What Ever Happened with Digital TV?

[sandman]

I honestly have not been watching the news or listening to the radio.

What ever happened to the big digital change?

I have my converter box all ready but I only get a few stations on it and my analog TV antenna is still working.

[Pippen]

The deadline was extended until June 12th but some stations are going ahead with the transition as scheduled.

We just checked and it looks like half of our stations made the switch. I'll have to wait until my kids get home because I haven't a clue how to rescan the stations. :rolleyes:

I have a tv that the converter box isn't working on. Anyone run into that?

[JRThro]

I have a tv that the converter box isn't working on. Anyone run into that?
It may just be that the TV, or the output on the box, is set to the wrong channel. Both should probably be set to channel 3 or channel 4.

Also, when our converter box scanned for digital channels, it did not find the local NBC or PBS stations, and several channels barely come in and are all pixellated. So I'll have to fiddle with the antenna on top of the TV, or get a better indoor antenna. And then scan again. The channels that we *do* get look just great, btw.

[RoyAtl]

I honestly have not been watching the news or listening to the radio.

What ever happened to the big digital change?

I have my converter box all ready but I only get a few stations on it and my analog TV antenna is still working.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/hundreds-of-television-st_n_167789.html

[bobkrech]

Until a few weeks ago, the FCC mandated change over date was February 17, but for whatever reason (since it has been publicized for more than a year, the new administration decided to extend the mandated change date to June 12. There is no requirement that prevents the changover however, and in some markets, sevral station changed over starting several months ago when their analog transmitters failed and and the cost to repair could not be recovered.

An interesting observation. It's really easy to tune in an analog TV station. You simply tune to the station and slowly adjust the antenna orientation until you start to see a picture and then keep turning until it's optimized. This method does not work with digital signal TV because you either have a picture or you don't. But all is not lost. Most TVs (and I assume converter boxes) have an autofind menu, and if you look further down the menu you will see a DTV signal strength meter option. Simply manually select the station you want to see, flip the menu to the signal strength meter and turn the antenna to the peak strength. It's really easy that way.

Another hidden gem is http://www.antennaweb.org

Simply click gtet started and input your zip code (only unless you want to get more spam) and graphically locate your address on the map, and then continue. You will get a listing of all TV stations within range and their compass directions. If you view this graphically and you have an antenna you can manually rotate, you don't even need a compass to point the antenna!

The converter boxes are the cheapest way to go to receive DTV, but they do not receive HDTV which is truly amazing. DTV is basically VGA 640x480 quality which is much better than analog TV. HDTV has even higher resolution, and is labeled as 720 i and p and 1080 i and p, but don't get too worked up on the high priced hype. A $300 HDTV works just as well as a $3000 HDTV, the biggest difference is the screen size and the name on the box, and for practical purposes, there isn't much viewing difference between 720p (which includes 1080i) and 1080p unless you have 20/10 vision.

http://www.dtv.gov/

Bob

[shreadvector]

I'm amused by this question on two levels:

1) You asked it on a rocketry forum.

2) You could simply have googled it or searched Wikipedia and found good answers to any questions you have and even more answers to questions you have not thought of yet. Relying on rocket folks to find and retype information here is somewhat silly. And the retyping process is not always executed well.

Oh well, here are the links:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=digital%20tv&btnG=Google+Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_tv

And the most important link:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/fda_prepares_nation_for?utm_source=a-section

:D;):eek::rolleyes:


I honestly have not been watching the news or listening to the radio.

What ever happened to the big digital change?

I have my converter box all ready but I only get a few stations on it and my analog TV antenna is still working.

[RimfireJim]

Maybe because he knew you'd be good for at least one link to an Onion article? :D

[Peartree]

Many current antennas are optimized for VHF channels and not so good for UHF channels. Virtually all of the DTV station allocations are UHF so your local station will move on the "dial" as it were. As a result, an antenna that did well before the switch to DTV may not pull in your local station even with a good converter box. It's still there but you may need a different antenna and the gov'ts not going to help you with that.

[Der Red Max]

...but for whatever reason...
Hmmm, every article and news story, I've ever read about the "change-over" extension, has stated the administrations reason.

[Gillard]

in Britain it's coming in region by region, my area is one of the last to change in 2011. i think some areas have already swapped.

[davel]

Another hidden gem is http://www.antennaweb.org
Let me add the link http://tvfool.com/ Seems to me to be more straightforward than antennaweb.

[sandman]

Many current antennas are optimized for VHF channels and not so good for UHF channels. Virtually all of the DTV station allocations are UHF so your local station will move on the "dial" as it were. As a result, an antenna that did well before the switch to DTV may not pull in your local station even with a good converter box. It's still there but you may need a different antenna and the gov'ts not going to help you with that.

I have a twofold problem.

I am currently and will continue to get the majority of my TV broadcast from Canada. They don't switch over for at least another 2 years.

Currently only one network (NBC) affiliate has changed over to digital but both of the PBS station that I'm in range of have already completely changed over.
So basically all I've been watching is Canadian TV and the've just mentioned it.

I aslo have one Canadian digital station, it's the only one I've found and it's on channel 19 the same as one of my PBS station.

My converter box is getting real confused by that.

[luke strawwalker]

Until a few weeks ago, the FCC mandated change over date was February 17, but for whatever reason (since it has been publicized for more than a year, the new administration decided to extend the mandated change date to June 12. There is no requirement that prevents the changover however, and in some markets, sevral station changed over starting several months ago when their analog transmitters failed and and the cost to repair could not be recovered.

An interesting observation. It's really easy to tune in an analog TV station. You simply tune to the station and slowly adjust the antenna orientation until you start to see a picture and then keep turning until it's optimized. This method does not work with digital signal TV because you either have a picture or you don't. But all is not lost. Most TVs (and I assume converter boxes) have an autofind menu, and if you look further down the menu you will see a DTV signal strength meter option. Simply manually select the station you want to see, flip the menu to the signal strength meter and turn the antenna to the peak strength. It's really easy that way.

Another hidden gem is http://www.antennaweb.org

Simply click gtet started and input your zip code (only unless you want to get more spam) and graphically locate your address on the map, and then continue. You will get a listing of all TV stations within range and their compass directions. If you view this graphically and you have an antenna you can manually rotate, you don't even need a compass to point the antenna!

The converter boxes are the cheapest way to go to receive DTV, but they do not receive HDTV which is truly amazing. DTV is basically VGA 640x480 quality which is much better than analog TV. HDTV has even higher resolution, and is labeled as 720 i and p and 1080 i and p, but don't get too worked up on the high priced hype. A $300 HDTV works just as well as a $3000 HDTV, the biggest difference is the screen size and the name on the box, and for practical purposes, there isn't much viewing difference between 720p (which includes 1080i) and 1080p unless you have 20/10 vision.

http://www.dtv.gov/

Bob


Question Bob, and sounds like you're the man to know...

