End of analog TV

On Nov 18, 1:25 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

Per Samuel M. Goldwasser:

Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that
many
people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
to cable or some other wired pay service!

There's another alternative: rooftop antenna.

I've got about $300 in mine: purchase price plus paying somebody
to install it - thus maintaining our probable distinction of
being the only people in town without cable or dish.

If I had known how much better even analog would be (it's a
digital-optimized antenna) I would have done it 20 years ago.
--
PeteCresswell

I'm glad it's working out for you. One minor point. Digital and analog
antennas are identical. The manufacturers simply changed the name on
the box but all the dimensions of the elements are unchanged. I
believe Winegard changed the boom color from blue to natural aluminum
and changed the prefix letters of the model number to 'HD'.

G˛

 

[bg]

Claude Hopper wrote in message ...

Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap.


--
Claude Hopper

? ? Ľ

You should thank your government for addressing a tough issue like digital
or analog tv, rather than wasting time on petty issues such as our borders,
the bail outs, the wars, energy and whatever else that really doesn't
matter. TV is all that matters. Personally, I voted for GWB again in this
last election even though he wasn't running. It's just that since I get
Jerry Fucking Springer in CD quality audio and digital video too, Georgie is
my all time hero. And I'm really greatfull that all of those converter boxes
are made overseas because we have to many jobs and to much money over here.
And our landfills really do need need a fresh supply of NTSC equipment.
Haven't you noticed?
So don't be so narrow, this is for your own good!
bg

 

[Arfa Daily]

<stratus46@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a598e211-d143-4708-b5d4-aee52a329312@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 1:25 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

Per Samuel M. Goldwasser:

Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that
many
people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
to cable or some other wired pay service!

There's another alternative: rooftop antenna.

I've got about $300 in mine: purchase price plus paying somebody
to install it - thus maintaining our probable distinction of
being the only people in town without cable or dish.

If I had known how much better even analog would be (it's a
digital-optimized antenna) I would have done it 20 years ago.
--
PeteCresswell

I'm glad it's working out for you. One minor point. Digital and analog
antennas are identical. The manufacturers simply changed the name on
the box but all the dimensions of the elements are unchanged. I
believe Winegard changed the boom color from blue to natural aluminum
and changed the prefix letters of the model number to 'HD'.

G˛

In the UK at least, that isn't true. We are a (fairly) small island, with a
relatively high population density by area, compared to the USA, so the
analogue transmitter network was carefully designed to ensure that adjacent
service areas were split well apart frequency-wise for the suite of
programmes that they each carried. To take advantage of this clever bit of
planning, and to gain maximum mutual interference immunity from it, original
analogue UHF antennas, were channel grouped, and thus quite narrow-band in
their response, compared to the overall 400 -ish MHz width of UHF bands IV
&V.

However now, at most locations, the individual transmitter sites' digital
multiplexes are spread from one end of the band to the other, so the
antennas sold as 'digital' are broadband types to accommodate this - often
being log periodics about three times the size of the original neat little
single-group Yagis that were all that was needed for analogue reception.

Also, because the system in use here for DTTV, is nothing like as robust in
terms of multipath immunity, as the authorities foisting this changeover on
us, would have us believe, it is often necessary to employ an 'antighost'
antenna of the type with " X " form directors on it, to achieve satisfactory
(ha!) results.

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Some "small" stations carrying specialized material (eg, a community college
station) or serving a small area, are exempt from the requirement to switch
to digital.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uktwxiuo4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:39:58 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser
sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) writes:

Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?

UHF is largely line-of-site, with reflections thrown in to complicate
matters.

I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad (pixelation
and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind
since
the antenna is in an attic crawspace.

My guess would be that you're seeing the effect of nearby trees
blowing around in the wind. This will cause rapid variations in
multipath cancellation (in effect, moving "echoes" from the moving
leaves) and could be overwhelming the multipath-echo cancellation
logic in the receiver.

If you watch an analog UHF station under these conditions, do you tend
to see "ghost" echoes on the screen which come and go, or move around,
as the wind blows?

Using a highly-directional UHF antenna might reduce the problem -
it'll have a stronger direct signal from the transmitter, and will be
less sensitive to multipath reflections arriving from other angles.

That's great if you want to fiddle with an antenna for each channel
or set up a complicated antanna that can be optimized for each
channel.

But a lot of us were very happy with analog TV and all its shortcomings.

To me it is 1000 percent less annoying to see some snow or ghosts
when it's windy or raining or I'm watching a distant channel then to
have the picture freeze or pixelate and the sound to drop out entirely.

And, adjusting an antenna for analog is totally real time.
Move the antanna and its effect is instantaneous. With DTV - at least
what I've seen to far - the only way to really do this is with the
signal strength monitor which might be downa couple of menu levels,
and that's not real time. There is a very significant lag and even
then it doesn't always show what the true situation is.

This is not progress!

Very odd, as on the SAME aerial, with no adjustment, I get a perfect
digital picture on freeview terrestrial. On analogue terrestrial I got
irritating snow on quite a few of the channels.


