Does this mean I will have to get cable/satellite TV for this possiblenew house?

On 02/24/2012 09:29 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, at 22:22:36h -0800,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

It should have been in big bold red letters:
ATTENTION! YOU MAY NEED AN OUTDOOR ROOF ANTENNA TO PROPERLY
RECEIVE OTA DIGITAL TV SIGNALS.

The same applied to analog TV reception.

Snowy analog pictures or analog pictures with ghosting were not
properly received analog TV signals.

But those who refused to install an adequate antenna refused to
accept this and put up with the degraded analog picture with the
excuse that "it was good enough".

And yet they could still watch those "good enough" channels, right?
That's all that matters when they were watching NTSC.

Maybe. Sometimes. If the wind wasn't blowing too hard, or if it wasn't
raining or snowing very much. Or maybe if we walked to the antenna four
or five times an hour to re-adjust it.

Some of us didn't enjoy the constant, "adequate" analog reception you
say you *always* had. Our weather isn't as stable as it is in Southern
California. But we were "forced" to put up with it because it was either
all we could get, or all we could afford. Fortunately, things are a lot
better now.

TJ

On 2/24/2012 11:04 AM, Ant wrote:

(snip)
Are those the ones with 80+ miles away? If so, then dang that's very far
compared to L.A. ones. I did not pick them up on the portable TV last
Sunday afternoon though. I didn't recognize their station code names nor
did the portable TV automatically pick them up either.

Maybe give low mount a try even with your heavy foliage. Here's an
alternative placement that works for me. TV & antenna setup on my back
porch.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redskin_nut/

On 2/24/2012 10:03 AM PT, ERBwasPB typed:

Are those the ones with 80+ miles away? If so, then dang that's very far
compared to L.A. ones. I did not pick them up on the portable TV last
Sunday afternoon though. I didn't recognize their station code names nor
did the portable TV automatically pick them up either.

Maybe give low mount a try even with your heavy foliage. Here's an
alternative placement that works for me. TV & antenna setup on my back
porch.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redskin_nut/

Thanks. I will have to find better antennae to try instead of the single
rabbit ear antenna that came with this portable DTV.
--
"I'm not a worker ant. I'm like a queen. Or maybe a king. But you never
hear of king ants." --Sean Bentley
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
A song is/was playing on this computer: Anna Tsuchiya - Juicy Girl
featuring The Samos

On 2/20/2012 12:39 PM PT, Ant typed:

Try going to antennaweb.org to see what antenna they say you should
have. Their map will show the directions and distances to the various
transmitters, and you can even get a satellite view if you want. But
take their recommendations with a grain of salt, too. They say I need a
"blue" "medium-directional antenna with a pre-amp" to receive stations
I'm getting rock-solid with a clip-on bowtie.

Remember, when placing an antenna, especially a directional antenna,
height is only one of the things to consider. Horizontal placement is
also important, as is compass direction. You can have conditions where
an antenna doesn't work at all, but move it three feet to the left or
right and it works just fine. Places like TV Fool and antennaweb.org
can't divine reception that closely.

I did notice tilting the portable TV to the right by 90 degrees to make
its single ear rabbit ear antennae horizontal did make differences for
KABC7 and FOX11 when I was in front of the house's garage facing the big
hill (yea, maybe 1-2 miles).

FYI if you missed them earlier: http://i.imgur.com/LTao8.jpg and
http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg (shots of the house). You can see trees are
way taller than the chimney. http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg for
Antennaweb's results from December 2011.

Fascinating. I see Antennaweb doesn't even mention channel 31, which you
say you can pull in with the rabbit ear.

I remember the street level shot, and yes, the trees are MUCH higher
than the house. But you have a lot of roof area there to work with, so
my opinion stands. I doubt an antenna in one of the trees would perform
much better than one strategically placed on the roof, and installing a
rooftop antenna would be much less likely to involve breaking your neck
than putting one in a tree.

Yeah, channel 31 is so weird! I wonder why. I assume it is from Mount
Wilson too. OK. Let's try a rooftop antenna. Which type to get that can
be easily returnable if it fails for this situation? I could get someone
to try hooking it up to that coax cable connected to the unused
satellite dish shown in the aerial shot. Just remember, that roof is not
very high either (pretty much flat).