Whats the difference between 720p, 720i, 1080p, and 1080i??

I don't get it... (course I'm still using CRT's... :) OL JR :) PS. which is better (ok pros/cons) of LCD's vs. plasmas... :) TIA!

[MarkII]

Our local stations all switched over to all-digital signals yesterday, the original switch date. Everyone where I live is either on cable or on satellite, because we cannot pick up broadcast signals (too far away, too many mountains) -- so we didn't need no stinkin' converter boxes, anyway. :p And since I watch everything on my 8 year old tube TV, it all still looks the same. :rolleyes:

MarkII

[sandman]

I guess my point of asking here was what have you guys experienced.

Hey I don't get to talk to anybody else all day since I work from home!

Fred, real sorry that bothers you. It's a legitimate question for the technically minded not. Not political enough?:rolleyes:

Some stations have switched some have both and some haven't changed yet.

It's kind of hit and miss right now but I gotta say the digital signal is crystal clear!

I can see why they extended the deadline...too many people are just plain cluless as to what to do.

These are (we are:rolleyes:) the same people that have 12:00 still flashing on thier VCR's.

As for tuning in my converter box has a "signal strength button.

I can hit that while I rotate (I have a powered rotor) my antenna and watch for the best signal on the meter. That coupled with a 50' tower pre-amplifier on the antenna and a signal booster distributor gives me a whole bunch of TV.

There just isn't anything on worth watching.:p

[o1d_dude]

It's not like this was sprung on us suddenly...the mandate was given back in what 1996?

The delay on the mandatory switch to digital only broadcasts was extended until June 12th but stations were allowed to start broadcasting digital transmissions if they were so inclined. Many stations have already done this.

My guess is those folks who aren't prepared for the digital switch now probably won't be ready in June either but whatcha gonna do?

[MarkII]

I guess my point of asking here was what have you guys experienced

....

Some stations have switched some have both and some haven't changed yet.
Although all of our stations have made the switch, they are still broadcasting the local news in both formats for now.


It's kind of hit and miss right now but I gotta say the digital signal is crystal clear!
With our cable (which went digital about 10 years ago) it always has been.


I can see why they extended the deadline...too many people are just plain cluless as to what to do.
Also, the Federal government promised financial assistance in the form of coupons that would cover the lion's share of the cost of those converter boxes, and then saw the fund that was paying for them run out of money well before the conversion date. There has been such a relentless public service campaign for the past 18 months reminding everyone of the impending conversion, and breathlessly warning us all of the dire consequences of not preparing for the day (as if it was the Last Judgment or something), that I'm sure plenty of people who ordered those coupons didn't actually need them because they either had cable or satellite but felt pressured by the PSA campaign. That may have been a factor in why the fund ran out of money earlier than expected.


There just isn't anything on worth watching.:p
That's the perennial irony, isn't it? ("Ninety-six channels, and nothing's on...") :rolleyes:

MarkII

[georgegassaway]

There just isn't anything on worth watching.:p
You get to get away with that only because “Mythbusters” was a repeat tonight, and because “American Idol” is still in existence.....

- George Gassaway

[Peartree]

Also, the Federal government promised financial assistance in the form of coupons that would cover the lion's share of the cost of those converter boxes, and then saw the fund that was paying for them run out of money well before the conversion date. There has been such a relentless public service campaign for the past 18 months reminding everyone of the impending conversion, and breathlessly warning us all of the dire consequences of not preparing for the day (as if it was the Last Judgment or something), that I'm sure plenty of people who ordered those coupons didn't actually need them because they either had cable or satellite but felt pressured by the PSA campaign. That may have been a factor in why the fund ran out of money earlier than expected.
MarkII

Partially true. The stories on the news and in print two years ago were pretty clear that the federal government had set aside *some* money to help with the cost of converter boxes but they knew even then that it wouldn't be nearly enough (and was never intended to be enough) for everyone to get a coupon. That was one reason they began pushing the coupons early because they knew (and said so) that if you didn't get your request in early, the money would run out and you'd be on your own. The government never intended to pay for everyone to switch, only to help out. That said, I'm sure a lot of people got coupons who didn't need them.

[MarkII]

You are correct, John. I missed the part about the fund being limited.

MarkII

[JRThro]

That said, I'm sure a lot of people got coupons who didn't need them.
I got two "coupons" even though I only have one TV, but I gave one to my brother-in-law, who didn't get one.

The "coupons" are physically the same as gift/debit/credit cards: plastic cards with a magnetic strip on the back.

[henry8minus1]

Question Bob, and sounds like you're the man to know...

Whats the difference between 720p, 720i, 1080p, and 1080i??

I don't get it... (course I'm still using CRT's... :) OL JR :) PS. which is better (ok pros/cons) of LCD's vs. plasmas... :) TIA!

The 720 and 1080 represent the number of horizontal scan lines of the tv or signal. Basically this is the resolution of the screen. Thus 720 normally has a screen of 1280 horizontal pixels x 720 vertical pixels (16:9 ratio -- widescreen) or 921,600 pixels total; 1080 is 1920 x 1080 or 2,073,600 pixels total.

The i or p stand for interlaced and progressive. Interlaced is when half of the lines are updated each time the screen refreshes, while progressive updates all the lines.

Most HDTVs will be either 720p or 1080p. TV channels broadcast in 720p and others in 1080i, to my knowledge only blueray movies are in full 1080p. In addition you will not see many 1080p TVs smaller than 40 inches, because the screen needs to be that large before your eye can notice the better resolution of the 1080p signal.

[sandman]

A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.

So suddenly your 32" TV now only has a 24" picture.

Fortunately most digital stations have a non-HD signal with it.

You can get like chanel 25-1 will have the call letters of WEYI HD and 25-2 will have a full size picture just not in HD with call letters of just WEYI.

It's really confusing for my wife.

There is a button on the remote that says "zoom" but when you push it a message comes on the screen that says "The aspect ratio for this channel cannot be changed".

Now one great way for us more technically gifted people to "pay it forward" is to help some of your neighbors figure out digital TV. Like the elderly couple down the block that just don't have a clue.

It's really getting complicated to watch TV now!

[JRThro]

The 720 and 1080 represent the number of vertical scan lines of the tv or signal.
The scan lines are horizontal, not vertical. So the 720 and 1080 represent the number of horizontal scan lines, or vertical pixels, on the screen.

If I'm not mistaken, normal analog TV pictures have 525 horizontal scan lines.

[WiK]

A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.