Then you are indeed one very lucky Hucker ... Far from it being the case
that the powers who be would have you believe, in that the changeover is as
smooth and simple as just gluing your STB or digital telly on the end of
your existing antenna, in many parts of the UK, including where I live, the
joy of your new purchase has been short-lived, after getting it out of the
box and finding that it receives almost nothing. The fading joy then turns
to dismay when you further discover that your fifteen quid Tesco-Sonic box,
is going to need a 150 quid cake cooling rack with 49 rung step ladder in
front of it, jammed up on your roof in place of the neat little 10 ele Yagi
that you had there for your analogue reception ...

All so that you can get the Shopping Channel in glorious pixellated
plastic-view, complete with motion lag and digital artifacts, compounded by
the digital processing in your brand new LCD TV to make it work non-native
to display standard definition transmissions, rather than the nice Blu-Ray
demo piccies you saw in the shop, and which convinced you to part with your
hard-earned ...

Digital ? Bah humbug, I say !

Where are you lot living with all these problems? I'm in central Scotland and everyone round here who has changed to digital (meaning within a 30 mile radius, not just one street) has had a great picture. A few have had to buy a new aerial, but we knew we might need one. Everyone has got a better picture than on analogue.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for this change to take effect.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.ukvn1sma4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uktwxiuo4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:39:58 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser
sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) writes:

Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?

UHF is largely line-of-site, with reflections thrown in to complicate
matters.

I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad
(pixelation
and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind
since
the antenna is in an attic crawspace.

My guess would be that you're seeing the effect of nearby trees
blowing around in the wind. This will cause rapid variations in
multipath cancellation (in effect, moving "echoes" from the moving
leaves) and could be overwhelming the multipath-echo cancellation
logic in the receiver.

If you watch an analog UHF station under these conditions, do you tend
to see "ghost" echoes on the screen which come and go, or move around,
as the wind blows?

Using a highly-directional UHF antenna might reduce the problem -
it'll have a stronger direct signal from the transmitter, and will be
less sensitive to multipath reflections arriving from other angles.

That's great if you want to fiddle with an antenna for each channel
or set up a complicated antanna that can be optimized for each
channel.

But a lot of us were very happy with analog TV and all its
shortcomings.

To me it is 1000 percent less annoying to see some snow or ghosts
when it's windy or raining or I'm watching a distant channel then to
have the picture freeze or pixelate and the sound to drop out entirely.

And, adjusting an antenna for analog is totally real time.
Move the antanna and its effect is instantaneous. With DTV - at least
what I've seen to far - the only way to really do this is with the
signal strength monitor which might be downa couple of menu levels,
and that's not real time. There is a very significant lag and even
then it doesn't always show what the true situation is.

This is not progress!

Very odd, as on the SAME aerial, with no adjustment, I get a perfect
digital picture on freeview terrestrial. On analogue terrestrial I got
irritating snow on quite a few of the channels.


Then you are indeed one very lucky Hucker ... Far from it being the case
that the powers who be would have you believe, in that the changeover is
as
smooth and simple as just gluing your STB or digital telly on the end of
your existing antenna, in many parts of the UK, including where I live,
the
joy of your new purchase has been short-lived, after getting it out of
the
box and finding that it receives almost nothing. The fading joy then
turns
to dismay when you further discover that your fifteen quid Tesco-Sonic
box,
is going to need a 150 quid cake cooling rack with 49 rung step ladder in
front of it, jammed up on your roof in place of the neat little 10 ele
Yagi
that you had there for your analogue reception ...

All so that you can get the Shopping Channel in glorious pixellated
plastic-view, complete with motion lag and digital artifacts, compounded
by
the digital processing in your brand new LCD TV to make it work
non-native
to display standard definition transmissions, rather than the nice
Blu-Ray
demo piccies you saw in the shop, and which convinced you to part with
your
hard-earned ...

Digital ? Bah humbug, I say !

Where are you lot living with all these problems? I'm in central Scotland
and everyone round here who has changed to digital (meaning within a 30
mile radius, not just one street) has had a great picture. A few have had
to buy a new aerial, but we knew we might need one. Everyone has got a
better picture than on analogue.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Well I'm in central England in the service area of the Sandy Heath main
transmitter. I live on top of a hill at about 330 ft ASL, and within about
25 miles of the primary mast. The analogue signal from this transmitter is
stonking in the extreme. It is a good example of the old 'piece of wet
string' adage. Just about everyone in my village had a neat little 10 ele
Yagi up to receive this transmitter. The low(er) power transmitter at Oxford
some 40 odd miles away, which we all used for the alternate ITV service,
required an 18 ele Yagi for a noise-free picture under all weather
conditions.

Now, as people in the village take up digital, they are having to have
ludicrous great pieces of ironwork jammed up on their roofs, to reliably
receive the Sandy Heath digital multiplexes, and I understand that the
situation is similar in many other parts of the country. There is talk that
when the analogue services finally cease, the digital transmitter powers
will be increased, but for those that have shelled out 150 notes of their
hard-earned now, that's going to be a bit horses and stable doors.

Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception, along
with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is causing with
implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can use (especially
since Ofcom / the government have reneged on the promise to make more of the
existing UHF bands available for DTTV when all the analogue has ceased), I
really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a
view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
broadcasters to provide.

Arfa

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

I
really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a
view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
broadcasters to provide.

