RLS7201
Gladstone, MO
Senior Member
Joined: 10/26/2002
View Profile
 Offline
|
az99 wrote:The analog channels are broadcast in VHF which travels much farther than the digital signals that are broadcast in UHF.
That's just not true.
TV channels 2-13 are broadcast from 54MHz to 216 MHz. VHF
TV Channels 14-69 are broadcast from MHz to 806 MHz UHF.
Richard & Michêle Shields
Northland Good Sams
1995 Bounder
32H F53
Banks, TruTrac, Vena
2003 PT Cruiser Pusher
FMCA 395470
Web Page
Retired and traveling on your hard earned SS $$. Thanks for your support.
 (5).jpg)
|
chili7
Colorado Springs, CO
Senior Member
Joined: 07/14/2006
View Profile
|
Sucks here for several channels.
06 Prowler Regal 285RLS Extreme Edition 5th Wheel
05 F350 XLT PSD CC SB 4x4 FX4 SRW TowCommand
|
JimInMA
Littleton, MA
Senior Member
Joined: 07/27/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
wny_pat wrote:thecampingman wrote:Thanks for all of the replies! I'm really optomistic if the signals are going to get even stronger.
I haven't had much problem with "no signal" or the glitching others have experienced. But it's really flat here. It's strange though, my strongest station is the farthest away. 55 miles.
You're flat there in Oh. Come east to the hills in the southern tier of NY south of Buffalo and Rochester where we have no local stations, and depend on those Buffalo and Rochester stations. I get snow on analog now, what do you guys think I'll get on digital? And those in the Pennsylvania Northern tier - Warren Pa, Bradford Pa, Coundersport Pa and the other burgs, what about them. On digital they will get nothing. They depend of community or commercial cable (or Dish/Direct if they can see over the hill and thru the trees) already to get signals. And I doubt that those Erie Pa, Buffalo NY and Rochester NY stations will put up repeaters for us in the boonies. Those of us who are not already, will have to pay to get a signal. And we never even got to vote on the subject! They just told us that it was good for the country! Digital is mainly on UHF (Channel 13 and up) which already does not have the transmission range of VHF (Channel 2 thru 12). UHF signals are line of sight and do not go over hills. It hits the hill and bounces back.
It would appear that they aren't getting anything now so what would change? I looked up Warren and Bradford PA and there are no channels for Warren the only channel listed for Bradford is WIVB out of Buffalo at 50 miles away - and that's an analog channel.
Did you get to vote on the lack of analog channels?
A lack of TV is one of the hazards of living in the boonies - been there, done that. But it's always been that way and the digital conversion doesn't change it much, if at all.
|
hermant
Varies
Senior Member
Joined: 07/05/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
az99 wrote:hermant wrote:First, digital reception requires significantly LESS signal strength than analog reception to produce a clear picture. So what they FORCED on us was better overall television reception. Darn! So if you are occasionally losing a channel to the digital "checkerboard", you should thank the federal government that you even have a channel to lose; analog tuners would not have even found that channel in the first place!
Good luck,
Tom You are completely backwards on that statement. Digital requires a much stronger signal to receive it than does analog. You can get many watchable channels in analog and get 0 in digital. The analog channels are broadcast in VHF which travels much farther than the digital signals that are broadcast in UHF.
OK, technically that's true but practically that's hogwash. For the sake of the less geek-informed reader, lets cut to the chase. I probably should have been more technically clear and picked my own nits. Let me restate my premise.
First, digital reception requires significantly LESS signal strength than analog reception TO PRODUCE A CLEAR PICTURE. If you are desperate to watch a channel and don't mind snow, echoes, ghosting, blur, frame roll, and more, then analog is your best choice. Yes, absolutely, without equivocation, an analog receiver will receive "some kind of a picture" when the digital receiver simply will not.
However, I reassert my initial postulation that when discussing "clear" pictures (i.e. sharp, noise free, error corrected, source matched, call it what you will), digital reception methods require less signal strength to detect, correct and present a CLEAR picture. OK? How's that? Better?
Geez, I really don't think there is any conspiracy here... The government "forced" the conversion to digital simply because it's better than analog.
Or maybe, the Feds are out to brainwash us with subliminal messages interlaced between the full frame MPEG retracings on the new television standard; NOT!
2008 Winnebago View
|
RVN'S 4 US
On the Road
Senior Member
Joined: 12/09/2004
View Profile
|
Let's go on with conspiracy. The government is forcing the conversion to digital because the change stimulates the employment/economy due to all of the new items that must be built and purchased. Actually, that is only the secondary motivation. Real reason is that many more signals can be fit in the same space allowing increased taxation revenue for licensing fees. No, actually it's to make the shortwave enthusiasts stop complaining about tv signals interfering with their hobby. No, actually....
Do I get my conspiracy theory badge??
Plan for tomorrow. Live for today. Learn from yesterday.
|
|
|
ThunderingQuiet
In Your Mind
Senior Member
Joined: 12/20/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
RVN'S 4 US wrote:Let's go on with conspiracy. The government is forcing the conversion to digital because the change stimulates the employment/economy due to all of the new items that must built and purchased. Actually, that is only the secondary motivation. Real reason is that many more signals can be fit in the same space allowing increased taxation revenue for licensing.