OTA (in front of the house's garage and behind the tree left of the
neighbor's house) from my notes and also new images:

KABC7, KTTV11, and 31.x (KVMD; best and indoor and in out front of
kitchen to face a tree left of neighbor's house to Mt. Wilson's direction.
No height entered:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...330909db0c9 f
25 ft.:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...86cb35bdb45 9
40 ft.:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...86ddb20485e 8
http://i.imgur.com/q7LS4.jpg (antennaweb)
http://i.imgur.com/KWz13.gif (location on Google Maps)
http://i.imgur.com/LTao8.jpg (aerial shot of the rooftop -- note the
existing satellite dish from the previous home owner)
http://i.imgur.com/uRTeb.jpg (zoomed out 45 degrees aerial shot with
house on the bottom right corner)
http://i.imgur.com/vXboD.jpg (Google Earth's elevation shot of Mt.
Wilson and home)
http://i.imgur.com/seYcH.jpg (Street View of trees in front of the house
facing Mt. Wilson's direction)
http://i.imgur.com/XThYd.jpg (Street View of more trees on west side of
the house)
--
"It's kind of an insane case ... 6,000 ants dressed up as rice and
robbed a Chinese restaurant." --Steven Wright
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
A song is/was playing on this computer: Gin Wigmore - Hey Ho

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 2/24/12 1:10 AM, in article , "Sal"
wrote:


"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." wrote in message
. ..

Okay.

So explain those nightlight programming NAB commercials about DTV. Did
they not show rabbit ears, and then one of those new design INDOOR
antennas? Did they more or less just gloss over the outdoor antenna
issue
even though they also showed it below the new design indoor antenna, and
just more or less say they would need a different antenna?

That's not user ignorance. They were misled. It should have been in big
bold red letters: ATTENTION! YOU MAY NEED AN OUTDOOR ROOF ANTENNA TO
PROPERLY RECEIVE OTA DIGITAL TV SIGNALS.

The same thing should have been on each and every CECB, not just you
need
an antenna but again: ATTENTION! YOU MAY NEED AN OUTDOOR ROOF ANTENNA TO
PROPERLY RECEIVE DIGITAL TV SIGNALS.

Then, if they got lucky with indoor antenna reception, great. But if
they
didn't they would have been fully and properly informed.

The whole forced DTV transition/analog shutdown was based on a lot of
misinformation, I think, remember: "better picture, better sound, more
channels, the best in HD"? Oh, but they didn't say:

If you don't get good reception your picture will have large rectangular
artifacts, if your reception is even worse you might not get sound, and
if
it's even worse, you will not get a watchable picture.

You've worn me down. Unconditional surrender. Uncle! "No mas!"

All those antennas on ebay, tomorrow? Mine. I'm done.

You win.


Damn! Now he will just keep carrying on with the rant...

Maybe so, but I will NOT see it. I'm not going to open his posts. It
reminds me of a Rodgers and Hart song from the 30's, "Poor Johnny One Note."
(Google and Youtube both have it.)

"Sal"

On 02/24/2012 11:04 AM, Ant wrote:
On 2/23/2012 11:37 PM PT, Sal typed:

Yes. OK fine, how about an estimated location? Reposado Drive, La Habra
Heights, CA 90631.

Now we're getting somewhere. See the tvfool report for that location:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...86e5dd85d00 b

To be more accurate from my inputs with the home's number:
No eight entered:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...330909db0c9 f
25 ft.:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...86cb35bdb45 9
40 ft.:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...86ddb20485e 8


Look at all those pinks and yellows! That's roof-antenna territory,
bubba.
... and I only gave you 20 feet above ground level. A ten foot mast on
the
peak of the roof puts you around 30 feet-- a bit better (unless it
chances
to put you behind a palm tree).

(Chuckle.) I'll say it again - TV Fool is a good place to start, but
doesn't know everything. Here is one for my place, 8ft. up (upper part
of 1st floor window:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...8610affd0f4 4

And at 15 ft. (second floor)

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...86ea19845bb b

WSYR, the closest transmitter, gives me some multipath trouble when it
rains and cars go by, but I can eliminate that with a small adjustment.
WNYI is a religious station - not my cup of tea - but it's been fine the
few times I've looked. Those are my only two line-of-sight stations.

Note that most of the rest are two-edge stations, meaning that the
signal is refracted over two hilltops to get here. WSTM is now
better-rated than it used to be. It was in the yellow the last time I
looked. WCNY is definitely in the yellow, despite being broadcast from
the same tower as WSTM. I get both about the same. And despite what TV
Fool says, WSYT and WNYS, which also each broadcast from the same tower
and used to be among my least-reliable analog stations, are now my most
reliable. They never give me trouble any more. WTVH has some issues, but
I think that's from having inferior equipment than the rest - they are
the only local station still using the same tower they used for analog,
and they are on a much higher frequency than they used to be.

