DTV reception is much more difficult than analog

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1111974426.556320.170830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"inkyblacks@yahoo.com" <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> writes:
> "The rest of you come across as rather hostile'
> charlie
> ---------------
> I assume you do not include me in that broad statement.
>
It is so interesting that those who criticize those who are fed
up with Bob are making very rude statements also... Frankly, we
need more honesty, and if it means that the statements or truth
isn't pretty, then lets stick with the truth.

See, I made a mistake of listening to Bob, and spent money that I didn't
need to spend. As a competent engineer, I should have used other resources,
but I also tend to trust people (and show respect) until deceived.

I have been an advocate of tolerating Bob, but I was wrong.

John
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
> Crown Castle will use COFDM to cover the entire US with mobile coverage.

Only Psycho Bob would believe such a ridiculous statement.

We don't even have the entire country covered with cellular telephone
service (much less *reliable* service). So much for Crown Castle, which
owns many of these cellular towers.

I'm less than 8 miles from downtown Seattle, and *none* of the various
local cell services (3 CDMA, 2 TDMA, 3 GSM, 1 iDen, 2 analog) have a
reliable signal here.

Yet I receive all but one of the Seattle and Tacoma 8-VSB stations.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, David wrote:
>> I am willing to concede that Bob is probably right that we made a
>> mistake to pick 8-VSB over COFDM,
> I personally could never concede that in a million years.

A wise decision, and one which shows that you have actually been outside
of Manhattan to recognize that we are not all urbanites.

> After all, the
> only reason he pushes COFDM is because it handles datacasting/advertising
> and pay "services" much easier than 8VSB. That's the only reason.

You forgot a crucial word: "mobile". The entire issue is broadcasting to
a moving receiver. He thinks that it is more important for television to
do this than it is to support HDTV -- or to provide service to rural
areas.

> He has never shown the slightest bit of concern for HDTV programming and/or
> viewing.

In fact, he has made his opposition to HDTV clear, and has stated that
480p is "good enough." Well, FOX tried 480p. They discovered that it is
not "good enough", and are now HDTV.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.63.0503280909360.6101@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>> Crown Castle will use COFDM to cover the entire US with mobile coverage.
>
> Only Psycho Bob would believe such a ridiculous statement.
>
> We don't even have the entire country covered with cellular telephone
> service (much less *reliable* service). So much for Crown Castle, which
> owns many of these cellular towers.
>
> I'm less than 8 miles from downtown Seattle, and *none* of the various
> local cell services (3 CDMA, 2 TDMA, 3 GSM, 1 iDen, 2 analog) have a
> reliable signal here.
>
> Yet I receive all but one of the Seattle and Tacoma 8-VSB stations.


Mark, what part of town are you in? I'm located north of Northgate at 137th
and 19th NE. I'm not getting any Tacoma stations. Are you referring to
Channel 28? I do get 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 22 without issue...but no
28. Also..do you know my friend Bob Majors who does some IT related stuff at
the UW?





>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> I'm less than 8 miles from downtown Seattle, and *none* of the various
>> local cell services (3 CDMA, 2 TDMA, 3 GSM, 1 iDen, 2 analog) have a
>> reliable signal here.
>> Yet I receive all but one of the Seattle and Tacoma 8-VSB stations.
> Mark, what part of town are you in? I'm located north of Northgate at 137th
> and 19th NE. I'm not getting any Tacoma stations. Are you referring to
> Channel 28? I do get 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 22 without issue...but no
> 28.

I'm on the south end Braindead Island facing Bremerton. I get digital TV
on 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 22, 28, 33, 45, and 51. I have a directional
yagi with rotor.

I don't get 4, and don't try using cell phones here.

I'm planning on an antenna upgrade; first to put a preamp and second to
aim the antenna about 10-15 degrees up. There's a hill between me and
Seattle and currently the antenna is pointing at the hill rather than sky.

> Also..do you know my friend Bob Majors who does some IT related stuff at
> the UW?