We had that problem with our cable box when we first got HD, but there was a setting somewhere that you could turn to 'HDTV Widescreen' mode, which zoomed in on the picture and got rid of the sidebars. Maybe there's something similar in whatever you're using?

Phil

[MKP]

My converter box has got several settings for screen size such as zoom, 16x9, 4x something or other. It gets it to the right size, but it drives me nuts, when you change the channel, you have to find the setting the look the best. Sometimes even a different show requires a different setting.

Whatever happened to turning the TV and finding your show?:(

[flygrimm]

Whatever happened to everyone crowding around the radio? Raido? What's that? :D

Stuart

[shreadvector]

Whatever happened to everyone crowding around the radio? Raido? What's that? :D

Stuart

http://www.sirius.com/

[davel]

My converter box has got several settings for screen size such as zoom, 16x9, 4x something or other. It gets it to the right size, but it drives me nuts, when you change the channel, you have to find the setting the look the best. Sometimes even a different show requires a different setting.

Whatever happened to turning the TV and finding your show?:(

Best route *usually* is to set the set top box to it maximum and let the TV downconvert if needed.

[MarkH]

Of the broadcast networks, ABC and Fox broadcast in 720P while NBC and CBS transmit in 1080i, when they actually show HD programming.

This article does a good job of describing 720 P, 1080i, 1080P, H180W, H210R, and G104T ;-)http://www.electronichouse.com/article/network_hd_720p_vs_1080i

[dave carver]

Only 1 station here, a UHF station, has made the change. Kinda stupid on their part if you think about it. It's people without cable, satillite or the like that watch over the air TV, lower income viewers, and they have cut off the very people that watch them.

Can you say brain dead?

[luke strawwalker]

A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.

So suddenly your 32" TV now only has a 24" picture.

Fortunately most digital stations have a non-HD signal with it.

You can get like chanel 25-1 will have the call letters of WEYI HD and 25-2 will have a full size picture just not in HD with call letters of just WEYI.

It's really confusing for my wife.

There is a button on the remote that says "zoom" but when you push it a message comes on the screen that says "The aspect ratio for this channel cannot be changed".

Now one great way for us more technically gifted people to "pay it forward" is to help some of your neighbors figure out digital TV. Like the elderly couple down the block that just don't have a clue.

It's really getting complicated to watch TV now!

Man you're telling me... with a satellite box, DVD recorder, VCR, CRT TV, and stereo all hooked together, the back of my entertainment center is starting to look like the backside of an Apollo instrument console... LOL:)

This stuff moves so fast I can't keep up... OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

The 720 and 1080 represent the number of horizontal scan lines of the tv or signal. Basically this is the resolution of the screen. Thus 720 normally has a screen of 1280 horizontal pixels x 720 vertical pixels (16:9 ratio -- widescreen) or 921,600 pixels total; 1080 is 1920 x 1080 or 2,073,600 pixels total.

The i or p stand for interlaced and progressive. Interlaced is when half of the lines are updated each time the screen refreshes, while progressive updates all the lines.

Most HDTVs will be either 720p or 1080p. TV channels broadcast in 720p and others in 1080i, to my knowledge only blueray movies are in full 1080p. In addition you will not see many 1080p TVs smaller than 40 inches, because the screen needs to be that large before your eye can notice the better resolution of the 1080p signal.

Thanks for the explanation Henry... that's the first time anybody's actually explained to me what it means... the 'saleskids' they have in these stores now don't know anything about it...

Kinda reminds me of an old episode of "Coach" from about a decade ago--

Coach: "Oh, man, my new Z2000SUX Limited Edition 4x4 is coming in next week"

Dauber: "That's great Coach-- what's "limited" in the Limited Edition??"

Coach: "Man, it's got EVERYTHING Dauber-- leather seating, heated steering wheel, full CD stereo, and turbo-turbo..."

Dauber: (looking confused) "What's 'turbo-turbo'?? "

Coach: How should I know-- it's just twice as good as turbo!

That's about the response I've come to expect from questions at electronics stores... Thanks again! OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

Whatever happened to everyone crowding around the radio? Raido? What's that? :D

Stuart

Ever listen to Jerry Clower talking about the old days listening to the radio...

You used to go over to whoever's house what had the strongest batteries for their radio... about two hours before the "Grand Old Opry" came on, we took the batteries out of the radio and set 'em by the wood heater... the hot batteries would put out more power and we'd have enough electricity to listen for the whole show. Then we'd pop 'em in, tune into the Grand Old Opry, turn it up loud enough for us all to hear, and snatch the knobs off so nobody could change the station...

Reminds me of my childhood... remember when TV's HAD knobs?? That's why kids today are too fat-- they aren't the "designated channel changers" anymore... I used to play right in front of the TV, because when the folks wanted the channel changed, it was "Jeff, switch the TV to channel 13..." and man you better be quick about it because if the old man had to get up from the couch you got a whuppin'... LOL:)

Those were the days... OL JR :)

[davel]

Only 1 station here, a UHF station, has made the change. Kinda stupid on their part if you think about it. It's people without cable, satillite or the like that watch over the air TV, lower income viewers, and they have cut off the very people that watch them.

Can you say brain dead?

Are you saying that this station is OTA only and not carried on cable or satellite? That is somewhat unusual.

One thing to remember is that all stations had to be ready for the transition on Feb 17th. That means that they almost certainly have their DTV transmitter on the air. Running two transmitters is quite expensive - and running the analog transmitter is considerably more expensive than the digital one.

One local station reports that the electricity to run their analog transmitter is $35,000.00 per month. Can you really blame a station for making the transition when originally planned when it can save then $35K a month? ..and the majority of their OTA views are DTV ready anyway.

[MarkII]

A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.

So suddenly your 32" TV now only has a 24" picture.

Fortunately most digital stations have a non-HD signal with it.

You can get like chanel 25-1 will have the call letters of WEYI HD and 25-2 will have a full size picture just not in HD with call letters of just WEYI.

It's really confusing for my wife.

There is a button on the remote that says "zoom" but when you push it a message comes on the screen that says "The aspect ratio for this channel cannot be changed".

Now one great way for us more technically gifted people to "pay it forward" is to help some of your neighbors figure out digital TV. Like the elderly couple down the block that just don't have a clue.

It's really getting complicated to watch TV now!
Everything looks exactly the same as before on my set. The picture fills the screen on every channel, and in every show. All of the broadcast channels, and all of the cable channels, look exactly the same. No bars, no letterboxing, no shrunken picture. I have no idea what you are talking about. :confused:

MarkII

[Pippen]

Well, we entered the digital age and all channels are up and going. I still haven't figured out how to change the channels on the tv with the converter box. :rolleyes:

Now we can't record anything. We don't have cable and on the rare occasions we wanted to record we used a little tv with a built in VHS recorder. The new tV works fine but if we run it through a VHS there's no reception.

