A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
 

On Jan 4, 11:17*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:29*am, G-squared wrote:

As far as the channel 3 for converters goes, the external signal
would
have to be pretty strong to cause problems within the closed
system of
converter to TV when the only analog TV channel 3 comes only from
the
converter. Remember all those analog stations are 'dark'.

If they're selling off the frequency, it's gonna interfere with
something.

I don't think it will be the problem you do. When using the 3/4 switch
on the VCR because you didn't want interference from the local channel
3 or 4, you were talking 100 KW signals. I don't hink the new services
will be using those power levels. But it doesn't matter as channels
2-6 are still TV and after going digital, the spectrum strongly
resembles 'noise' so the interference will be nearly random if it's
discernable at all.

GG

A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
 

and thus G-squared inscribed ...
On Jan 3, 7:46 pm, Kimba W Lion kimbawlion wrote:
All digital TV will be on what we call channels 2 through 51. The
frequencies occupied by channels 52-69 will be taken away from
television.
You don't see evidence of digital TV signals on your analog set
because
the old sets can't respond to the signals.
And if I had any say in it, channels 2-6 would be gone as well. At
least there will be none in LA but I feel bad for those who will be
stuck with it. I assume the broadcasters are for it because they can
run lower power transmitters so they reduce their electric bill but I
think it cripples the viewers reception in terms of big antennas and
impulse noise issues more than the power savings benefit to them.

If we all went digital, then folks could have smaller antennas, little dinky ones like the one I have which is under a foot tall, about a foot wide, and 2 inches thick. The large ones would be obsolete and a waste of space.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- poetry.dolphins-cove.com

A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
 

and thus JXStern inscribed ...
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:42:52 -0600, Rob Jensen
Ch. 2 location on the SDTV. Otherwise, it'd be on, what, channel
386,792,541 or something? And I don't think that SDTVs have
Ultra-ultra-ultra^87 UHF dials on them.
Those high numbers are artifacts of cable systems, OTA does not use
anything higher than 51.
And actually, lots of SDTVs built in the last five (ten, fifteen?!)
years *do* have cable QAM decoders built in and *can* read those
high-numbered cable channels! But they don't come OTA, so never mind.

I wondered about that. On my Aquos, which receives/decodes the HD automatically, I can search for Cable channels, and while I only get the same type of channels that I get w/ the SD feed, but on some, it comes in clearer than the SD feed. I think like WB and PAX/ION comes in a clearer, less ghosting, than the SD feed. Maybe my imagination.
I only have an OTA antenna in my Los Angeles apartment.
I do get the channel listings, but no content.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- poetry.dolphins-cove.com