While I never actualy lived in the U.K., does anyone else remember the
"squareial"?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngia28p.iuh.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

I
really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get
a
view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for
the
broadcasters to provide.

While I never actualy lived in the U.K., does anyone else remember the
"squareial"?

Geoff.

Indeed. My next door neighbour still has one bolted on the wall ! Pointing
sadly towards the floor now, I might add ...

It was made by STC down in Paignton, Devon, as I recall. BSkyB never really
took off. It was rapidly killed by the more viewer - friendly Sky TV
services. The Squarial was a neat antenna though. Much more so than the 80
and 60cm offset dishes which became the norm when sat tv really took off
here.

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <MZ2Vk.83673$YS4.74727@newsfe28.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception,
along with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is
causing with implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can
use (especially since Ofcom / the government have reneged on the
promise to make more of the existing UHF bands available for DTTV when
all the analogue has ceased), I really can't see why anyone would
choose the terrestrial Freeview option over the corresponding satellite
option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a view of the Southern sky,
you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a perfect signal with a
minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the very worst
thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of bandwidth
available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour delayed
channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
broadcasters to provide.

Satellite unfortunately seems to suffer from the same too low data rates
that FreeView does. Some actually worse. And of course the hardware is
much more expensive - for many a cheap FreeView box is all that's needed
to convert an analogue set.

I'd say you're in a minority if you have a strong analogue signal but poor
DTTV one - they usually come from the same transmitter. And the power will
be increased after the analogue services are removed - because the band is
so crowded that's not possible at the moment.

--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrngia28p.iuh.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

While I never actualy lived in the U.K., does anyone else remember the
"squareial"?

I do indeed. And the D-MAC system they used could be quite superb in its
day. It certainly pointed to the future - punters simply don't care about
technical quality enough to pay a premium for it.

--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5001205388dave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <MZ2Vk.83673$YS4.74727@newsfe28.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception,
along with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is
causing with implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can
use (especially since Ofcom / the government have reneged on the
promise to make more of the existing UHF bands available for DTTV when
all the analogue has ceased), I really can't see why anyone would
choose the terrestrial Freeview option over the corresponding satellite
option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a view of the Southern sky,
you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a perfect signal with a
minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the very worst
thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of bandwidth
available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour delayed
channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
broadcasters to provide.

Satellite unfortunately seems to suffer from the same too low data rates
that FreeView does. Some actually worse. And of course the hardware is
much more expensive - for many a cheap FreeView box is all that's needed
to convert an analogue set.

I'd say you're in a minority if you have a strong analogue signal but poor
DTTV one - they usually come from the same transmitter. And the power will
be increased after the analogue services are removed - because the band is
so crowded that's not possible at the moment.

As far as I understand it Dave, the digital multiplexes are not broadcast in
tandem with the analogue services using the same transmitter hardware. The
DTTV service is also not necessarily broadcast from antennas on the same
mast as the analogue ones, or indeed, even from the same physical site,
which has led to some transmissions in some areas, being quite an amount
off-beam from where the existing analogue antenna is pointing. Couple this
with the fact that the broadcast frequency of many of the multiplexes will
be outside the designed bandwidth of the (channel grouped) analogue antenna,
and the lower broadcast powers employed, then with a little understanding of
UHF propagation, it's easy to see how DTTV signals received on an existing
antenna that provides a good analogue performance, can be marginal at least.
I don't have a problem with understanding that the existing analogue antenna
may not be suitable for receiving DTTV. What I do find irksome is the way
that the general public is being led to believe that DTTV is superior in
every way to analogue, and that the transition will be painless. In many
cases, this just ain't so. It's all very well saying that when the analogue
service closes, the output powers of the DTTV transmitters can be upped to
the point where the field strength becomes enough for a fundamentally
unsuitable antenna to work ok (possibly), but the only folk that is going to
benefit, are those that have hung on to the bitter end.

As far as data rates go, that is more a matter of economics than technical
restrictions, with the satellite service. If you are going to run a minority
channel like "The Vegetarian Cooking for Eastern Bloc Plumbers Channel",
then you are not going to need it to have a high data rate. There's not
going to be a lot of movement on the screen, and it doesn't matter too much
if the slice of tomato is rendered in a limited range of shades of red, so
you can rent a low data rate transponder quite cheaply. If, however, you are
going to show high quality content of many different genres, then you have
to use a high data rate, with a correspondingly higher rental price tag on
the transponder. On the other hand, on DTTV, the bandwidth is just not there
to allow everyone to have high data rates. With only a few premium-content
channels using a high data rate, the bandwidth availability rapidly starts
to run out. Now that the post - analogue allocation has been even further
restricted as Gordon and co rub their hands at the prospect of the
cell-phone operators queing up to part with cash for chunks of the UHF band,
I can't see how the bandwidth issue can ever be resolved, to improve the
Freeview service beyond what it is now, which is a technically superior
service, trying to operate in a technically inadequate environment.

As to your point about the cost of the hardware, far from the expense of
going satellite being prohibitive when compared with Freeview, they are now
about the same on the surface, and the FreeSat service may actually work out
cheaper in the end. A 'not too bad' Freeview box will cost you around Ł30 -
Ł40. Yes, I know that Tesco do some for 15 quid, but they are pretty poor
little things. But then you potentially need to add another Ł150 to the cost
of the box, to have a digital antenna supplied and erected. On the other
hand, Screwfix sent me an e-mail flyer just yesterday, advertising a
complete kit - dish, LNB, wall bracket, pole, receiver, remote control,
cables etc, for just Ł49.99. And made (supplied) by Labgear, who are a
respected company in the TV antenna equipment business.

