| Author |
Message |
none
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
| Quote: | snip> I just can't recommend it to my 82yo next door
neighbor who wants me to help her buy a new television next week
snip |
$598 answer to problem:
<http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2601425>
Just plug it in and connect to antenna, then auto-tune and watch
digital and analog OTA TV.
In the out of the box normal setting:
1. 480i channels are pillarboxed.
2. 720p/1080i channels fill the 16:9 screen.
4:3 shows are pillarboxed to fill the 16:9 frame.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
none
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm sure that Direct TV won't give you the 60 mile one.
|
Put two zip codes in the Local Networks in Setup Menu.
Apparently there's a bug in the TS160 that will even let you have
*three* markets in the program guide. I accomplished this by entering
2 zip codes in setup, rebooting and rescanning, then I changed the last
zip to a different zip and reboot/rescan again.
Result: Channel listings for 3 markets show up in my program guide.
They have remained there for several months now.
[YMMV] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue Cat
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:g5q2e.62607$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.
I bought a Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC set top box last October, and, for the most |
part, I get excellent results on most of the local channels. However, with
some channels I have problems with Multipath, which causes dropouts. Because
of this I can't sell the idea of digital TV to my wife. The minute she fails
to receive her favorite program, she will tell me that the system is no
good. It is a shame that "5th generation chips", "Casper chips", or any new
technology may not show up in future set top boxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Blue Cat wrote:
| Quote: |
I bought a Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC set top box last October, and, for the most
part, I get excellent results on most of the local channels. However, with
some channels I have problems with Multipath, which causes dropouts. Because
of this I can't sell the idea of digital TV to my wife. The minute she fails
to receive her favorite program, she will tell me that the system is no
good. It is a shame that "5th generation chips", "Casper chips", or any new
technology may not show up in future set top boxes.
We dropped cable because of reception problems that they couldn't or |
wouldn't address. Went to Dish and my wife could not stand the lost
reception during rainstorms. Next was RCN microwave which is the worst
of them all since it cuts out because of wind or rain.
OTA analog is not to bad, digital got killed when I first set it up
because the only place we could receive it was in our back bedroom with
a directional antenna (though the entire apartment has a full view of
the Empire State Building about two miles away) and when I got my wife
to come see my setup and what HD looked like the reception dropped out
as we entered the room. She who wanted to cancel dish because of rain
fade that happened a couple times a month obviously did not want
something that didn't work if someone moved.
5th gen LG prototype solved that at least as long as the person was
behind the antenna and not in front of it. With COFDM I could walk all
over the apartment with a receiver and a piece of coax with my finger
touching it with perfect reception. My wife suggested that we get that.
I contend that COFDM modulation would cancel the wife factor completely,
no rooftop antenna needed in most cases especially as SFNs are built out
and not ugly indoor antennas either.
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Blue Cat wrote:
| Quote: |
I bought a Samsung SIR-T451 ATSC set top box last October, and, for the most part, I get excellent results on most of the local channels. However, with
some channels I have problems with Multipath, which causes dropouts. Because of this I can't sell the idea of digital TV to my wife. The minute she fails
to receive her favorite program, she will tell me that the system is no good. It is a shame that "5th generation chips", "Casper chips", or any new
technology may not show up in future set top boxes.
It is not a "shame" that 5th gen technology will not show up in STB's. |
It is a political scandal. First we had lies about 8-VSB's receive
characteristics back in 1999. Then we had Congress and the FCC go along
with thoughs lies giving the benefit of the doubt to those who were
lieing and "staying the course" with an acknowledged poorly performing
8-VSB (MSTV report 2001) when they said that they would put all their
engergies to work fixing 8-VSB which was going to take six months.
It is a "shame" that our FCC and Congress are being led around with a
ring in their noses by 8-VSB special interest.
They knew then how to fix it at least to make it work minimally well in
multipath and they knew then that it would cost to much to be comparable
with COFDM receiver cost. They know how to fix it now to and it still
cost to much. They will not market an 8-VSB 5th gen receiver until the
cost come down. They can hide that cost in top of the line integrated
sets so that is where you will find 5th gen LG tech.
