a wire outside the house to
see if that helps, though it's on the wrong side to be really effective.

Attic is full of junk (I bet you're not surprised), so plopping large
antenna there is probably not an option, though there is a crawl space
that is empty.

--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

 

[bq340]

CATV antennas.

Maybe MATV antenna? or is this something new?

MikeB