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/80878&cm_mmc=Campaign-_-E08W42-_-B2-_-SatKit?source=aw

Now how can DTTV, with its limited performance and potential for expansion,
even begin to compete with that ?

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <_UcVk.110421$mr4.43429@newsfe19.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

As far as I understand it Dave, the digital multiplexes are not
broadcast in tandem with the analogue services using the same
transmitter hardware. The DTTV service is also not necessarily
broadcast from antennas on the same mast as the analogue ones, or
indeed, even from the same physical site, which has led to some
transmissions in some areas, being quite an amount off-beam from where
the existing analogue antenna is pointing. Couple this with the fact
that the broadcast frequency of many of the multiplexes will be outside
the designed bandwidth of the (channel grouped) analogue antenna, and
the lower broadcast powers employed, then with a little understanding of
UHF propagation, it's easy to see how DTTV signals received on an
existing antenna that provides a good analogue performance, can be
marginal at least.

So no different from when the mainstream channels were added to UHF - or
later CH5. All of these changes could necessitate a new aerial.

I don't have a problem with understanding that the existing analogue
antenna may not be suitable for receiving DTTV. What I do find irksome
is the way that the general public is being led to believe that DTTV is
superior in every way to analogue, and that the transition will be
painless.

I don't know anyone who believed that. At the very least you'd have to buy
a STB. So not painless. As regards being 'superior' it very much depends
on your priorities. It certainly gives a much wider choice of stations
than is possible with analogue. Actual picture quality can be better in
some ways, worse in others. So in the end it's down to personal choice
whether you prefer it or not. The way some talk you'd think analogue was
always perfect. Rarely was anywhere I visited. Even in this high signal
strength part of London my CH5 is often poor. BBC2 in some weather
conditions.

In many cases, this just ain't so. It's
all very well saying that when the analogue service closes, the output
powers of the DTTV transmitters can be upped to the point where the
field strength becomes enough for a fundamentally unsuitable antenna to
work ok (possibly), but the only folk that is going to benefit, are
those that have hung on to the bitter end.

Well if you've decided to change before you're forced to there must be
something you like about FreeView...

As far as data rates go, that is more a matter of economics than
technical restrictions, with the satellite service. If you are going to
run a minority channel like "The Vegetarian Cooking for Eastern Bloc
Plumbers Channel", then you are not going to need it to have a high
data rate.

Err, poor picture quality on a channel you don't watch may not bother you.
But it might those who do watch it. The higher data rates tend to go to
subscription channels.

There's not going to be a lot of movement on the screen, and
it doesn't matter too much if the slice of tomato is rendered in a
limited range of shades of red, so you can rent a low data rate
transponder quite cheaply. If, however, you are going to show high
quality content of many different genres, then you have to use a high
data rate, with a correspondingly higher rental price tag on the
transponder. On the other hand, on DTTV, the bandwidth is just not there
to allow everyone to have high data rates. With only a few
premium-content channels using a high data rate, the bandwidth
availability rapidly starts to run out. Now that the post - analogue
allocation has been even further restricted as Gordon and co rub their
hands at the prospect of the cell-phone operators queing up to part
with cash for chunks of the UHF band, I can't see how the bandwidth
issue can ever be resolved, to improve the Freeview service beyond what
it is now, which is a technically superior service, trying to operate
in a technically inadequate environment.

I'm not sure there will be phone operators queuing up to buy bandwidth.
The last sell off was a bit of a fiasco.

As to your point about the cost of the hardware, far from the expense of
going satellite being prohibitive when compared with Freeview, they are
now about the same on the surface, and the FreeSat service may actually
work out cheaper in the end. A 'not too bad' Freeview box will cost you
around Ł30 - Ł40. Yes, I know that Tesco do some for 15 quid, but they
are pretty poor little things. But then you potentially need to add
another Ł150 to the cost of the box, to have a digital antenna supplied
and erected. On the other hand, Screwfix sent me an e-mail flyer just
yesterday, advertising a complete kit - dish, LNB, wall bracket, pole,
receiver, remote control, cables etc, for just Ł49.99. And made
(supplied) by Labgear, who are a respected company in the TV antenna
equipment business.

You're not comparing apples with apples. A decent wideband UHF aerial
doesn't cost anywhere near 150 quid - it's the installation that does. And
a dish can cost more to install.

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/80878&cm_mmc=Campaign-_-E08W42-_-B2-_-SatKit?source=aw

Now how can DTTV, with its limited performance and potential for
expansion, even begin to compete with that ?

I have HD satellite as well as FreeView - but for watching ordinary
channels use FreeView. My hardware for that is more user friendly.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

On Nov 18, 2:20 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:29:32 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser <s...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

Claude Hopper <boobooililili...@roadrunner.com> writes:

Some stupid moron on television was explaining the digital was better
than analog because there is no interference. He said digital was either
working or completely off. That is a bunch of crap. What is those square
boxes going across the screen all the time. I'll agree the sound is
either on or off and it goes off many times making you loose dialog,
piss poor for science shows. That pixalating shit occurs every day on
some channel. I think analog with a little static and snow is better
than loosing the entire program. Digital is a over hyped load of crap..
I'll second and third that!