Right now it doesn't matter because yesterday all the males in my house made the discovery that google earth now has a flight simulator. (They made an emergency run for a joystick at 9pm last night.). I'm thinking we will need to get fixed up for recording again soon though.

[Peartree]

Google Earth has a flight simulator?:eek:

[Pippen]

Yup. Download google earth and in the tool menu it has an option to enter flight simulator.

I can't imagine your wives will be thanking me for this...unless they're wanting to get rid of you all for a few hours. ;)

[bobkrech]

Question Bob, and sounds like you're the man to know...

Whats the difference between 720p, 720i, 1080p, and 1080i??

I don't get it... (course I'm still using CRT's... :) OL JR :) PS. which is better (ok pros/cons) of LCD's vs. plasmas... :) TIA!


A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.

So suddenly your 32" TV now only has a 24" picture.

Fortunately most digital stations have a non-HD signal with it.

You can get like chanel 25-1 will have the call letters of WEYI HD and 25-2 will have a full size picture just not in HD with call letters of just WEYI.

It's really confusing for my wife.

There is a button on the remote that says "zoom" but when you push it a message comes on the screen that says "The aspect ratio for this channel cannot be changed".

Now one great way for us more technically gifted people to "pay it forward" is to help some of your neighbors figure out digital TV. Like the elderly couple down the block that just don't have a clue.

It's really getting complicated to watch TV now!
There's pros and cons with both formats, but unless you live in a fringe area, the pros of DTV far exceed the conns.

The only real pro about analog tv is that you can always see or hear something if it's there. The picture may be snowy and barely visible, but at least you might be able to get some useful info.

A DTV picture is either there or not. Inside a DTV there's a microprocessor that decodes the digital data stream and generates the picture. In order to determine what's really there, a typical DTV needs about 2 seconds worth of data before it generates a picture, so if the signal is weak or fading in and out, you get the "blue" (or black or whatever color you background happens to be) screen of death: nothing. If there's heavy rain or snow, the data stream can be interupted an you can either get a broken up picture, a freeze frame or the "blue" screen of death.

The old analog 4:3 TV signal maps into a VGA screen (640x480) very well and corresponds to the standard 4:3 DTV 480 p fromat. The real benefit to the viewer is that the old NTSC analog format really has a resolution of only ~320 horizontal dots vs the 640 of the standard DTV format, so that your basic DTV signal has twice the resolution as analog and visually appears much sharper. HDTV is a higher resolution in a widescreen 16:9 format broadcast in either 720p or 1080i formats. (Already described previously in earlier posts.)

The biggest advantage of (H)DTV for the broadcaster is that more information can be transmitted in the same bandwidth. You can transmit 4 DTV channels in the same bandwidth as 1 analog channel. For example, in the Boston area, public TV WGBX channel 44.0 analog has 4 DTV channels 44.1 (WGBX in DTV), 44.2 (World), 44.3 (Create)and 44.4 (Kids). ION has done the same by replacing the analog channel with 4 DTV channels. Many other stations broadcast HDTV on their XX.1 channel in either 720p or 1080i and use the xx.2 channel for 480p DTV broadcast.

How your picture looks depends on how you have your DTV setup. For most folks the "normal" picture format option is the best unless you always want a full screen image and can put up with seeing a lot of short, fat people.

Different camera types decode into the "normal" screen mode to sometimes provide less than a full screen image. Most folks purchase 720p HDTVs so that's what I'll concentrat on. (You won't notice a difference between 720P and 1080P unless a screen is > 40" anyway and as there are no broadcast in 1080P anyway, there's no reason to spend the extra buck for 1080p on smaller TVs.)

When viewing 4:3 480p DTV on a 16:9 720p HDTV there will be sidebars on the left and right sides of the screen in the "normal" mode of viewing. If you zoom in to fill the screen, you can either get short, fat people, or clip or the top and bottom of the picture reducing the vertical resolution by 25 % to 360 horizontal scans.

It costs a lot of money to convert a station from NTSC analog to HDTV formats, so they are still using older cameras for some in studio programming, remotes, and have fast libraries in the analog format. These inages have to be converted to the new DTV and HDTV formats for broadcast and it's not always done in the best manner, so you can get less than full screen images when viewing a poorly converted analog 4:3 and widescreen 16:9 formats in the "normal" mode. The 4:3 640 x 480 converted images are centered in the 1280 x 720 screen, and the 16:9 widescreen format could be as small as 854 x 360. As time goes on, the stations will get better in their format conversions and I think most of this will disappear.

Hope this helps.

Bob

[davel]

The biggest advantage of (H)DTV for the broadcaster is that more information can be transmitted in the same bandwidth. You can transmit 4 DTV channels in the same bandwidth as 1 analog channel.
A local PBS station had 8 video streams in one channel. 36.1 - 36.8.

[shreadvector]

A local PBS station had 8 video streams in one channel. 36.1 - 36.8.

We have all sorts of subchannels in Los Angeles. One or more of the non-English stations have 6 or 8 sub channels.

And today we lose Tom Leykis when KLSX-FM switches format. I will switch off the Sirius radio and tune him in from 3 to 5 pm for one last goodbye. I will have my High Beams on and my sign in the window and I will take the long way home today to get in a full 2 hours of listening.

Maybe he will end up on Sirius channel 101? He has the correct agent for that move. http://www.buchwald.com/v2/home.asp

If only BRAWNDO was looking for a pitchman:
http://www.buchwald.com/media/commercial_vo/commercial_men/LEYKIS_TOM.mp3

Oh well, back to the television discussion. Why not just get DirecTV?

[bobkrech]

Certain items defy logic, but in DTV a pixel is not alway a square pixel.

Digital pixels may be square or non-square (who'da thunk that!).

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_Standards for the broadcast standards and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio for pixel dimensions.

There are three basic display sizes for ATSC. Basic and enhanced NTSC and PAL image sizes are at the bottom level at 480 or 576 lines. Medium-sized images have 720 scanlines and are 1280 pixels wide. The top tier has 1080 lines 1920 pixels wide. 1080-line video is actually encoded with 1920×1088 pixel frames, but the last eight lines are discarded prior to display. This is due to a restriction of the MPEG-2 video format, which requires the number of coded luma samples (i.e., pixels) to be divisible by 16.

"EDTV" displays can reproduce progressive scan content and frequently have a 16:9 wide screen format. Such resolutions are 720×480 in NTSC or 720×576 in PAL, allowing 60 progressive frames per second in NTSC or 50 in PAL

The gory details are here in a top down summary.

http://www.atsc.org/standards/is_095.pdf

Bob

[MarkII]

So what does any of this mean for the vast majority of us in America who watch TV on a CRT-type set, and who get their signal through a cable provider?