Nope.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:c1le41pqs8t80op77p4rmgmuj1ig5udfso@4ax.com...
>
>>Please refer to previous postings. I am tired of those who advocate
>>the lies. That is worse than the liar, because YOU KNOW that you support
>>him. I have provide alot of VALID technical information, probably far
>>above your ability to understand -- yet very trivial to me.
>>
>>Disgusting cretins... Advocates of lies and deceit... People so needy
>>that lies are tolerated.
>
> Well, now, during the months that I've monitored this newsgroup, the
> Bob Bashers have become more abusive, but now we who enjoy reading
> Bob's messages are getting the same treatment.
>
> My feeling is that I would enjoy chatting with Bob Miller, that I
> would learn much from him. The rest of you come across as rather
> hostile, needing to defend your position at any cost, and certainly
> not an interesting person to have lunch with. Bob has laid out his
> agenda many times. So come on, what are you protecting! Surely 8VSB
> has some problems? No? How come so many of us have given up on it?
> We are just stupid?
>
> Maybe you could relax, after all, decisions about the future of DTV in
> the US will be made by politicians who know nothing about it, care
> nothing about it, only want to be reelected with the help of big bucks
> given to their campaigns. What you or I may believe has nothing to do
> with what happens in Washington DC.
>
> charlie

Well, you do sound like a bob supporter, why don't you put your money where
your mouth is?
Start a letter-writing campaign to Congress to have our modulation method
changed.
And don't forget, bob has promised us all new free COFDM receivers, so at
least you don't have to worry about that.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

<inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111951517.451555.251910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I am willing to concede that Bob is probably right that we made a
> mistake to pick 8-VSB over COFDM,

I personally could never concede that in a million years. After all, the
only reason he pushes COFDM is because it handles datacasting/advertising
and pay "services" much easier than 8VSB. That's the only reason.

He has never shown the slightest bit of concern for HDTV programming and/or
viewing.

Can anyone PLEASE google just *one* posting of his where he has?

http://groups-beta.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=



but the point is that decision was
> made and we are committed to 8-VSB. Even according to Bob, the best
> system in the world now is the new Chinese system, not COFDM. We
> should try to make our system better instead of crying about past
> history, which is now irreversible.
>
> IB

I sure do agree with that. 🙂
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Crown Castle will use COFDM to cover the entire US with mobile coverage.
>
>
> Only Psycho Bob would believe such a ridiculous statement.
>
> We don't even have the entire country covered with cellular telephone service (much less *reliable* service). So much for Crown Castle, which
> owns many of these cellular towers.
>
> I'm less than 8 miles from downtown Seattle, and *none* of the various local cell services (3 CDMA, 2 TDMA, 3 GSM, 1 iDen, 2 analog) have a
> reliable signal here.
>
> Yet I receive all but one of the Seattle and Tacoma 8-VSB stations.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Comparing cell coverage with what Crown Castle plans on doing is not
correct. The cell coverage is dictated by the power of the transmitter
in a cell phone. A cell phone has to transmit a signal that can be
received by the closest cell tower site.

Crown Castle is doing one way broadcasting with high powered
transmitters at least compared to cell phone power levels. The cell site
for Crown Castle will be many times the coverage area of a cell phone. I
don't know what power levels they are limited to but they could be at
least the same as Qualcomm's which are 50,000 Watts. Anyone have a cell
phone capable of 50,000 Watts?

Also in the case of Qualcomm they are using channel #55 which is in UHF
spectrum and far better than the spectrum used by cell companies.

Bob Miller
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.63.0503281038370.7487@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>> I'm less than 8 miles from downtown Seattle, and *none* of the various
>>> local cell services (3 CDMA, 2 TDMA, 3 GSM, 1 iDen, 2 analog) have a
>>> reliable signal here.
>>> Yet I receive all but one of the Seattle and Tacoma 8-VSB stations.
>> Mark, what part of town are you in? I'm located north of Northgate at
>> 137th
>> and 19th NE. I'm not getting any Tacoma stations. Are you referring to
>> Channel 28? I do get 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 22 without issue...but
>> no
>> 28.
>
> I'm on the south end Braindead Island facing Bremerton. I get digital TV
> on 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 22, 28, 33, 45, and 51. I have a directional
> yagi with rotor.
>
> I don't get 4, and don't try using cell phones here.