Where everything else is going wireless, DTV will require that many
people who formerly could use rabbit ears will have to subscribe
to cable or some other wired pay service!

Can't you just get a bigger aerial and stop being a cheapskate?

That often only guarantees a reduced number of channels, the others will
now be off the main beam. Unless you get a rotator. Which only works if
there is not more than one TV in use.

Case in point: We've got the biggest honking ChannelMaster antenna there
is. No cheapeskating there. Mast amp, head amp, proper distribution
amps, home-run structure, the best coax there was. Works perfectly fine
on analog. DTV blitzes off every other day some time around 9:00pm,
usually when moisture and faster moving clouds roll in.  No matter how
we toss and turn it the selected ATSC standard does not appear to
tolerate a changing multipath situation. And I am under the impression
that this hasn't gotten the necessary amount of a-priori field testing.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"No matter how we toss and turn it the selected ATSC standard does not
appear to
tolerate a changing multipath situation."

I have a similar antenna in my attic. I find that the smallest "twich"
of the motor can change the signal strength from 20-25 (no picture) to
40-45 (picture is fine). This makes no sense to me. But maybe this
is the multipath situation of which you speak.

George

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50013a97e2dave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <_UcVk.110421$mr4.43429@newsfe19.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As far as I understand it Dave, the digital multiplexes are not
broadcast in tandem with the analogue services using the same
transmitter hardware. The DTTV service is also not necessarily
broadcast from antennas on the same mast as the analogue ones, or
indeed, even from the same physical site, which has led to some
transmissions in some areas, being quite an amount off-beam from where
the existing analogue antenna is pointing. Couple this with the fact
that the broadcast frequency of many of the multiplexes will be outside
the designed bandwidth of the (channel grouped) analogue antenna, and
the lower broadcast powers employed, then with a little understanding of
UHF propagation, it's easy to see how DTTV signals received on an
existing antenna that provides a good analogue performance, can be
marginal at least.

So no different from when the mainstream channels were added to UHF - or
later CH5. All of these changes could necessitate a new aerial.

No. No different. But the coming of UHF 625 was not 'sold' to the general
public in the same way as the digital service has been - that is with
marketing hype in a misleading way. With UHF 625, the potential benefits
over VHF 405 were enormous. There was the increase in resolution for a
start. Vastly improved FM sound. No displayed pulse interference due to the
opposite sense vision modulation sytem that was employed. Improved picture
stability from flywheel sync. The much smaller aerial. New channels that
were worth having. And of course, colour, a quantum leap forward, and a real
benefit that was worth having.

I don't have a problem with understanding that the existing analogue
antenna may not be suitable for receiving DTTV. What I do find irksome
is the way that the general public is being led to believe that DTTV is
superior in every way to analogue, and that the transition will be
painless.


I don't know anyone who believed that. At the very least you'd have to buy
a STB. So not painless. As regards being 'superior' it very much depends
on your priorities. It certainly gives a much wider choice of stations
than is possible with analogue. Actual picture quality can be better in
some ways, worse in others. So in the end it's down to personal choice
whether you prefer it or not. The way some talk you'd think analogue was
always perfect. Rarely was anywhere I visited. Even in this high signal
strength part of London my CH5 is often poor. BBC2 in some weather
conditions.

I don't know anyone who has an understanding of electronics and propagation
that believed it, but much of ordinary Joe public does, because that's the
way it has been sold. People believe everything that they see on TV, and
when you couple that with slick marketing, as has been the case here, that's
doubly true.

Analogue was certainly never always perfect, but for 363 days of the year,
mine is as close to perfect as I would ever want it to be. I don't have
anything against digital TV transmission per se. I have a Sky system and a
subscription, and again, for 363 days a year, it's as perfect as I would
want it to be. With nothing but open space between me and the transmission
source, with no such thing as multipath and 20 miles of rain or fog or snow
or whatever in the way, it can't really be anything else. CH5 isn't even
worth discussing in this context. It was a misconceived concept technically,
shoehorned in where it just didn't belong. By putting it on a channel that
was internationally accepted as being for VCR outputs, they were guaranteed
to cause interference to previous legitimate users of the frequency, from
day 1. The reason it is so piss poor on analogue, is because of the very low
transmitter powers that had to be run with it, to avoid mutal interference
between abutting transmitter service areas, due to the whole concept
screwing with carefully planned frequency allocations and offsets, that had
worked fine, for years.

In many cases, this just ain't so. It's
all very well saying that when the analogue service closes, the output
powers of the DTTV transmitters can be upped to the point where the
field strength becomes enough for a fundamentally unsuitable antenna to
work ok (possibly), but the only folk that is going to benefit, are
those that have hung on to the bitter end.

Well if you've decided to change before you're forced to there must be
something you like about FreeView...