I can't get the low-power analog station at all. Never could. Just white
noise on channel 6.

In one first-floor window, facing east, using careful placement I can
get WKTV with no glitches, except in a very heavy rain. I might have
been able to do the same on the second floor, but the power lines come
to the house in that area, and I'm sure they distort the field. If The
weather is good, I can get it in a watchable fashion on the second
floor, though with enough dropouts that Daniel would say it wasn't
watchable.

I can get WSPX with stability in two rooms on the first floor, one about
half the time with a simple bowtie, the other about 80% of the time
using a Terk-25. In other rooms, not enough to be watchable.

I can't get any of the others with an indoor antenna. But according to
TV Fool, I should only get three stations altogether.

It took about four months of experimentation to find the "sweet spot"
for the indoor antennas in every room with a TV. Some of them wound up
in odd places, places that I wouldn't have thought could possibly work -
yet they do.

Don't give up, Ant - good reception is indeed possible for you. Sure
your situation is different than mine - I have those two hills workin'
for me. But I believe that with a decent rooftop antenna, properly
placed and aimed, you should be able to receive most of the yellow and
pink stations just fine.

TJ

"Ant" wrote in message
m...

..

Uh, don't we always want to face Mt. Wilson directions since that is where
all the transmitters are located?

Yes and no. Your TV reception is dependent on what is called knife-edge
diffraction. It is a well-documented phenomenon whereby signals that are
blocked from line of sight are nevertheless received because the signal
bends down over the top of the mountain. Google offers plenty of
explanation; I just checked.

The signals are received in a shadow zone because of diffraction, but not
every signal will be diffracted the same way, for reasons of the frequency
and the transmitter locations. They may all be great at one position or you
might ned to shift left or right . You'll never know before you put up the
antenna and try it.

Second issue, San Diego: For some of your possible TV watching, especially
the CBS network, you get a stronger signal from the south.

To wit: CBS in Los Angeles is KCBS, virtual channel 2.1 but actual
transmitter on Channel 43 and it's pretty far down the list for signal
strengths. CBS in San Diego is KFMB, v irtual Channel 8.1, actual
transmitter also on Channel 8 and it's pretty high on the list of signal
strengths. Unfortunately, you have a stronger, non-CBS Channel 8 to the
east from your location. I cannot say it won't be your dominant Channel 8.
It could depend on what antenna you get.

Do you need help interpreting the numerical data on your tvfool results?

You can have two antennas, one San Diego and one Mt. Wilson, and switch
between them. (Yes, you can combine them but that presents a separate set
of problems.) I had relatives who lived in Vista CA years ago. They had
two antennas, just as I have described, with a simple switch. Good pix from
both cities.

Being an experimenter myself, I have five antennas and a five-position
rotary switch that lets me instantly select among them.

"Sal"

"TJ" wrote in message
...
You're missing his point. He used the Terk with NTSC, found the snowy
picture and buzzy sound he had to be acceptable, and wanted it to work
with ATSC, too. He wanted ATSC to act the same or better than NTSC with
the same antennas in poor reception areas. It can't. No digital scheme
can. But until one does, he won't be happy.

Buzzy sound?

Not exactly. Maybe, in heavy rain with strong wind, I might have had a very
occasional picture shear with a quick one second buzz but not all that
frequently either. All other times, even with white noise in the audio, I
could understand it, it was like listening to FM radio with enough noise to
be audible but not enough to make the audio unintelligible.

Furthermore, using an AV receiver and a surround mode such as legacy Dolby
Pro Logic or Dolby Pro Logic II put the white noise in the surrounds anyway,
much softer than listening to mono or stereo. (So another point, I have
mentioned before but can reinforce it again--analog TV dematrixed to
surround sound, DTV only introduced discrete sound.)

"Sal" wrote in message ...

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 2/24/12 1:10 AM, in article , "Sal"
wrote:


"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." wrote in message
. ..

Okay.

So explain those nightlight programming NAB commercials about DTV. Did
they not show rabbit ears, and then one of those new design INDOOR
antennas? Did they more or less just gloss over the outdoor antenna
issue
even though they also showed it below the new design indoor antenna,
and
just more or less say they would need a different antenna?

That's not user ignorance. They were misled. It should have been in big
bold red letters: ATTENTION! YOU MAY NEED AN OUTDOOR ROOF ANTENNA TO
PROPERLY RECEIVE OTA DIGITAL TV SIGNALS.