It's funny how everyone thinks that straight shots across water should make
for great reception but my professional experience as a sound mixer working
with wireless microphones over the years has proven otherwise. It's
sometimes very nice to have some concrete and buildings around for stuff to
bounce off of. For being 100% wet, water sure can soak up RF! :)
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I am against anything that increases the amount of advertisements stuck
in front of people's faces.

IB
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rnH1e.514$x4.171@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>
>> Can we trust that claim made by you? What basis do we have for
>> trust? A lack of integrity has long term consequences.
>>
>> John
>
> Well first I think my track record works for integrity but you don't
> agree.
>
> How about logic? Why would I use another identity here? Well if things
> were slow I could sign on as David and stir things up by being my own
> devils advocate. Argue with myself would be the one reason I could see for
> doing it.
>
> But David knows I don't do that. I don't have to. John, you know that I am
> not you, I don't have to be. You are there for me. I just have to make any
> old post and you guys throw on all the kindling I could ever imagine
> needing.
>
> I can't really think of another, I say whatever I want as myself.
>
> But the only thing I have to really complain about is that I don't learn
> as much as I would like. It would be better if there were more post with
> more meat in them. Don't get me wrong I have learned a lot here and a lot
> from John but it could be better if the discourse was better.
>
> Bob Miller

How many internet forums have been banned from so far?

I'm just asking because I'm beginning to suspect it's a lot
more than just one (AVS).
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"David" <davey@whom-body.net> wrote in message
news:JpCdnUiWe5lHBtXfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>
> How many internet forums have been banned from so far?
>
> I'm just asking because I'm beginning to suspect it's a lot
> more than just one (AVS).

I really think you guys are putting too much energy into this and giving Bob
way too much credit for whatever perceived negative influence you think he
is having on the industry. The percentage of HDTV users and HDTV
movers/shakers that read these posts is very small indeed when looking at
the big picture. I'd be surprised if even 1% of the HDTV owners and
potential buyers have ever even heard of Usenet.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:

>
> I really think you guys are putting too much energy into this and giving Bob
> way too much credit for whatever perceived negative influence you think he
> is having on the industry. The percentage of HDTV users and HDTV
> movers/shakers that read these posts is very small indeed when looking at
> the big picture. I'd be surprised if even 1% of the HDTV owners and
> potential buyers have ever even heard of Usenet.
>
>

Very true.

Something like AVSForum has a major negative affect on the decisions of
countless people who visit there. Here is a off the top of my head list
of what I think is impeding the 8-VSB digital transition in order of
importance IMO.

8-VSB does not work very well which generates .....
-Word of mouth among ordinary TV consumers that they should wait coming
from friends who have taken the plunge or who tried OTA and gave up. I
know plenty of those in New York City. Lots of word of mouth in New York
City that OTA simply doesn't work well enough to bother.
-Little enthusiasm by manufacturers and few manufacturers making receivers
-Less enthusiasm by retailers who take the hint from manufactures
lethargic actions
-Little enthusiasm by retailers who have a lot of receivers returned
over and over again. A friend here in New York took 9 receivers back to
WalMart before giving up. How would you feel about OTA 8-VSB receivers
if you managed that WalMart?
-Little enthusiasm by retailers and manufacturers above resulting in
little to no advertising for OTA receivers.
-All the above resulting in little training of retail sales about OTA,
instructions to stay away from OTA sales and actual salespersons making
negative pitches to customers on OTA.
-The fact that OTA generates less profits than a sale of satellite
subscription service.
-High price of OTA receivers. In the UK they hit a sweet spot of between
$50 and $100 and sales have skyrocketed. These receivers either work
with current rooftop antennas or with inexpensive indoor antennas.
-High price and need in most cases for rooftop antennas and their
installation cost.
-High price of HDTV sets though a lot of people seem willing to buy the
HDTV set and pass on the OTA receiver. Maybe because they are getting
satellite service which includes an OTA receiver. It would be
interesting to know how many who have satellite service bother to hook
up an antenna. I have come across numerous instances where they didn't
or didn't even know they had the possibility.
-Lack of HDTV programming.
-HDTV programming where HD is not that compelling.
- People doing due diligence with Google and hitting the words HDTV. The
complicated jargon, the endless learning curve about a dozen different
disciplines, the cult like atmosphere where if you don't know something
you are an outsider and if you have a problem you are beneath contempt
especially if after trying a dozen things that are suggested to you, you
still do not get decent reception. The feeling that if you are not
dedicating a major room to a home theater you are not doing it right.
-People doing a Google search and going to AVSForum. This is a great
place to get turned of of HDTV. You can come here all fired up and get
real turned off quick.
-A dozen other things I can't remember at the moment
-Bob Miller's rants on COFDM.