People are changing because they are being frightened into doing it now by
the marketing hype both on the TV adverts, and at the points of sale barns
such as Comet and so on. People also believe all the nonsense about all the
new channels that they will be able to receive. Trouble is, the free ones
are mostly crap. Be honest. How often do you trawl through the hundreds of
channels on Sky, only to struggle to find something worth watching ? All
these free channels seem like a huge incentive at first look, but are
actually, for the most part, nothing of the sort. Would you propose that
people wait until the day that their analogue service is switched off, to
see if the (proposed) transmitter power increases allow their existing
aerial to function for Freeview ?

As far as data rates go, that is more a matter of economics than
technical restrictions, with the satellite service. If you are going to
run a minority channel like "The Vegetarian Cooking for Eastern Bloc
Plumbers Channel", then you are not going to need it to have a high
data rate.

Err, poor picture quality on a channel you don't watch may not bother you.
But it might those who do watch it. The higher data rates tend to go to
subscription channels.

?????? Are you going out of your way to be obtuse, Dave ? You seem to have
completely missed the point of what I was saying. I did use the word "need".
If you have transmissions that are largely static pictures, produced under
studio lighting, for a small audience (implying that you are a small
broadcaster) then the quality of the picture won't suffer from making use of
a low data rate, and as long as your service only appeals to a small number
of viewers, it's not going to attract a lot of investment and revenue from
advertisers. So a low data rate (ie cheaper to rent) transponder will
satisfy the requirements on all fronts for 99% of the time. The point is
that at sat frequencies, the bandwidth is available to allow minority
channels to have whatever data rate they choose to afford. On the
terrestrial UHF bands, the space is simply not available, nor ever could be.

There's not going to be a lot of movement on the screen, and
it doesn't matter too much if the slice of tomato is rendered in a
limited range of shades of red, so you can rent a low data rate
transponder quite cheaply. If, however, you are going to show high
quality content of many different genres, then you have to use a high
data rate, with a correspondingly higher rental price tag on the
transponder. On the other hand, on DTTV, the bandwidth is just not there
to allow everyone to have high data rates. With only a few
premium-content channels using a high data rate, the bandwidth
availability rapidly starts to run out. Now that the post - analogue
allocation has been even further restricted as Gordon and co rub their
hands at the prospect of the cell-phone operators queing up to part
with cash for chunks of the UHF band, I can't see how the bandwidth
issue can ever be resolved, to improve the Freeview service beyond what
it is now, which is a technically superior service, trying to operate
in a technically inadequate environment.

I'm not sure there will be phone operators queuing up to buy bandwidth.
The last sell off was a bit of a fiasco.

Well, the government must know something that we don't then, otherwise, they
wouldn't have reneged on the originally agreed plan to make more of the UHF
band available to DTTV after the analogue switch off, for the purposes of
facilitating HD transmissions using the existing compression systems. They
must think that they've got people waiting in the wings to buy that space.

As to your point about the cost of the hardware, far from the expense of
going satellite being prohibitive when compared with Freeview, they are
now about the same on the surface, and the FreeSat service may actually
work out cheaper in the end. A 'not too bad' Freeview box will cost you
around Ł30 - Ł40. Yes, I know that Tesco do some for 15 quid, but they
are pretty poor little things. But then you potentially need to add
another Ł150 to the cost of the box, to have a digital antenna supplied
and erected. On the other hand, Screwfix sent me an e-mail flyer just
yesterday, advertising a complete kit - dish, LNB, wall bracket, pole,
receiver, remote control, cables etc, for just Ł49.99. And made
(supplied) by Labgear, who are a respected company in the TV antenna
equipment business.

You're not comparing apples with apples. A decent wideband UHF aerial
doesn't cost anywhere near 150 quid - it's the installation that does. And
a dish can cost more to install.

Of course a wideband aerial doesn't cost 150 quid, but neither does it cost
a tenner. And I did say "supplied *and erected* ". Most of the aerials sold
for this purpose, are either long-boom "X" form Yagis, or log periodics,
neither of which are cheap. Setting aside installation, you would still
struggle to buy an aerial, mounting hardware, cable, and receiver, for the
50 quid that Screwfix are asking for a ready to run FreeSat sytem. On the
installation front, installing a sat dish is actually easier for the average
DIYer than putting up a DTTV aerial, which in most cases, will have to be
positioned on a pole, on a roof, clear of the ridge line. A sat dish can be
mounted in most cases on a wall, or even at ground level, and with a compass
and a bit of patience, is no more difficult to line up, than a Yagi.

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/80878&cm_mmc=Campaign-_-E08W42-_-B2-_-SatKit?source=aw

Now how can DTTV, with its limited performance and potential for
expansion, even begin to compete with that ?

I have HD satellite as well as FreeView - but for watching ordinary
channels use FreeView. My hardware for that is more user friendly.

A FreeSat STB is no easier or harder to use than a Freeview one, and the
manufacturers are now catching on to the advantages of a sat based system
over a terrestrial one, and are starting to ship sets which have a FreeSat
receiver built in.

Arfa

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

No. No different. But the coming of UHF 625 was not 'sold' to the general
public in the same way as the digital service has been - that is with
marketing hype in a misleading way. With UHF 625, the potential benefits
over VHF 405 were enormous. There was the increase in resolution for a
start. Vastly improved FM sound. No displayed pulse interference due to the
opposite sense vision modulation sytem that was employed. Improved picture
stability from flywheel sync. The much smaller aerial. New channels that
were worth having. And of course, colour, a quantum leap forward, and a real
benefit that was worth having.