Do I get my conspiracy theory badge??
You betcha!!!
|
wny_pat
Western NYS
Senior Member
Joined: 08/11/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
JimInMA wrote:wny_pat wrote:thecampingman wrote:Thanks for all of the replies! I'm really optomistic if the signals are going to get even stronger.
I haven't had much problem with "no signal" or the glitching others have experienced. But it's really flat here. It's strange though, my strongest station is the farthest away. 55 miles.
You're flat there in Oh. Come east to the hills in the southern tier of NY south of Buffalo and Rochester where we have no local stations, and depend on those Buffalo and Rochester stations. I get snow on analog now, what do you guys think I'll get on digital? And those in the Pennsylvania Northern tier - Warren Pa, Bradford Pa, Coundersport Pa and the other burgs, what about them. On digital they will get nothing. They depend of community or commercial cable (or Dish/Direct if they can see over the hill and thru the trees) already to get signals. And I doubt that those Erie Pa, Buffalo NY and Rochester NY stations will put up repeaters for us in the boonies. Those of us who are not already, will have to pay to get a signal. And we never even got to vote on the subject! They just told us that it was good for the country! Digital is mainly on UHF (Channel 13 and up) which already does not have the transmission range of VHF (Channel 2 thru 12). UHF signals are line of sight and do not go over hills. It hits the hill and bounces back.
It would appear that they aren't getting anything now so what would change? I looked up Warren and Bradford PA and there are no channels for Warren the only channel listed for Bradford is WIVB out of Buffalo at 50 miles away - and that's an analog channel.
Did you get to vote on the lack of analog channels?
A lack of TV is one of the hazards of living in the boonies - been there, done that. But it's always been that way and the digital conversion doesn't change it much, if at all.
We get analog stations "barely". And the number of stations and how well they come in depends on exactly where one lives. The guy across the street might get three analog stations while his neighbor 150 feet away gets only one. It is trees and hills and antenna height and antenna type that matter. When you factor in UHF, you throw everything out the window. Nothing matters because UHF just does not reach this far periood! If you can put up a antenna high enough, you might get a signal. But they do not make antenna towers that high, and if they did one could not get a permit to put it up. They are taking something away from us that we have. Not perfect, but we have it.
The reason for digital was not to make TV better. It was to re-allot frequencies for commercial and government use. Analog TV signals take up a lot of frequency space, while digital TV signals only take up a small frequency space. Will it work? It should with all the testing they have done, but ultimately we are the guinea pigs. It might work for you, but it will not work for me. But then again, it may not work for you. NYS just found out after years of testing that its new multi-billion dollar emergency communications system does not work. That is after years of testing and millions of dollars. A similiar system, designed by the same company, has worked only one place in the world. A airport in Europe. No comparison!
|
wa8yxm
Wherever I happen to park
Senior Member
Joined: 07/04/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
How is my digital reception.. Depends on where I'm at
Thousand Trails Saint Clair Preserve it's 0.00000
Here at Michigan's Outdoor Adventure Lakeshore it's 60-80 percent per the signal meter.. All depends on IF there is a digital transmitter in range
What is a digital antenna?
It's a standard 20 dollar UHF bow tie array which is, quite frankly a piece of junk, sold for 100 dollars to gullible people at RV shows, that's what it is, at least one version.
Or, it's a standard analog antenna with "DIGITAL" label slapped on it's face and of course they charge at least 20 bucks (Additional) for that label.
To an antenna there is only RADIO, (Television does not exist to an antenna) What is on the RADIO wave is what determins if it's audio, digital, or video (Television) but to the antenna a radio is a radio is a radio, there is no difference save for frequency and digital TV uses existing TV frequencies
Nothin adds excitment like something that is none of your business
John is Near Kenwood TS-2000 housed in a 2005 Damon Intruder 377
|
az99
N.Y.
Senior Member
Joined: 12/26/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
All I know is when this changeover happens there are going to be a lot of people who will get zero over the air channels. Many fringe areas now can watch a pretty decent picture on analog or at least be able to watch local news or emergency weather.
Looks like the only ones benefiting from this poorly thought out change will again be the cable and satellite providers.
Two areas I frequent get 0 digital channels but have 5-7 very watchable analog channels.
|
ThunderingQuiet
In Your Mind
Senior Member
Joined: 12/20/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
az99 wrote:All I know is when this changeover happens there are going to be a lot of people who will get zero over the air channels. Many fringe areas now can watch a pretty decent picture on analog or at least be able to watch local news or emergency weather.
Looks like the only ones benefiting from this poorly thought out change will again be the cable and satellite providers.
Two areas I frequent get 0 digital channels but have 5-7 very watchable analog channels.
Unless those are experimental/educational LOW POWER analog channels, at midnight on Feb 17, 2009, they are REQUIRED to start transmitting digital signals. There is nothing requiring TV stations broadcast in digital at this time.
So come Feb 18 you will see 5-7 digital channels broadcast in that area. I think you will find out that once this changeover occurs, you will have better reception AND better picture quality, even on an Analog TV.
|
|
|
|