You will not find it in RCA $300 HDTV sets or STBs for awhile. I am
talking to six different companies who are or have looked at LG 5th gen
chips. All of these companies have the same problem, they see no market
for the receivers they could make with this technology in the US at the
price. What other market is there for 8-VSB? Korea for one. I think you
might see expensive 5th gen STBs in S. Korea first.
Bob Miller |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Crispin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
| Quote: | 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!
|
I will agree with you there.
I don't have much of a problem with the tuners. They output 1080i so the
TV's aspect ratio is locked. The tuners also lock their aspect ratio on
HD or widescreen SD programming. So the only time that I even think about
changing the aspect ratio is on letterboxed non-widescreen SD programming,
where I usually want to zoom. Unfortunately, the amount of zoom is
usually excessive, and with subtitled foreign movies they often put the
subtitles below the picture. So controllability is good there.
The problem is with the DVD player. It defaults to full screen on all
programming, whether widescreen or not. I can't change that default; I
can only override it while playing. It knows perfectly well that it isn't
widescreen, because it has two different menus on its aspect ratio
control:
16:9 discs: Wide Screen (default), Screen Fit, Zoom Fit
3:4 discs: Normal Wide (default), Screen fit, Zoom Fit, Vertical Fit
Note that the correct setting (Vertical Fit) is also the *last* one.
Infuriatingly, it reverts back to [ab]Normal Wide every time the disc
program changes (e.g. every time you go to the menu).
Rather than fight aspect ratio battles with the DVD player (I never would
have bought it if I knew that it had that design bug), I simply set the
aspect ratio on the TV (which I can do since the DVD player outputs 480p).
The bottom line is that while I agree with the idea of locked aspect
ratios in principle, this can't happen as long as there are devices that
make the wrong choice. Also, there should always be the option to zoom
letterboxed material.
-- 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 |
|
|
Mark Crispin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Blue Cat wrote:
| Quote: | However, with
some channels I have problems with Multipath, which causes dropouts.
|
Are you certain that the problem is multipath? As in, have you had your
signal tested with a spectrum analyzer?
-- 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 |
|
|
Gordon Burditt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
| Quote: | 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.
|
Aspect ratios are still an issue. My receiver (US Digital, aka the
"Walmart box") has a setting so it knows I've got a 4:3 monitor.
It also knows it has to downconvert to 480i with S/Video. Some day
I'll get a better (and 16:9) monitor.
There are 4 settings for aspect ratio on my tuner, and I constantly
have to dink with them: Auto, Zoom, Letterbox, and Full Screen.
I hate "Full Screen"; it makes things out of proportion and it looks
strange. For many shows in actual 720p, I want "Letterbox". For
others, probably SD material that's been converted, I want "Zoom",
or I get the effect of "triple letterboxing" - a double-wide stripe
at the top and bottom, and one on the side. "Auto" seems to give
me the same as "Letterbox" every time I can remember.
Oh, yes, if I change the channel, the aspect ratio goes back to
"Auto". Now, how do I program a DVR (here, one using the external
digital tuner rather than having an integrated one) to change
channels with an IR blaster and set the aspect ratio depending on
what program it's recording? (Actually, right now, I leave it set
MANUALLY to the channel and aspect ratio I want, as no DVR seems
to know how to control the box.)
Gordon L. Burditt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue Cat
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:34 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0503300838371.1485@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
| Quote: | On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Blue Cat wrote:
However, with
some channels I have problems with Multipath, which causes dropouts.
Are you certain that the problem is multipath? As in, have you had your
signal tested with a spectrum analyzer?
No, but I am not too far from their tramsmitters. The stations that I have |
problems with in digital, show up with ghosts in analog. In each case it
takes some fiddling with the antenna to clear the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
L David Matheny (ldmnews1@netassoc.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.63.0503291040200.6060@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
snip
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.
|
Most good ATSC STBs have two separate antenna inputs. The MyHD cards
even integrate them together in such a way that it does exactly what you
want: enter a channel number and it remembers which input should be used
to get that channel.
--
Jeff Rife | "This? This is ice. This is what happens to
| water when it gets too cold. This? This is
| Kent. This is what happens to people when
| they get too sexually frustrated."
| -- Chris Knight, "Real Genius" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | Mark, I will share my ATSC experience so far in the last few years.