My cable provider (formerly Adelphia, now TWC) switched to digital cable almost 10 years ago, and provided me with a cable box (even though my set has the circuitry to allow the cable to be plugged directly into the set) and a remote for it. Since the conversion on the 17th, everything looks exactly the same. I had excellent picture quality and reception through my cable before that date, and I still have the same now. There is no variation in the screen geometry; everything is in the standard screen format that it has always been in, and there is no way for me to change it. I also don't know where these "extra channels" are -- I have no idea if any of my local stations even have them. The channel lineup is exactly the same as before, as dictated by the package of cable services that I subscribe to.

Nobody I know has an HDTV, because they are so horrendously expensive. I'm not so sure that it would matter anyway, since the signal I receive is controlled and formatted by the cable company. And everyone here has either cable or satellite, because there are no broadcasters in my area who are within range of an antenna. As things now stand, I don't see what all the fuss (such as issues with picture size, banding, etc.) is all about. And I don't see any difference at all in what is displayed on my TV. Since the cable company acquires, formats and sends out the signal, are these issues that you are all discussing anything that would affect the vast majority of Americans who get their TV via cable? And, because of that, would switching to using an HDTV set make any difference at all to a cable subscriber?

MarkII

[RoyAtl]

So what does any of this mean for the vast majority of us in America who watch TV on a CRT-type set, and who get their signal through a cable provider?

My TV is a CRT-type high definition, five years old. It can resolve to 1080i, though the horizontal resolution is kinda skewed due to the phosphor screen being stretched at either end. HD programs are noticeably sharper than analog and very nice, though displaying the same picture through my computer monitor (at a 1/4 of the size) is amazing.


My cable provider (formerly Adelphia, now TWC) switched to digital cable almost 10 years ago, and provided me with a cable box (even though my set has the circuitry to allow the cable to be plugged directly into the set) and a remote for it. Since the conversion on the 17th, everything looks exactly the same. I had excellent picture quality and reception through my cable before that date, and I still have the same now. There is no variation in the screen geometry; everything is in the standard screen format that it has always been in, and there is no way for me to change it. I also don't know where these "extra channels" are -- I have no idea if any of my local stations even have them. The channel lineup is exactly the same as before, as dictated by the package of cable services that I subscribe to.


That's because for you, nothing HAS changed. All the changes occured at the cable company's antenna farm, where they pick up the signals from the locals for redistribution. You might notice that one or two stations have gone from full 4:3 screen to letterboxed 16:9, but that's about it. And if those stations still provide a 4:3 DTV signal, the only thing you may see is that the picture is a little brighter or maybe not.


Since the cable company acquires, formats and sends out the signal, are these issues that you are all discussing anything that would affect the vast majority of Americans who get their TV via cable? And, because of that, would switching to using an HDTV set make any difference at all to a cable subscriber?

MarkII

No. Only if the cable provider offers a HDTV package, or if you were able to pick up an off-the-air channel (see antennaweb.org for that likelihood) would having an HDTV set make much sense.

In my case, I've had a High Def DirecTiVo for four years, that gets about 10 channels in HD from the satellite, and many of the locals in HD through a set-top antenna. My computer has a little telescoping antenna on my desk and has a USB digital receiver that picks up most of the locals. DirecTV wants me to switch to their new dish and DVR that gets >100 HD channels, but I'm too comfortable with the TiVo to give it up yet.

-----------------------

Small aside. It is not just technical upgrades that the networks and local stations have to do to support HD. They also have to upgrade both sets and makeup! Did you know that Dateline on NBC had to shut down for over three weeks to refurbish their studio because there were fake books in the bookshelves, patches with painted duct tape, and many other flaws that showed up immediately when they upgraded the cameras and control room?

I was at the Letterman show a week before they shut down for the final conversion of the Ed Sullivan theater. They had already done most of the set changes throughout that summer and they had completely ripped out and replaced the control room (when I was there, they were running the analog signal from a control room in a truck outside by the Hello Deli). But inside the auditorium the monitors were all still 4:3 CRTs and the many of the theater lights had to be replaced.

Imagine your local stations all doing much the same thing.

[Peartree]

Not to mention the expense of replacing the transmitter and their big antenna (which many did).

[Pippen]

Here's one guy whose transition to digital didn't go well;):

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/174518-KARE_Man_Shoots_TV_Over_Converter_Confusion.php?rs sid=20065

[MarkII]

Here's one guy whose transition to digital didn't go well;):

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/174518-KARE_Man_Shoots_TV_Over_Converter_Confusion.php?rs sid=20065
So he "went Elvis" on it, then? :D

I have often thought about doing the same, but for different reasons... :rolleyes:

Also: Roy - thanks very much for your explanation! :)

MarkII

[Pippen]

So he "went Elvis" on it, then? :D

I have often thought about doing the same, but for different reasons... :rolleyes:

MarkII

Tell me about it. I still haven't figured out how to change the channels on the downstairs TV. (I watch very little.) My kid told me when he goes off to college he'll have to write me out instructions. :rolleyes:

I'm not totally hopeless, though, as I have conquered operating the upstairs TV. :p

[DaveHein]

Not all converter boxes are the same. It's worth paying a little extra to get features such as closed caption, universal remote and analog passthrough. I bought the Zenith DTT901 box at Radio Shack. It was on sale for $55, which was only $15 after substracting the coupon.

There is a good comparison of converter boxes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CECB_units .

Dave

[Pippen]

Here's an article about problems with digital reception. For the most part our transition has gone smoothly but the other night during bad weather it was cutting out completely: no fuzz like it used to, just a blank screen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29456228/

[RimfireJim]

Oh well, back to the television discussion. Why not just get DirecTV?
Simple: cost. DirecTV or Dish Network runs $30/mo and up. I already have an antenna capable of receiving UHF signals, so adding a good converter is only a month or two of satellite TV cost and I can get the local stations. "But you get a lot more channels with satellite!", you might say. True, but I don't want them. They are of virtually no value to me, so why should I spend hundreds of dollars a year for something I don't want?

[sandman]

Simple: cost. DirecTV or Dish Network runs $30/mo and up. I already have an antenna capable of receiving UHF signals, so adding a good converter is only a month or two of satellite TV cost and I can get the local stations. "But you get a lot more channels with satellite!", you might say. True, but I don't want them. They are of virtually no value to me, so why should I spend hundreds of dollars a year for something I don't want?

EXACTLY!!!:mad:

I paid for my tower years ago, I don't want to pay any more to watch TV.

I discovered that on really humid days (temps in the 50's and all the snow it melting) absolutely no or very poor reception on digital.