However it took them until January 1985 to drop 405 line TV, starting 625 line
TV in 1964. That was IMHO an awfully long "compatability period".

As for the channels being worth having, that's a debate beyond the subject
of this discussion.

It was also not that big a sale, in those days, there was only one channel
and TV sets were so expensive that not every household had one. Since they
were licensed, and licenses were very carefully checked (remember Monty
Python's Cat Detector Van?) TV's were not a commodity item as they are
today.

BTW, do they still throw people in jail for owning unlicensed TV's?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:45 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.ukvn1sma4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:34:06 -0000, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uktwxiuo4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:39:58 -0000, Samuel M. Goldwasser
sam@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) writes:

Does anyone know how wind affects uhf tv propagation?

UHF is largely line-of-site, with reflections thrown in to complicate
matters.

I have noticed that my digital tv reception gets really bad
(pixelation
and dropped sound) when the wind gets strong. ie: 30 to 40 mph with
higher gusts of 50 to 60. It is not my antenna blowing in the wind
since
the antenna is in an attic crawspace.

My guess would be that you're seeing the effect of nearby trees
blowing around in the wind. This will cause rapid variations in
multipath cancellation (in effect, moving "echoes" from the moving
leaves) and could be overwhelming the multipath-echo cancellation
logic in the receiver.

If you watch an analog UHF station under these conditions, do you tend
to see "ghost" echoes on the screen which come and go, or move around,
as the wind blows?

Using a highly-directional UHF antenna might reduce the problem -
it'll have a stronger direct signal from the transmitter, and will be
less sensitive to multipath reflections arriving from other angles.

That's great if you want to fiddle with an antenna for each channel
or set up a complicated antanna that can be optimized for each
channel.

But a lot of us were very happy with analog TV and all its
shortcomings.

To me it is 1000 percent less annoying to see some snow or ghosts
when it's windy or raining or I'm watching a distant channel then to
have the picture freeze or pixelate and the sound to drop out entirely.

And, adjusting an antenna for analog is totally real time.
Move the antanna and its effect is instantaneous. With DTV - at least
what I've seen to far - the only way to really do this is with the
signal strength monitor which might be downa couple of menu levels,
and that's not real time. There is a very significant lag and even
then it doesn't always show what the true situation is.

This is not progress!

Very odd, as on the SAME aerial, with no adjustment, I get a perfect
digital picture on freeview terrestrial. On analogue terrestrial I got
irritating snow on quite a few of the channels.


Then you are indeed one very lucky Hucker ... Far from it being the case
that the powers who be would have you believe, in that the changeover is
as
smooth and simple as just gluing your STB or digital telly on the end of
your existing antenna, in many parts of the UK, including where I live,
the
joy of your new purchase has been short-lived, after getting it out of
the
box and finding that it receives almost nothing. The fading joy then
turns
to dismay when you further discover that your fifteen quid Tesco-Sonic
box,
is going to need a 150 quid cake cooling rack with 49 rung step ladder in
front of it, jammed up on your roof in place of the neat little 10 ele
Yagi
that you had there for your analogue reception ...

All so that you can get the Shopping Channel in glorious pixellated
plastic-view, complete with motion lag and digital artifacts, compounded
by
the digital processing in your brand new LCD TV to make it work
non-native
to display standard definition transmissions, rather than the nice
Blu-Ray
demo piccies you saw in the shop, and which convinced you to part with
your
hard-earned ...

Digital ? Bah humbug, I say !

Where are you lot living with all these problems? I'm in central Scotland
and everyone round here who has changed to digital (meaning within a 30
mile radius, not just one street) has had a great picture. A few have had
to buy a new aerial, but we knew we might need one. Everyone has got a
better picture than on analogue.

Well I'm in central England in the service area of the Sandy Heath main
transmitter. I live on top of a hill at about 330 ft ASL, and within about
25 miles of the primary mast. The analogue signal from this transmitter is
stonking in the extreme. It is a good example of the old 'piece of wet
string' adage. Just about everyone in my village had a neat little 10 ele
Yagi up to receive this transmitter. The low(er) power transmitter at Oxford
some 40 odd miles away, which we all used for the alternate ITV service,
required an 18 ele Yagi for a noise-free picture under all weather
conditions.

Now, as people in the village take up digital, they are having to have
ludicrous great pieces of ironwork jammed up on their roofs, to reliably
receive the Sandy Heath digital multiplexes, and I understand that the
situation is similar in many other parts of the country. There is talk that
when the analogue services finally cease, the digital transmitter powers
will be increased, but for those that have shelled out 150 notes of their
hard-earned now, that's going to be a bit horses and stable doors.

That doesn't make sense. How on earth can you be getting a poor digital signal? They must have a much lower power on that transmitter than they do up here. Mind you we all have 16 element aerials.

Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception, along
with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is causing with
implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can use

I've not heard of that. What is the problem? I thought 720p would work on ANY hd tv. And 1080i (and 1080p from Blueray) would be scaled down by the set.

