| Author |
Message |
L David Matheny
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:41 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.63.0503291040200.6060@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
<snip>
| Quote: | 2) The rotor is not integrated with the tuner. I would kill
for a TV with integrated ATSC tuner and rotor control.
That would be OK, but slow and cumbersome. I would kill for |
an ATSC/NTSC tuner with a built-in antenna switcher to select
each channel from one of three or four general-purpose inputs
(ATSC and/or NTSC). I don't mind running separate coaxial
feeds down from each outdoor antenna or preamp.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GMAN
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:33 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
In article <Pine.WNT.4.63.0503291040200.6060@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>, Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
| Quote: | I have two ATSC tuners: a Samsung SIR-T151 and a Samsung SIR-TS160, both
of which are considered obsolete and not particularly stellar performers.
|
I was just given a SIR-TS160 from a client for some DVD mastering work. Its
the one with the directv tuner built in. Other than its old, what makes it
obsolete?
| Quote: |
Unlike you, I never expected rabbit ears to work; they don't work worth a
damn for NTSC reception either. There's the small matter that rabbit ears
are for VHF reception and all the ATSC broadcasters are on UHF. The silly
little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC reception
either.
|
| Quote: |
The only usability issues I have with my system are:
1) No manual programming of channel configuration; must scan. The
SIR-T151 is actually better in that you can scan a single channel
without deleting existing programming. The SIR-TS160 does not.
2) The rotor is not integrated with the tuner. I would kill for a
TV with integrated ATSC tuner and rotor control.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
none
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:33 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
| Quote: | ... rabbit ears are for VHF reception and all the ATSC
broadcasters are on UHF. The silly little loop UHF antennas didn't
work worth a damn for NTSC reception either.
|
This may be true where you live, but in many cities, there are one or
more VHF digital channels. Eventually there will be many more.
My town has two VHF DTV channels. Las Vegas has FIVE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
none
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:45 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0503290827490.22187@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
-Word of mouth among ordinary TV consumers that they should wait
coming from friends who have taken the plunge or who tried OTA
and gave up. I know plenty of those in New York City. Lots of
word of mouth in New York City that OTA simply doesn't work well
enough to bother.
Most of the country does not care about New York City's reception
problems.
-- Mark --
Mark, I will share my ATSC experience so far in the last few years.
Purchased the Panasonic TUxx20 (can't remember model name now) as
my first HD Tuner for $600. It was pathetic, couldn't pick us
anything with a rabbit ear antenna and required me to
purchase/install a rooftop antenna at my location 8 miles from
downtown Seattle. Once it was working properly it took forever to
change channels and to accomplish commands from the remote. You
would enter a command a number of times because it didn't respond,
only to find that the commands were actually in a slow queue and
would start repeating themselves at some point. I hard rebooted
that thing more times than I can count and sent it back to
Panasonic twice. It's sitting in my basement unused and has little
or no value for resale. It's a boat anchor.
snip
I cannot recommend either of them to a technophobe or someone
elderly. Current HDTV as I know it is too difficult for the average
person to deal with. Having to put in 5-1 or 7-1 instead of 5 or 7
is more than I seem to be able to explain to my parents who visit
occasionally.
|
Many newer STBs and sets with integrated tuners are more or less
plug'n play now. Just plug in, turn on and the tuner auto-scans for
availablel digital and analog channels. After initial scan, just hit
Ch UP or Ch DN to go through all available analog and digital
channels, including sub channels.
Easy enough for Joe Walmart to connect, but grandma will still need
help. OTOH, she would probably need help connecting and programming
an analog-only set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John S. Dyson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:17 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
In article <hdl2e.1992$x4.12@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
| Quote: | Mark Crispin wrote:
-snipped-
Unlike you, I never expected rabbit ears to work; they don't work worth a damn for NTSC reception either. There's the small matter that rabbit
ears are for VHF reception and all the ATSC broadcasters are on UHF. The silly little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC
reception either.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Those "The silly little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for
NTSC reception either" was the best performing antenna with the 5th
generation prototype receiver we tested last summer.
Note that the 'silly little loop' UHF antennas have so little gain |
that ignoring the directionality issues, it is really really poor.
A SUPER well designed front end can cover up a little for very poorly
controlled impedance from the antenna.
Most likely, a receiver that works well with a loop antenna (or other
poor antenna) has a damned good front end.
Even with a 5th generation decoder, I'd suspect that the typical front
end used on typical US HDTV tuners would result in a total performance
that would suck badly.
It really does appear that a large component of good performance with
8VSB tuners is a good frontend.
John
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Tomaras
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:45 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.63.0503291040200.6060@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
| Quote: | I have two ATSC tuners: a Samsung SIR-T151 and a Samsung SIR-TS160, both of
which are considered obsolete and not particularly stellar performers.
Unlike you, I never expected rabbit ears to work; they don't work worth a
damn for NTSC reception either. There's the small matter that rabbit ears
are for VHF reception and all the ATSC broadcasters are on UHF. The silly
little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC reception
either.