[luke strawwalker]

Well, I can certainly see your point, to each his own, but from my POV, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network 'broadcast' television I care to see. I watch about ten minutes of the news and weather every morning before I leave for the bus barn. Otherwise, I watch NO network television whatsoever.

All I watch is basically The History Channel, History International, NASA channel, the Science Channel (s) and RFD, and occassionally Sci-Fi and some of the other regular movie channels (Apollo 13 is on right now). If it weren't for those, I probably wouldn't watch TV at all... before we got DirecTV about three years ago, I usually just popped something in the VCR or DVD player when I wanted to "watch TV" and had done that for YEARS.

AFAIC, there has been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network TV worth wasting time watching in probably close to the last ten years... Certainly worth the money (especially the NASA channel!)

JMHO! OL JR :)

[bobkrech]

Here's an article about problems with digital reception. For the most part our transition has gone smoothly but the other night during bad weather it was cutting out completely: no fuzz like it used to, just a blank screen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29456228/

From the above article...

A study published last year by market research firm Centris estimated that more than half of all households will have problems with digital reception. The study was criticized by several groups as exaggerating the problem. The FCC itself said 5 percent of households were likely to have problems.

Centris probably got it right, but that would be totally unacceptable for the consumers. Unfortunately for the consumer, the FCC was run by a bunch of political hacks who saw the transition to DTV as a way to raise money by selling off portions of the analog TV spectrum to telecom companies. To make it palatable it would appear that they mitigated the problem by moving the decimal point one decade from 50% to 5%!


EXACTLY!!!:mad:

I paid for my tower years ago, I don't want to pay any more to watch TV.

I discovered that on really humid days (temps in the 50's and all the snow it melting) absolutely no or very poor reception on digital.

There are many possible encoding methods for DTV. IIRC the European method is much more robust and is much less effected by weather, but it's NIH (not invented here), so we have what we have.

Bob

[davel]

8VSB modulation is very sensitive to multipath, and makes receiver design difficult. COFDM is much more forgiving and therefore less dependant on a highly directional antenna and requires a less complex tuner. Guess which protocol the FCC chose?

http://www.8vsb.com/dtvreprt.pdf

[MKP]

Well, I can certainly see your point, to each his own, but from my POV, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network 'broadcast' television I care to see. I watch about ten minutes of the news and weather every morning before I leave for the bus barn. Otherwise, I watch NO network television whatsoever.

All I watch is basically The History Channel, History International, NASA channel, the Science Channel (s) and RFD, and occassionally Sci-Fi and some of the other regular movie channels (Apollo 13 is on right now). If it weren't for those, I probably wouldn't watch TV at all... before we got DirecTV about three years ago, I usually just popped something in the VCR or DVD player when I wanted to "watch TV" and had done that for YEARS.

AFAIC, there has been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network TV worth wasting time watching in probably close to the last ten years... Certainly worth the money (especially the NASA channel!)

JMHO! OL JR :)

A big ditto from me. Network TV is trash!

[Peartree]

My experience with cable (with some notable exceptions) is that its the same quality as network TV, just more of it. If three channels aren't worth watching, cable has 50 that aren't worth watching. My problem is that I watch too much with the few channels I get. Paying too much to watch even more is just bad math/economics.

I might be interested if they ever offered ala carte formats and let me pay for only the channels I really wanted. Then I might consider stuff like History channel, etc.

[MarkII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPv-X1GGPVY

MarkII

[sandman]

My experience with cable (with some notable exceptions) is that its the same quality as network TV, just more of it. If three channels aren't worth watching, cable has 50 that aren't worth watching. My problem is that I watch too much with the few channels I get. Paying too much to watch even more is just bad math/economics.

I might be interested if they ever offered ala carte formats and let me pay for only the channels I really wanted. Then I might consider stuff like History channel, etc.


Like most local papers my local paper has the cable schedule.

At least once a day I'll be check to see what's on and I say to myself, "I'm glad I'm not paying for cable, There's nothing on."

I bought my 50' tower about 25 years ago and so far I've spent $25 to have the reair man come out and fix the brocken wire on the top (the flexible one that lets the tower rotate) and $40 for a new rotor controller.

[MKP]

My experience with cable (with some notable exceptions) is that its the same quality as network TV, just more of it. If three channels aren't worth watching, cable has 50 that aren't worth watching. My problem is that I watch too much with the few channels I get. Paying too much to watch even more is just bad math/economics.

I might be interested if they ever offered ala carte formats and let me pay for only the channels I really wanted. Then I might consider stuff like History channel, etc.

I'm certainly not saying that I like everything on cable or satellite, but there is very little on network that I like. Seems like its all gone over to "American Idol" type crap.

But I do enjoy The Discovery Channel family, The History Channel and the Food Network. Of course, there are many, many channels I don't want anything to do with like MTV.

[RimfireJim]

Technically, I said that the satellite/cable channels have no value to me, not that I think network TV is worth watching. Getting the local stations at least gets me PBS, and gets my wife off my case. We can tune in a local channel when "something big" happens (around here, that usually means a wildfire or an earthquake), I can watch "Jeopardy" once in a while if I want to feel like a loser :rolleyes:, and, IMHO, the quality of documentaries on PBS, such as "NOVA" and "American Experience", are better than what I've seen on Discovery Channel and the History Channel.

I'd be happy without any TV reception in the house, but my wife wouldn't. I spent the majority of my formative years without TV, and I think that was for the better. Watching TV is non-creative and non-social. These days, I have plenty of things to occupy my free time without spending it in front of the tube. That said, though, I'll admit we do check out quite a few movies from our public library, more than I'd like to admit. Can I get away here with blaming that on my wife? :D

[Pippen]

After watching my digital reception blink on and off again last night I am not a happy camper. The only tv we have upstairs is a little one with rabbit ears and that arrangement has been sufficient for years. Sometimes reception would be a little fuzzy but I could live with that and anyone who couldn't would head to the downstairs tv. Now we have a new tv with supposed improved digital reception and there are times I am looking at a blank screen, and to top it off the few occasions when I want to copy I can't. :mad:

[bobkrech]

Lisa

I think that going to be a problem for about half the over the air viewers due to the single carrier high frequency bit stream modulation method used in American DTV.

With an analog TV, if the atmospheric attenuation increases, you simple receive a weaker signal and get snowy picture, with digital you either get a perfect picture or none at all.

As we mention earlier, the European DTV used a multiple carrier lower frequency bit stream modulation method that is much less affected by water attenuation. Since each data stream is being modulated at a lower rate, the bandwidth of each stream is lower and the inherent S/N is higher. Once the multiple bit streams are demodulated, they are combined into a higher bandwidth signal.

