|
|
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Jan 3, 3:55*am, Rob Jensen wrote:
Okay, forget the obviously trolly Hi-Def questions that just popped up. *I've got a better newbie question: Since digital OTA tranmissions are in a different part of the EM spectrum than current analog transmissions -- are the OTA signals for digital going to be stronger, weaker or just the same as with analog? And why? This started occurring to me when my mom reminded me that my grandmother gets terrible reception on her TV right now and, since she's on a fixed income, she'll qualify for the coupon for the converter box. *So then that leads me to my next follow-up question: since, well, duh, my grandmother is in an area with bad reception, what's a good brand of set-top antenna to go with both an analog TV and the converter boxes? * -- Rob -- LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again. * It never works. *I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work and what I could've done differently. *I'm analyzing all my shortcomings when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent victim of my own stupid plans. *God, I need some coffee. It's actually the same channels, minus a few at the high and low end. It's the signal that is different. And the other thing to know is that the digital channels are not on the same frequency their analog is currently at. Note: getting the box will let her receive SD-- standard definition, not HD. HD signals will be converted to low def SD by the box. I'm not sure about the range you can receive a signal (in case grandma's out in the country), but digital has better sound (no static), is not prone to echo images, etc. You either get a great picture, or you don't. So while I'm not as adept at pulling in the farther stations that looked like magic eye static, my local stuff comes in sharp, which is probably all you need for grandma to be happy. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Jan 3, 7:42*pm, Barry Margolin wrote:
wrote: It's actually the same channels, minus a few at the high and low end. It's the signal that is different. That doesn't sound right. *Currently they're transmitting BOTH digital and analog, so they obviously have to be on different frequencies. *In 2009 the analog transmissions go away, because the FCC wants to use those frequencies for new applications. Yes, they're doing both on the same TV band, but the new digital stations are on channels that you're already getting static on. Since you don't have a digital receiver, it can't come in as a picture at all. So the part of the spectrum remains the same, but because they're coexisting in the same space, digital's just using up what's available. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
In article
, wrote: On Jan 3, 7:42*pm, Barry Margolin wrote: wrote: It's actually the same channels, minus a few at the high and low end. It's the signal that is different. That doesn't sound right. *Currently they're transmitting BOTH digital and analog, so they obviously have to be on different frequencies. *In 2009 the analog transmissions go away, because the FCC wants to use those frequencies for new applications. Yes, they're doing both on the same TV band, but the new digital stations are on channels that you're already getting static on. Since you don't have a digital receiver, it can't come in as a picture at all. So the part of the spectrum remains the same, but because they're coexisting in the same space, digital's just using up what's available. But isn't the whole reason that they're forcing the switch to digital because they want to auction off the old analog frequencies to new applications? -- Barry Margolin, Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:33:43 -0500, Barry Margolin
wrote: In article , wrote: On Jan 3, 7:42*pm, Barry Margolin wrote: wrote: It's actually the same channels, minus a few at the high and low end. It's the signal that is different. That doesn't sound right. *Currently they're transmitting BOTH digital and analog, so they obviously have to be on different frequencies. *In 2009 the analog transmissions go away, because the FCC wants to use those frequencies for new applications. Yes, they're doing both on the same TV band, but the new digital stations are on channels that you're already getting static on. Since you don't have a digital receiver, it can't come in as a picture at all. So the part of the spectrum remains the same, but because they're coexisting in the same space, digital's just using up what's available. But isn't the whole reason that they're forcing the switch to digital because they want to auction off the old analog frequencies to new applications? That's what's supposed to happen as I understand it. It sounds to me like what's happening is this: Channel 2 in Hi-Def, which is the new Digital Frequencies (I know frequencies aren't themselves digital, it's just to separate the band now used by analog versus the band dedicated to digital), is translated by the converter box and then assigned to the OTA channel 2 in the old analog SDTV because, well, the TV's channel 2 setting won't be picking up anything anymore, so why not assign Ch. 2 digital to the 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. -- Rob -- LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again. It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Jan 3, 7:46*pm, Kimba W Lion kimbawlion wrote:
snip 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 becasue 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. GG |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