The only usability issues I have with my system are:
1) No manual programming of channel configuration; must scan. The
SIR-T151 is actually better in that you can scan a single channel
without deleting existing programming. The SIR-TS160 does not.
2) The rotor is not integrated with the tuner. I would kill for a
TV with integrated ATSC tuner and rotor control.
-- Mark --
|
I just used rabbit ears as a generic term. I have an integrated settop type
of antenna with VHF and UHF elements. I didn't expect much either but all
the same I got almost nothing. What I'm really trying to say is that I think
the HDTV tuner experience at this point is too difficult to recommend to
people who could never figure out how to get rid of the flashing 12:00 on
their VCR's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Tomaras
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:49 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"none" <not@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns96289662CA3A5not@151.164.30.42...
| Quote: | "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0503290827490.22187@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
-Word of mouth among ordinary TV consumers that they should wait
coming from friends who have taken the plunge or who tried OTA
and gave up. I know plenty of those in New York City. Lots of
word of mouth in New York City that OTA simply doesn't work well
enough to bother.
Most of the country does not care about New York City's reception
problems.
-- Mark --
Mark, I will share my ATSC experience so far in the last few years.
Purchased the Panasonic TUxx20 (can't remember model name now) as
my first HD Tuner for $600. It was pathetic, couldn't pick us
anything with a rabbit ear antenna and required me to
purchase/install a rooftop antenna at my location 8 miles from
downtown Seattle. Once it was working properly it took forever to
change channels and to accomplish commands from the remote. You
would enter a command a number of times because it didn't respond,
only to find that the commands were actually in a slow queue and
would start repeating themselves at some point. I hard rebooted
that thing more times than I can count and sent it back to
Panasonic twice. It's sitting in my basement unused and has little
or no value for resale. It's a boat anchor.
snip
I cannot recommend either of them to a technophobe or someone
elderly. Current HDTV as I know it is too difficult for the average
person to deal with. Having to put in 5-1 or 7-1 instead of 5 or 7
is more than I seem to be able to explain to my parents who visit
occasionally.
Many newer STBs and sets with integrated tuners are more or less
plug'n play now. Just plug in, turn on and the tuner auto-scans for
availablel digital and analog channels. After initial scan, just hit
Ch UP or Ch DN to go through all available analog and digital
channels, including sub channels.
Easy enough for Joe Walmart to connect, but grandma will still need
help. OTOH, she would probably need help connecting and programming
an analog-only set.
|
Well now in my market the ABC affiliate uses their -2 sub channel for a
duplicate of -1 which I can't figure out why? The NBC affiliate has a
weather channel on their -2 sub. Auto scan also picks up the NTSC versions
of these stations as well. It's just really confusing for the average person
to deal with all of this plus the aspect ratio issues. I don't have an
answer save for...I have a hard time recommending it to someone who isn't
pretty much up to date with their technology abilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:07 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Mark Crispin wrote:
-snipped-
| Quote: | Unlike you, I never expected rabbit ears to work; they don't work worth a damn for NTSC reception either. There's the small matter that rabbit
ears are for VHF reception and all the ATSC broadcasters are on UHF. The silly little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC
reception either.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
|
Those "The silly little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for
NTSC reception either" was the best performing antenna with the 5th
generation prototype receiver we tested last summer.
It was tested against at least three other much more expensive antennas
including the Silver Sensor, a Radio Shack VHF/UHF powered antenna, A
Radio Shack dual bow tie and a Wineguard Squareshooter. The loop was
easily the best antenna.
Pics here.
http://public.fotki.com/robmx/5th_generation_test/
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Crispin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:28 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, GMAN wrote:
| Quote: | I was just given a SIR-TS160 from a client for some DVD mastering work. Its
the one with the directv tuner built in. Other than its old, what makes it
obsolete?
|
The SIR-TS160 is big, hot, slow, buggy (as in needing reboots or even
reinitialization), and its ATSC performance is nothing to write home
about. The signal strength meter is not particularly useful either,
although many tuners have this problem.
Although you can use it without DirecTV service, you don't want to. If
DirecTV doesn't program your ATSC channels, you have to do a scan, which
erases any previous scanned results. Lots of luck getting the full suite
of ATSC channels programmed that way unless every broadcaster is in the
same direction...
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:51 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Mark Crispin wrote:
| Quote: |
The SIR-TS160 is big, hot, slow, buggy (as in needing reboots or even
reinitialization), and its ATSC performance is nothing to write home
about. The signal strength meter is not particularly useful either,
although many tuners have this problem.
Although you can use it without DirecTV service, you don't want to.
|
But more important, you don't want to use it WITH
DirectTV service, in many cases.
This is because DirectTV apparently tries to choose channels
for you, and omits some. That could be fatal
for people areound here. We have THREE Fox stations, one
25 miles away, one 60, and one 68. For many people,
the one 25 miles away is hardest to get, since it is over a hill.