On this point, they should not have called it HD ready. There should be two names - "Full HD", and "Semi HD". "HD ready" makes the uneducated think they are getting the best that they can, especially when the salesman lies. I thought we had laws like false advertising in this day and age?

(especially
since Ofcom / the government have reneged on the promise to make more of the
existing UHF bands available for DTTV when all the analogue has ceased), I
really can't see why anyone would choose the terrestrial Freeview option
over the corresponding satellite option (FreeSat). As long as you can get a
view of the Southern sky, you are pretty much guaranteed of receiving a
perfect signal with a minimum amount of fuss and hardware, in all but the
very worst thunderstorm conditions. Furthermore, with the oodles of
bandwidth available, such things as HD, programme multi-starts, 1 hour
delayed channels, fancy interactive services and so on, are a breeze for the
broadcasters to provide.

Agreed. Terrestrial TV is pointless.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

The priest in a small Irish village loved the cock and ten hens he kept in the hen house behind the church.
But one Saturday night the cock went missing!
The priest knew that cock fights happened in the village so he started to question his parishioners in church the next morning.
During Mass, he asked the congregation, "Has anybody got a cock?"
All the men stood up.
"No, no," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen a cock?"
All the women stood up.
"No, no," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen a cock that doesn't belong to them?"
Half the women stood up.
"No, no," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen MY cock?"
All the nuns, three altar boys, two priests and a goat stood up.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <rxgVk.988$qu1.193@newsfe25.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

People also believe all the nonsense about all the new channels that
they will be able to receive. Trouble is, the free ones are mostly
crap. Be honest. How often do you trawl through the hundreds of
channels on Sky, only to struggle to find something worth watching ?

I don't have Sky and never will. Because of who owns it. I do regularly
use some of the 'minority' FreeView ones - 5US, Dave and ITV3, mainly.

All these free channels seem like a huge incentive at first look, but
are actually, for the most part, nothing of the sort. Would you propose
that people wait until the day that their analogue service is switched
off, to see if the (proposed) transmitter power increases allow their
existing aerial to function for Freeview ?

It's up to them. If they are happy with the existing analogue service, why
not?

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrngib6mo.b7.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

BTW, do they still throw people in jail for owning unlicensed TV's?

They never have done. They might for repeated refusal to pay any fine for
not owning a licence where needed - but that's no different from failing
to pay any sort of fine imposed by a court.

--
*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Arfa Daily]

Now, as people in the village take up digital, they are having to have
ludicrous great pieces of ironwork jammed up on their roofs, to reliably
receive the Sandy Heath digital multiplexes, and I understand that the
situation is similar in many other parts of the country. There is talk
that
when the analogue services finally cease, the digital transmitter powers
will be increased, but for those that have shelled out 150 notes of their
hard-earned now, that's going to be a bit horses and stable doors.

That doesn't make sense. How on earth can you be getting a poor digital
signal? They must have a much lower power on that transmitter than they
do up here. Mind you we all have 16 element aerials.

It makes perfect sense when the Sandy Heath analogue transmitter is one of
the 'main stations' with an ERP of 1MW. I forget what the digital
transmitter output power is, but its only in the kW range. I seem to recall
something like 20kW, expected to rise tenfold to 200kW after analogue switch
off. I could be a bit off there, but it's about right ball park. Doubtless,
the info is on the 'net somewhere, if you want to look it up. Also, the
Sandy Heath mast is very tall, but the entire top is taken up with the UHF
analogue antennas, so presumably, the digital antennas, are some distance
down, even assuming that Sandy is one of the masts where the digital is
co-sited.

Given the many problems that have been reported with DTTV reception,
along
with the lack of bandwidth available, and the problems that is causing
with
implementing HD in a format that 'HD Ready' TV sets can use

I've not heard of that. What is the problem? I thought 720p would work
on ANY hd tv. And 1080i (and 1080p from Blueray) would be scaled down by
the set.

On this point, they should not have called it HD ready. There should be
two names - "Full HD", and "Semi HD". "HD ready" makes the uneducated
think they are getting the best that they can, especially when the
salesman lies. I thought we had laws like false advertising in this day
and age?

It's not about progressive or interlaced scanning or resolution. It's about
the compression and modulation schemes used to get the signals to you. The
original plan was to release additional wedges of the UHF broadcast TV band
to DTTV use, when analogue ceased. This additional space would have allowed
mpeg-2 compression to be used, as is the case with existing digital
services. However, as that space is now not going to be given over, an
alternative in the form of mpeg-4 is going to have to be used. So when the
manufacturers designed-in mpeg-2 decoders in the honest belief that the
future terrestrial HD services would employ this compression scheme, and
then called their sets "HD Ready", they weren't lying or trying to mislead.
Take a look at

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029474,49296378,00.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/ofcom_freeview_hdtv_dtg/

http://freesat.co.uk/index.php?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=freeview+HD+Digital+Box&utm_campaign=freesat

which might explain it better. It's a complex situation and seems to be
changing almost by the week. Take a look at the links above, especially the
last one, to see how the FreeSat service is superior to Freeview.

Arfa

>

 

[Arfa Daily]

Here's another link that's worth taking a look at. It goes a long way
towards explaining why the digital signals from Sandy are poor, and why the
CH5 analogue signal is *piss* poor ...

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/sandytransmitter.html

Arfa