In article Rob Jensen writes:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:33:43 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote: But isn't the whole reason that they're forcing the switch to digital because they want to auction off the old analog frequencies to new applications? That's what's supposed to happen as I understand it. sigh. I thought folks here had read the explanation posted several times in the last month... It sounds to me like what's happening is this: Channel 2 in Hi-Def, which is the new Digital Frequencies (I know frequencies aren't themselves digital, it's just to separate the band now used by analog versus the band dedicated to digital), is translated by the converter box and then assigned to the OTA channel 2 in the old analog SDTV because, well, the TV's channel 2 setting won't be picking up anything anymore, so why not assign Ch. 2 digital to the 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. Nope. Not even close. Typically (as in the S.F. Bay area), channel 2 transmits analog on channel 2 (54 - 60 MHz). They transmit a digital signal on channel 56 (722 - 728 MHz). This is the same channel 56 as analog channel 56 (if there were one -- you can only have one). A converter box receives a channel, selected with its tuner, demodulates and decodes it. It outputs that on one of: 1. Composite video and audio. 2. Component video and audio (possibly not on the cheap ones). 3. HDMI (possibly not on the cheap ones). 4. RF remodulated on channel 3 or 4 from the signal that would have been sent out as #1. Note: It does not output on channel 2. Similarly, for channel 7 (which uses channel 26 for the digital channel), the output will be on those same outputs -- it won't output on channel 7. Alan |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Jan 3, 8:33*pm, Barry Margolin wrote:
But isn't the whole reason that they're forcing the switch to digital because they want to auction off the old analog frequencies to new applications? Yes, but they're only auctioning off part of the spectrum, not all of it. Since digital TV can cram for SD subshannels in the same space as one analog channel, the net effect is increased capacity. I'm not sure if they can sell off Channel 3, though, because it will be used by the coaxial output of everyone with a decoder box. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:42:52 -0600, Rob Jensen
wrote: It sounds to me like what's happening is this: Channel 2 in Hi-Def, which is the new Digital Frequencies (I know frequencies aren't themselves digital, it's just to separate the band now used by analog versus the band dedicated to digital), is translated by the converter box and then assigned to the OTA channel 2 in the old analog SDTV because, well, the TV's channel 2 setting won't be picking up anything anymore, so why not assign Ch. 2 digital to the 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. J. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
|
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Fri, Jan 4, 2008, 6:45am (EST+5) (JXStern)
wrote: Those high numbers are artifacts of cable systems, OTA does not use anything higher than 51. OTA *won't* use anything higher than 51 *after* February 17, 2009. Now, though, there *are* OTA channels from 51 to 69. That's why that segment of the spectrum cannot be auctioned off now. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:33:43 -0500, Barry Margolin
wrote: In article , wrote: On Jan 3, 7:42*pm, Barry Margolin wrote: wrote: It's actually the same channels, minus a few at the high and low end. It's the signal that is different. That doesn't sound right. *Currently they're transmitting BOTH digital and analog, so they obviously have to be on different frequencies. *In 2009 the analog transmissions go away, because the FCC wants to use those frequencies for new applications. Yes, they're doing both on the same TV band, but the new digital stations are on channels that you're already getting static on. Since you don't have a digital receiver, it can't come in as a picture at all. So the part of the spectrum remains the same, but because they're coexisting in the same space, digital's just using up what's available. But isn't the whole reason that they're forcing the switch to digital because they want to auction off the old analog frequencies to new applications? On 1 channel, "6" MHz bandwidth, they can get, using digital (it is compressed), 50 or more audio programs, 5 or 10 SD programs, or 1 HD program plus some SD. My numbers are likely in error; my concepts are not. Yes, some of the spectrum is proposed to be auctioned ... originally 2-6, I think, and those above about 55 to 83. As I understand it, not all of the 2-6 is still going away, but I'm unsure of the truth of that, and VERY unsure of the details. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:53:48 -0500, (Cinder Lane)
wrote: OTA *won't* use anything higher than 51 *after* February 17, 2009. Now, though, there *are* OTA channels from 51 to 69. That's why that segment of the spectrum cannot be auctioned off now. Not disagreeing at all, but when did 70-83 go away; UHF tuners used to go 14 to 83, I'm pretty sure. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Jan 4, 11:43*am, GeorgeB wrote:
Not disagreeing at all, but when did 70-83 go away; UHF tuners used to go 14 to 83, I'm pretty sure. Maybe, but was there anything to watch up there? |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:43:23 -0500, GeorgeB wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:53:48 -0500, (Cinder Lane) wrote: OTA *won't* use anything higher than 51 *after* February 17, 2009. Now, though, there *are* OTA channels from 51 to 69. That's why that segment of the spectrum cannot be auctioned off now. Not disagreeing at all, but when did 70-83 go away; UHF tuners used to go 14 to 83, I'm pretty sure. They went away a long time ago. Around 1980. -- Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
Didn't tuners go up to 124 at one time?
|
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Jan 5, 12:47*am, Jerome Zelinske wrote:
* * * Didn't tuners go up to 124 at one time? I've seen that on cable settings, but not OTA. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
On Jan 4, 9:47*pm, Jerome Zelinske wrote:
* * * Didn't tuners go up to 124 at one time? There many lists but this one seems pretty concise. http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/catvfreq.html 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'. GG |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
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. |
A Better Hi-Def Conversion Question (I Hope)
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com