(Yes, I live in Flatland, but we do have a 50 foot hill). And
I'm sure that Direct TV won't give you the 60 mile one. For
may folks, the 68 mile one is easist.
Doug McDonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:21 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
John S. Dyson wrote:
| Quote: | In article <hdl2e.1992$x4.12@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
Mark Crispin wrote:
-snipped-
Unlike you, I never expected rabbit ears to work; they don't work worth a damn for NTSC reception either. There's the small matter that rabbit
ears are for VHF reception and all the ATSC broadcasters are on UHF. The silly little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC
reception either.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Those "The silly little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC reception either" was the best performing antenna with the 5th
generation prototype receiver we tested last summer.
Note that the 'silly little loop' UHF antennas have so little gain that ignoring the directionality issues, it is really really poor.
A SUPER well designed front end can cover up a little for very poorly controlled impedance from the antenna.
Most likely, a receiver that works well with a loop antenna (or other poor antenna) has a damned good front end.
Even with a 5th generation decoder, I'd suspect that the typical front end used on typical US HDTV tuners would result in a total performance
that would suck badly.
It really does appear that a large component of good performance with 8VSB tuners is a good frontend.
John
|
Does that explain why the other antennas did not do as well as the loop?
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Crispin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:27 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Doug McDonald wrote:
| Quote: | This is because DirectTV apparently tries to choose channels
for you, and omits some.
|
Actually, they just use what the zip code data says is appropriate for
your market.
| Quote: | That could be fatal
for people areound here. We have THREE Fox stations, one
25 miles away, one 60, and one 68. For many people,
the one 25 miles away is hardest to get, since it is over a hill.
(Yes, I live in Flatland, but we do have a 50 foot hill).
|
Lucky you. I'm on the wrong side of a 320 foot hill. I'm at the 280 foot
elevation, so that's only 40 feet of hill, but this is the Pacific
Northwest meaning tall thick trees.
| Quote: | And
I'm sure that Direct TV won't give you the 60 mile one. For
may folks, the 68 mile one is easist.
|
Fortunately, you can set *two* zip codes for your OTA location, so unless
you need to configure stations for three markets you're fine.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Tomaras
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:49 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:g5q2e.62607$le4.40839@fed1read04...
| Quote: |
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:L9adndqiRa9CDNTfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
I don't know what the answer is, but HDTV her in the US is a toy for the
technically proficient and decidedly not for Joe average American at this
point.
You seem sincerely disappointed by DTV. For me, it's a very good
experience. I have
good reception on my old SIR-T151, even on rabbit ears, although I can
sometimes get
freezes and tiling by walking around the room. I almost always rely on a
roof antenna,
but I'm just goofing withe the technology, not using it for TV watching.
(It's the same
with satellite -- I have three dishes and don't watch any TV on them.
They're just
my toys.)
|
No, on the contrary I am very pleased with my current DTV experience. I was
an early adopter with expendable cash and knew it going in. I bought my
current HD Direct Tivo thinking I might get two years out of it. I just
can't recommend it to my 82yo next door neighbor who wants me to help her
buy a new television next week or I'm gonna be in constant tech support
mode. I also don't think my mid 70's parents are going to be able to deal
with the additional complexities. I sure I will go to their house and find
they have been watching 4:3 programs in some oddball zoom mode with a video
game color setting and not even know anything is wrong.
Plain and simple...there are too many options and too many permutations of
those options for the average person to deal with. Is the STB in Zoom but
the Television is in a different mode...etc etc.
I personally think that original aspect ratio should be the law and that
televisions should have built in ATSC tuners with no aspect ratio controls.
4:3 is 4:3 with side panels and widescreen is widescreen. No choices no
problems!
For a good percentage of the population a basic Tivo is difficult to use! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal M. Onella
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:49 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:L9adndqiRa9CDNTfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
| Quote: |
I don't know what the answer is, but HDTV her in the US is a toy for the
technically proficient and decidedly not for Joe average American at this
point.
|
You seem sincerely disappointed by DTV. For me, it's a very good
experience. I have
good reception on my old SIR-T151, even on rabbit ears, although I can
sometimes get
freezes and tiling by walking around the room. I almost always rely on a
roof antenna,
but I'm just goofing withe the technology, not using it for TV watching.
(It's the same
with satellite -- I have three dishes and don't watch any TV on them.
They're just
my toys.)
Best wishes,
"Sal" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
none
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:22 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
| Quote: | snip> I think the HDTV tuner experience at this
point is too difficult to recommend to people who could never
figure out how to get rid of the flashing 12:00 on their VCR's.
|
"Flashing 12:00" on VCRs is a problem that no longer exists with new
VCRs. Clocks are set automatically. Like VCRs,ease of use of newer
ATSC tuners has improved a *lot*.
If you can read and navigate using cursor buttons on a remote, you can
click through the easy-setup and tuning wizard on new tuners. Some
external tuners also walk you through the Aspect Ratio settings by
asking if you have a conventional or widescreen TV.
IMO, new digital TVs and STBs are just about as easy to setup as modern
analog TVs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in