I'm pretty sure this problem was known long ago. Otherwise why would you need http://www.antennaweb.org The solution is to purchase either an amplified indoor antenna, or a larger outdoor antenna. Years ago I purchased a small amplified omnidirectional mobile home antenna for use indoors to replace my rabbit ears. It improved the analog reception, and appears to be necessary for DTV reception. I used to be able to get analog stations up to 50 miles away, but it appears that 20 miles is about the limit for DTV with an amplified indoor antenna. If this observation is correct, you need 5x more signal strength for DTV reception than analog.

Bob

[davel]

Bob, I think the problem for many is more one of multipath than signal strength. I'm only about 15 miles from the metro area. I can add 26 dB of attenuation inline with my inside antenna (passive Silver Sensor) before I totally loose the weakest of the local stations. Yet, depending on the weather and wind, there are days that reception is perfect and days when I have so many dropouts that it is almost impossible to watch.

I am convinced it is not a signal strength issue, that leaves multipath. The Silver Sensor works better than a loop or rabbit ears, but does not totally solve the problem. A couple of friends about the same distance from the transmitters, but about 30* different direction, have the same issues.

8VSB s*cks.

[bobkrech]

davel

I don't disagree with your comments, however there's lots of real world evidence of DTV "signal loss" in bad weather, heavy rain especially.

In light of your comments, my guess as to real reason for the "DTV signal loss" due to weather effects is signal scattering off raindrops which is basically a multipath phenomom giving rise to a lot of echos, each just slightly different than the next. If you took a power meter and looked at the carrier power, you would not see power attenuation, but if you looked at the phase of the modulation, it would be significantly effected. In the American DTV standard single carrier method, the signal modulation is a few orders of magnitude faster than the multi-carrier European DTV standard. In heavy rain, if the phase of the modulation is spread out to greater than 1/t (the period of the modulation frequency), you loose vitrually all data contained within the carrier. If I'm correct about the scattering, since the European system uses many carriers with a corresponding lower modulation frequency, European DTV shouild be virtually immume to rain.

Bob

[DaveHein]

davel,

Do you have mountains, hills or tall buildings in your area that would cause multipath reflections? If the reflection is coming from a specific direction you could aim the antenna so that a null is pointing that way. One feature of the Silver Sensor is that it doesn't have nulls in any direction. This is due to the angling of the antenna elements that give it a more artistic look. Try using a more conventional yagi antenna, and you might be able to cancel out the reflections.

Dave

[MarkII]

Every once in awhile my cable-provided TV signal (which has been all digital for quite some time now) has drop-outs, frame freezes and audio loss (the last is the most frequent), which became quite severe for a few hours on a couple of occasions last year. Now I have some idea why that might have happened. I never totally lost the signal, though, except when storms knocked out electrical power in the town that is the local distribution point for cable in our area. I live in a mountainous and heavily forested area, and the terrain produces scores of individual micro-weather systems all throughout our region. Zoning restrictions in the Adirondacks prohibit the construction of very high towers anywhere in the region, or the erection of towers of any height on the peaks of the vast majority of the mountains.

The closest local broadcasters to me are about 75 miles away, and that would probably be too far for an antenna even if the terrain was flat and open. As it is, cable and satellite are our only choices for TV reception. Satellite has its adherents around here (and it's the only option in areas unserved by cable), but due to the sometimes freakish weather that we get, the close proximity of the mountains, and the large, dense expanse of tall trees in nearly every direction, most people around here have their signal piped in on cable.

MarkII

[davel]

Do you have mountains, hills or tall buildings in your area that would cause multipath reflections?
No, we are in a fairly flat area (15 mi west of Milwaukee). If I could pin the dropouts to weather, I would say they are most common when it is windy. But then, this time of year there are no leaves on the trees so I don't know what affect that could have.

[sandman]

Just a quick update on my digital reception.

I was getting 12 digital TV stations. I live in Michigan so I am a flatlander...not even any hills!

Today was a rainy drizzly day.

LOUSY RECEPTION! Maybe 3 or 4 station would come in but they were spotty at best.

Fortunately analog works and I still get all of my Canadian analog stations.

I'm no expert but I can tell you this. Come June 12th a lot of people are NOT going to be happy with their TV!

This is really stupid. You will only be able to watch TV when it's nice and sunny out...when you should be outside anyway.

[Peartree]

I'm no expert but I can tell you this. Come June 12th a lot of people are NOT going to be happy with their TV!


But the cable companies will be VERY happy...

[sandman]

But the cable companies will be VERY happy...

The best I can hope for is when Canada changes over to digital they will use the European version.

[DaveHein]

Sandman,

Check out http://www.antennaweb.org . Based on your location there is a PBS station 32 miles away, and 5 other stations between 50 to 65 miles away. anntennaweb.org recommends a directional antenna for the 5 farthest stations. Even with an analog channel, it seems like you would have received a snowy picture without a directional antenna.

Dave

[sandman]

Sandman,

Check out http://www.antennaweb.org . Based on your location there is a PBS station 32 miles away, and 5 other stations between 50 to 65 miles away. anntennaweb.org recommends a directional antenna for the 5 farthest stations. Even with an analog channel, it seems like you would have received a snowy picture without a directional antenna.

Dave

Dave, thanks but I only had it show me one station 65 miles away. (NBC channel 4) But maybe I'm doing it wrong.

What PBS station did you show?

I currently get two PBS stations one on channel 28 (Flint, MI) and one on channel 19 (Bad Axe, MI)

The Bad Axe station is a big problem 'cause there is a digital channnel 19 out of Canada (SUN TV) which proadcasts from the CN tower. They have an unbelieveably strong signal.

The problem is my digital converter is really really confused! It sees two channel 19's.

[davel]

You can also try http://www.tvfool.com

[DaveHein]

Dave, thanks but I only had it show me one station 65 miles away. (NBC channel 4) But maybe I'm doing it wrong.

What PBS station did you show?

I currently get two PBS stations one on channel 28 (Flint, MI) and one on channel 19 (Bad Axe, MI)

The Bad Axe station is a big problem 'cause there is a digital channnel 19 out of Canada (SUN TV) which proadcasts from the CN tower. They have an unbelieveably strong signal.

The problem is my digital converter is really really confused! It sees two channel 19's.
The PBS station I found was the one in Bad Axe (there must be an intersting story behind that name:) ). However, I got the 6 stations by recentering the map toward the west. I didn't realize at the time that this was moving the receiving location also. I went back to antennaweb.com and tried it again. This time it didn't find any digital stations!

I live about 5 miles from the transmitting towers in Austin, so I started out using rabbit ears when I got my HD TV a couple of years ago. However, I found that we would lose the signal just by walking around in the room It appears that the multipath interference caused by reflections off our bodies was enough to scramble the signal. Since then, I put a small yagi in the attic, and I haven't had any problems.

davel, I tried out tvfool.com, and I'm impressed by the amount of detail it provides.