[snip discussion of STBs with poor interfaces]
Speaking from experience over the years I'm very pleased with the picture
and generally abilities of the Sony and Hughes units but 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.
|
My experience is exactly the opposite. I own the *first* ATSC receiver (the
RCA DTC-100, although it is inside my RCA HDTV), and channel changes are
fast. There is no need to input "7-1" if you want the primary channel...I
just enter the actual RF channel ("39" for my "channel 7"), and get what
I want. Basically, virtual channel numbers are a kludge until analog is
shut off, so I don't use them.
As for the HD DirecTiVo, I don't know how fast it changes channels because
I haven't ever used it for that...it's a TiVo, so it has 15 or so hours of
HD and 30 or so hours of SD recordings sitting on it right now, and that's
what I watch.
--
Jeff Rife | "Man, I thought Ultimate Robot Fighting was real,
| like pro wrestling, but it turns out it's fixed,
| like boxing."
| -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Alex Perez (aperez@gmailDAWT.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | I couldn't agree more, and that's why John Dyson's crapspew is not of
any value. It doesn't add anything to the dialogue. In fact, it only
encourages Bob Miller to spew his rantings, because he knows there's an
permanent reactionary audience in John Dyson. If you ignore NNTPtrolls
like Bob Miller, you take away their primary weapon.
|
Bob is not a traditional troll in one way: his lies can affect *my* TV
viewing if I ignore them.
We have already seen some people announce on this newsgroup that they won't
buy an ATSC receiver until they can get a "5th generation" chipset because
of Bob's lie that "ATSC doesn't work reliably with previous chipsets".
People posting to newsgroups tend to be the kind that other people ask for
information, and so 5-20 "average" people will get the false impression
that ATSC isn't reliable.
All this will eventually end up as statistics used to convince people that
matter (like Congress) what should happen with digital TV in the US.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/ReadyForADog.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Drewdawg (nope@not.here) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | Bob's chance is coming this summer when Crown Castle starts its "nationwide"
DVB-H service offering mobile TV & Radio in the L-Band.
Bob has been on about COFDM SFN for years now and it appears it's finally
coming to America.
As far as the proof being in the pudding it appears to be dinner time. :-)
And I predict it's Bob who will be eating it. ;-) lol
|
Actually, an SFN probably will work OK. But, it can only deliver the same
programming across the SFN, not thousands of different signals, and that's
what makes it unsuitable for OTA TV in the US.
--
Jeff Rife | "Ho! Ha, ha! Guard! Turn! Parry!
| Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!"
|
| -- Daffy Duck, "Robin Hood Daffy" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
inkyblacks@yahoo.com (inkyblacks@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | I am willing to concede that Bob is probably right that we made a
mistake to pick 8-VSB over COFDM
|
See, here's one more reason for people to keep refuting Bob's lies.
What technical proof do you have that show that COFDM would cover the
required areas using the single transmitter ("big stick") model that
is required by the US? And, what power would be required on the
transmitters to do this? Please provide proof, not speculation.
--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/InstallVirus.gif |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: DTV reception is much more difficult than analog |
|
|
Blue Cat (bluecat22@go.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | Are you certain that the problem is multipath? As in, have you had your
signal tested with a spectrum analyzer?
No, but I am not too far from their tramsmitters. The stations that I have
problems with in digital, show up with ghosts in analog.
|
This tells you nothing unless their channel numbers are very close
together. Ghosting on a VHF-Low channel (2-6) doesn't mean that you
would have ghosting on a UHF channel (14-69) from the same transmitter
location.
For me, I have the ultimate proof that multipath isn't the problem people
think it is. My local WB transmits analog on channel 50 at 5000kW and
digital on channel 51 at 150kW from the same antenna. The analog broadcast
is a ghost-filled snowy mess, while digital is perfect.
--
Jeff Rife | "My God, what if the secret ingredient is people?"
| "No, there's already a soda like that: Soylent Cola."
| "Oh. How is it?"
| "It varies from person to person."
| -- Fry and Leela, "Futurama" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in