Here is a typical AVSForum "helper post" that will turn off most people
over 35....

Nitewatchman on AVSForum today....
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5398203#post5398203

"Not to say you won't have problems no matter how much you go by the
"antenna 101 book", nevertheless I'm not at all surprised you are having
multipath problems with that setup ..... I assume by "Radio Shack"
combiner, you mean a hybrid 2 way splitter/combiner(i.e. a standard 2
way splitter used backwards), and not a VHF/UHF combiner(or "joiner")
such as CM #0549. The latter which would result in one antenna hooked to
its VHF input being used solely for VHF reception, the other antenna
hooked to UHF input on combiner would be used solely fir UHF reception
..... ?

If my assumption is correct, given that you are using different antenna
models then your antennas are certainly out of phase(at least on
some/many frequencies). To properly combine antennas onto the same feed
line into a "stacked array" of antennas for increased directivity(which
can be beneficial for multipath difficulties) and/or gain, you must do
all of the following :

#1). Use IDENTICAL antenna model(2 silver sensors for instance) for both
antennas

#2). you must have both antennas aimed in same direction and with the
"right" spacing/placement(1 wavelength apart at lowest frequency of use
is probably good) of antennas

#3). the coax feed from the combiner to each antenna has to be of the
exact same length

#4). the baluns(given a 300ohm antenna + the need for a balun to match
antenna to the 75 ohm unbalanced feedline(coax)) should be in phase with
each other.

Get any of those things wrong, and the antennas are out of phase, likely
increasing multipath on at least some frequencies/channels, perhaps
especially troublesome when dynamic multipath conditions(say when strong
winds blow the trees around which could cause the dynamic multipath
conditions at your location to be effected) are an issue.

What I mean by "out of phase" is -- the signal will arrive at one
antenna(or portion of the antenna/feedline system) at a slightly
different time than the other antenna ... other words, increasing
multipath ..... What you have set up is similiar to what we call "random
wire" antenna, which as you might imagine can produce quite
unpredictable results.

There is an excellent article on how to properly stack antennas at below
link -- I think that stacking antennas is probably most useful over a
narrow range of frequency(such as a single TV channel) with frequency
specific antennas rather than broadband antennas over a wide range of
frequencies(such as UHF TV band), although some here have reported
getting good results with a properly implemented stacked array of
broadband UHF antennas :

http://pages.cthome.net/fmdx/stackant.html
"
Can you imagine the newbie Joe Sixpack's reaction when he gets to the
line above, "Get any of those things wrong"....! And he or especially
his wife hears the ending without reading any further, "and your s**t
out of luck" coming in loud and clear".


Here is my idea of a post to help someone in the UK today.

"Charlie,

Get over to you local XXXXX market, they have a sale on XXXX OTA
receivers for $35, works great, just plug it in to your old antenna or
it may work fine on your $2 loop and your current Telly. Just put the
antenna by the window because the digital stations are at an average of
3.7 kW which is very low. You should be fine. There are 30 free channels
of DTV and 12 digital HD radio channels.

If that is not enough then you can sign up for TopUpTV for $15 for a
bunch of cable channels.

If it is HD you are looking for there is one and will be two more
satellites worth of HD over the coming year or so."

That is about what they are hearing in the UK and they do go out and buy
receives at the rate of 500,000 a month in a nation of 24 million
households.