Dave

[sandman]

Well, the final results of the digital change is this.

I was getting 12 digital chanels...right up until the time the leaves came on the trees then nothing!:mad:

I now only get one digital TV station and that one is from Canada! All of the US station are "unwatchable".

They come in but I get pixilated pictures and maybe...maybe 0ne word out of three, and that's on a clear day.

Rain...fog, high humidity, forget it.

Thank you federal government! I hope you guys enjoy the cash from selling the frequencies you freed up so you could force me into buying cable or a dish.:bangbang:

[sj_h1]

Well, the final results of the digital change is this.

I was getting 12 digital chanels...right up until the time the leaves came on the trees then nothing!:mad:

I now only get one digital TV station and that one is from Canada! All of the US station are "unwatchable".

They come in but I get pixilated pictures and maybe...maybe 0ne word out of three, and that's on a clear day.

Rain...fog, high humidity, forget it.

Thank you federal government! I hope you guys enjoy the cash from selling the frequencies you freed up so you could force me into buying cable or a dish.:bangbang:
And that was the whole point, sad:bangpan:

[ttabbal]

I've actually had very good luck with digital TV. The thing that made the biggest difference was getting a large directional antenna. I use a DB4, I'm about 15 miles from the transmitters and have line of sight, but a silver sensor was getting dropouts on occasion. The DB4 pulls everything in with more than enough signal strength and the directionality helps with the multipath. Put it on the roof for the best results.

Unless you're dropping a lot of cash on one, skip the amplifiers. You are far better off getting a larger antenna than a cheap amp as they tend to introduce noise into the signal. If you have a large antenna and still need more signal, a small pre-amp on the antenna mast is the way to go.

[RandyM]

Well, the final results of the digital change is this.

I was getting 12 digital chanels...right up until the time the leaves came on the trees then nothing!:mad:

I now only get one digital TV station and that one is from Canada! All of the US station are "unwatchable".

They come in but I get pixilated pictures and maybe...maybe 0ne word out of three, and that's on a clear day.

Rain...fog, high humidity, forget it.

Thank you federal government! I hope you guys enjoy the cash from selling the frequencies you freed up so you could force me into buying cable or a dish.:bangbang:

If you were receiving them before the leaves came out, the signal was making it to you. Sounds like you may just need a higher gain antenna. How far away are you from the transmitters? Are they all in the same direction? If not, a roter may also be needed. Check out this page:

http://www.antennacraft.net/48Bay.html

I'll be the U4000 would work for you.

[sandman]

I have a 50' tower with a rotor, pre-amp and a powered amplifier in the house.

My point is nothing has changed except the fact that there are now leaves on the trees.

I got the signals before even more when there was an analog signal.

[Trident]

[...]
It's still there but you may need a different antenna and the gov'ts not going to help you with that.

Say it ain't so! They are going to give me everything else, aren't they?

[brianc]

I got the signals before even more when there was an analog signal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28390797/

"...because many television stations will shift their broadcast footprints with the mandatory transition by changing transmitter locations, antenna patterns or power levels. The FCC is not requiring television stations to replicate their analog coverage."

"Some viewers could also lose signals because of what's known as the digital "cliff effect." Unlike analog signals, digital broadcasts either come in clear or not at all, meaning that those on the fringes of analog coverage areas will lose that reception entirely after the transition. Currently, they can still get fuzzy analog signals."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=digital+cliff+effect

From the FCC-
"To check for the DTV signals that are available at your location, use the DTV Reception Maps available at www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps "

[davel]

http://www.tvfool.com will give you a good indiction of signal strengths and direction to the transmitter.

[shreadvector]

Just in case.....you know that the digital channels/frequencies changed after the analog turn-off. Everyone was supposed to re-scan the channels because what was there one day was moved the next.

i got a converter box for free (OK, I paid only the sales tax), but the content is absolutely worthless. I'm in Los Angeles and there are DOZENS of channels and sub-channels, but unless you are looking for Armenian, Chinese, Korean, Spanish, etc. there is nothing new and exciting.

DirecTV is the way to go.

Just like regular broadcast radio is unlistenable. Switch to Sirius.

[Pippen]

I'm pretty sure this problem was known long ago. Otherwise why would you need http://www.antennaweb.org The solution is to purchase either an amplified indoor antenna, or a larger outdoor antenna. Years ago I purchased a small amplified omnidirectional mobile home antenna for use indoors to replace my rabbit ears. It improved the analog reception, and appears to be necessary for DTV reception. I used to be able to get analog stations up to 50 miles away, but it appears that 20 miles is about the limit for DTV with an amplified indoor antenna. If this observation is correct, you need 5x more signal strength for DTV reception than analog.

Bob

OK, I'm really, really cranky over this digital business now. Our downstairs tv that's hooked up to the outdoor antenna is getting in all the usual stations plus some. My small upstairs tv which has always had sufficient reception with rabbit ears can't receive PBS, which is of course about all I would ever want to watch on it. I bought a digital flat amplified antenna at Best Buy yesterday and it seems to be more consistent in receiving the other stations but still no PBS. I checked and my nearest PBS station is 30 miles away.

Any ideas other than getting cable, which my husband doesn't want and we really can't afford right now?

[clreynolds]

Any ideas other than getting cable, which my husband doesn't want and we really can't afford right now?

I know we are deep into a long tread, and I have not gone back to review all the post, so maybe I missed this; Why now just add a line splitter and connect both sets to the external antenna?

[sandman]

Honestly I've given up on digital TV.

The only digital station I can get is a Canadian one from 200 miles away. It is consistent and ALWAY!!! clear as a bell.

Digital U.S. stations 55 to 60 miles away may come in once every two weeks.

I don't know what U.S, stations are doing buit they are doing it wrong!

I will continue to watch Canadian analog TV.

[Pippen]

I know we are deep into a long tread, and I have not gone back to review all the post, so maybe I missed this; Why now just add a line splitter and connect both sets to the external antenna?

We tried that a few years back and wound up with no reception on either tv.

It's only 30 miles away. So much for new and improved technology.

[Len_Lekx]

We tried that a few years back and wound up with no reception on either tv.

I did that, when I was living with my folks. Turned out that we also needed a signal-amplifier between the antenna and the splitter.

Worked like a charm, after I did that... :D

[RandyM]

Anytime you split your signal, you loose signal. The more splits, the more loss. I'm guessing that boosting your signal BEFORE you split will help solve the problem. The type that mounts on the external antenna tend to work the best because you amplify the signal before it has a chance to lose much.

One suggestion would be to call a company to come out and give you and estimate on what it would take to do what you want. While it cost more than doing it yourself, it will be much cheaper than cable in the long run.