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.

In article
,
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.

--
Barry Margolin,
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

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.

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 ***

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.

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

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

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.

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.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:18:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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.

Okay. *That* makes more sense. Thanks!

-- 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.