Bob Miller
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news😛ine.LNX.4.63.0503281038370.7487@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
>
>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm less than 8 miles from downtown Seattle, and *none* of the various
>>>>local cell services (3 CDMA, 2 TDMA, 3 GSM, 1 iDen, 2 analog) have a
>>>>reliable signal here.
>>>>Yet I receive all but one of the Seattle and Tacoma 8-VSB stations.
>>>
>>>Mark, what part of town are you in? I'm located north of Northgate at
>>>137th
>>>and 19th NE. I'm not getting any Tacoma stations. Are you referring to
>>>Channel 28? I do get 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 22 without issue...but
>>>no
>>>28.
>>
>>I'm on the south end Braindead Island facing Bremerton. I get digital TV
>>on 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 22, 28, 33, 45, and 51. I have a directional
>>yagi with rotor.
>>
>>I don't get 4, and don't try using cell phones here.
>
>
> It's funny how everyone thinks that straight shots across water should make for great reception but my professional experience as a sound mixer working
> with wireless microphones over the years has proven otherwise. It's sometimes very nice to have some concrete and buildings around for stuff to
> bounce off of. For being 100% wet, water sure can soak up RF! :)
>
>

Was working with LMDS (28 GHZ) some years ago for broadband Internet
access. At my office on 57th street I got reception from a transmitter
only a few blocks away but not line of sight. The signal came off a
bounce from building across 57th at a low angle. When it even drizzled
out the moisture on the buildings cut my reception immediately. At my
apartment across the East River on Roosevelt Island I received a signal
that I think came from a roof of a building in Manhattan maybe 350 yards
away. When the sun set I lost my connection like someone threw a switch
everyday.

I don't know of anyone using any of that LMDS spectrum that went for
billions even after almost nine years.

Spectrum goes up and down in price like nothing else. In the UK spectrum
sold for $35 billion in 2000. As much fetched $140 million in the US two
years later. I don't know if anyone would give a nickel for the LMDS
spectrum today.

Bob Miller
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <3s42e.1542$x4.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>>
>> I really think you guys are putting too much energy into this and giving Bob
>> way too much credit for whatever perceived negative influence you think he
>> is having on the industry. The percentage of HDTV users and HDTV
>> movers/shakers that read these posts is very small indeed when looking at
>> the big picture. I'd be surprised if even 1% of the HDTV owners and
>> potential buyers have ever even heard of Usenet.
>>
>>
>
> Very true.
>
> Something like AVSForum has a major negative affect on the decisions of
> countless people who visit there.
>
Actually, Bob Miller (yes, you) have had the most negative effect on
my own decisions, where I ceded my own engineering decision process to
your judgement. I had decided to get a receiver to survey my reception
due to your FUD against 8VSB transmission. I was wrong to listen to you,
and shouldn't have listened to your FUD -- my 8VSB reception (as now
we would expect) was relatively easy. I didn't need the receiver to
survey my reception...

If I was a neophyte, I might have been dissuaded from purchasing an HDTV,
and your spin and FUD has probably had some damaging effect (but certainly
your individual poorly founded claims were probably not enough to have
measurable effect against HDTV in the US.) It is POSSIBLE that the total
of all of the FUDSTERS might have impeded the growth of HDTV in US.

Of course, the biggest issue that I had was related to reciever front end
issues, but even your beloved 5th generation receiver designs seem to be
sensitive to front end design problems.

So, of any advice that I have ever taken on HDTV forums, your advice had
been most wrong, and it was my mistake for listening to you rather than
doing my own research.

John
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:fYGdnXzdx8kfXtXfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>
> "David" <davey@whom-body.net> wrote in message
> news:JpCdnUiWe5lHBtXfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>
>> How many internet forums have been banned from so far?
>>
>> I'm just asking because I'm beginning to suspect it's a lot
>> more than just one (AVS).
>
> I really think you guys are putting too much energy into this and giving
> Bob way too much credit for whatever perceived negative influence you
> think he is having on the industry. The percentage of HDTV users and HDTV
> movers/shakers that read these posts is very small indeed when looking at
> the big picture. I'd be surprised if even 1% of the HDTV owners and
> potential buyers have ever even heard of Usenet.

I hear you and you have a good point.
But did you know bob testified in Washington in a clear attempt to ruin our
ATSC system?
bob and his ilk actually did a lot of damage to the roll-out and held up the
introduction of some early hardware.
And one of the reasons that I/we jump on him here is that we don't like the
idea of newbies falling for his crazy "OTA HDTV doesn't work" mantra.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
> -Word of mouth among ordinary TV consumers that they should wait coming from
> friends who have taken the plunge or who tried OTA and gave up. I know plenty
> of those in New York City. Lots of word of mouth in New York City that OTA
> simply doesn't work well enough to bother.

Most of the country does not care about New York City's reception
problems.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.63.0503290827490.22187@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>> -Word of mouth among ordinary TV consumers that they should wait coming
>> from friends who have taken the plunge or who tried OTA and gave up. I
>> know plenty of those in New York City. Lots of word of mouth in New York
>> City that OTA simply doesn't work well enough to bother.
>
> Most of the country does not care about New York City's reception
> problems.
>
> -- Mark --

Mark, I will share my ATSC experience so far in the last few years.

Purchased the Panasonic TUxx20 (can't remember model name now) as my first
HD Tuner for $600. It was pathetic, couldn't pick us anything with a rabbit
ear antenna and required me to purchase/install a rooftop antenna at my
location 8 miles from downtown Seattle. Once it was working properly it took
forever to change channels and to accomplish commands from the remote. You
would enter a command a number of times because it didn't respond, only to
find that the commands were actually in a slow queue and would start
repeating themselves at some point. I hard rebooted that thing more times
than I can count and sent it back to Panasonic twice. It's sitting in my
basement unused and has little or no value for resale. It's a boat anchor.

Then purchased the Sony Sat 300 box for $500. Same deal, no reception with
rabbit ears but does great on the roof. Slow to change channels but better
than the Panasonic POS.

Now I have the Hughes Direct TV Tivo unit $999 and it's also slow to change
channels and the - or . symbol on the remote is in a weird place for ATSC
channel numbers.

Speaking from experience over the years I'm very pleased with the picture
and generally abilities of the Sony and Hughes units but I cannot recommend
either of them to a technophobe or someone elderly. Current HDTV as I know
it is too difficult for the average person to deal with. Having to put in
5-1 or 7-1 instead of 5 or 7 is more than I seem to be able to explain to my
parents who visit occasionally. My elderly neighbor who recently asked me
for help purchasing a replacement television just glazed over when I had her
over to my house to try to demonstrate some of the possibilities of OTA,
aspect ratios and the such.

I don't know what the answer is, but HDTV her in the US is a toy for the
technically proficient and decidedly not for Joe average American at this
point.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

I have two ATSC tuners: a Samsung SIR-T151 and a Samsung SIR-TS160, both
of which are considered obsolete and not particularly stellar performers.

Unlike you, I never expected rabbit ears to work; they don't work worth a
damn for NTSC reception either. There's the small matter that rabbit ears
are for VHF reception and all the ATSC broadcasters are on UHF. The silly
little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC reception
either.

The only usability issues I have with my system are:
1) No manual programming of channel configuration; must scan. The
SIR-T151 is actually better in that you can scan a single channel
without deleting existing programming. The SIR-TS160 does not.
2) The rotor is not integrated with the tuner. I would kill for a
TV with integrated ATSC tuner and rotor control.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
 
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news😛ine.WNT.4.63.0503291040200.6060@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
>I have two ATSC tuners: a Samsung SIR-T151 and a Samsung SIR-TS160, both of
>which are considered obsolete and not particularly stellar performers.
>
> Unlike you, I never expected rabbit ears to work; they don't work worth a
> damn for NTSC reception either. There's the small matter that rabbit ears
> are for VHF reception and all the ATSC broadcasters are on UHF. The silly
> little loop UHF antennas didn't work worth a damn for NTSC reception
> either.
>
> The only usability issues I have with my system are:
> 1) No manual programming of channel configuration; must scan. The
> SIR-T151 is actually better in that you can scan a single channel
> without deleting existing programming. The SIR-TS160 does not.
> 2) The rotor is not integrated with the tuner. I would kill for a
> TV with integrated ATSC tuner and rotor control.
>
> -- Mark --

I just used rabbit ears as a generic term. I have an integrated settop type
of antenna with VHF and UHF elements. I didn't expect much either but all
the same I got almost nothing. What I'm really trying to say is that I think
the HDTV tuner experience at this point is too difficult to recommend to
people who could never figure out how to get rid of the flashing 12:00 on
their VCR's.