The same thing should have been on each and every CECB, not just you
need
an antenna but again: ATTENTION! YOU MAY NEED AN OUTDOOR ROOF ANTENNA
TO
PROPERLY RECEIVE DIGITAL TV SIGNALS.

Then, if they got lucky with indoor antenna reception, great. But if
they
didn't they would have been fully and properly informed.

The whole forced DTV transition/analog shutdown was based on a lot of
misinformation, I think, remember: "better picture, better sound, more
channels, the best in HD"? Oh, but they didn't say:

If you don't get good reception your picture will have large
rectangular
artifacts, if your reception is even worse you might not get sound, and
if
it's even worse, you will not get a watchable picture.

You've worn me down. Unconditional surrender. Uncle! "No mas!"

All those antennas on ebay, tomorrow? Mine. I'm done.

You win.


Damn! Now he will just keep carrying on with the rant...

Maybe so, but I will NOT see it. I'm not going to open his posts. It
reminds me of a Rodgers and Hart song from the 30's, "Poor Johnny One
Note." (Google and Youtube both have it.)

Your choice man. I've "killfiled" posters (i.e., put them in the blocked
senders list to ignore posts) and I've also been "killfiled" due to others
who refused to see the truth.

Specifically, I mean on another forum talking about roller coaster riders
leaving adjustable (ratcheting/hydraulic) lapbars up higher than would
otherwise be in contact with the lap, to allow for more airtime pop-up on
hills that caused air. Some even left it high enough to reach a near
standing position. I insisted that the purpose of the ratcheting lapbar
needed to be as far down until it contacted the rider's lap. They argued no.
Separately, I argued that over-the shoulder bars were better for protecting
against upward ejection. Again I got jumped on that lapbars were good
enough.

But let's see...

Oops, then a roller-coaster enthusiast got ejected from the Raven roller
coaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raven_(roller_coaster)

Go read the Incidents section. Yep, a rider could not reach a near standing
position without a loose lapbar and also a loose or unbuckled lap belt. The
lap belt should have been snug, the lapbar should have been lowered until it
contacted the lap.

Oh, but then Great Coasters of America put out a bulletin reinforcing what I
was already insisting on a forum long before the accident made the news,
even though GCI didn't make the Raven.

http://naarso.com/great.pdf

But lapbars are still good enough? Okay, for most of the rides, they work,
but need whatsoever for over-the-shoulder bars on *any* rides with ejector
pops of airtime?

Oops, Perilous Plunge had a rider ejection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perilous_plunge

Go read the accidents section. Again, the lapbar should have been lowered to
the lap, the lap belt should have been snug.

You know what restraints the new boats are using now? Over-the-shoulder bars
with a redundant safety belt strap.

In summary: Two accidents involving loose lapbars and/or loose or unbuckled
seatbelts. Even if the seatbelts were loose or unbuckled, the had the lapbar
been lowered to the lap, it would have prevented a rider ejection. Enough
said. Not necessarily happy that I "won" that argument, and was greatly
disappointed in the number of riders in the forum who advocated the looser
lapbars and lap belts.

So you know what? I don't need anyone's reply to know when I'm right. Ignore
my posts, I don't care. The truth still holds, when DTV works, the picture
and sound is great. When it fails, it is unstable audio and progressively
worse destructive picture problems--and the flaws when OTA DTV does fail are
numerous and more unwatchable than anything analog NTSC except for the worst
analog reception. [Similarly, the truth still holds that an adjustable
lapbar is only as safe as the rider can lower it until it contacts the lap.
The over-the-shoulder bars effectively protects against a rider's upward
ejection (though a faulty seat design, not a shoulder restraint problem, can
allow the rider to exit under the bar) on rides where a lapbar would not
safely hold the rider in a looser position.]

On 2/24/2012 1:55 PM PT, Sal typed:

Uh, don't we always want to face Mt. Wilson directions since that is where
all the transmitters are located?

Yes and no. Your TV reception is dependent on what is called knife-edge
diffraction. It is a well-documented phenomenon whereby signals that are
blocked from line of sight are nevertheless received because the signal
bends down over the top of the mountain. Google offers plenty of
explanation; I just checked.

The signals are received in a shadow zone because of diffraction, but not
every signal will be diffracted the same way, for reasons of the frequency
and the transmitter locations. They may all be great at one position or you
might ned to shift left or right . You'll never know before you put up the
antenna and try it.

Interesting.


Second issue, San Diego: For some of your possible TV watching, especially
the CBS network, you get a stronger signal from the south.

To wit: CBS in Los Angeles is KCBS, virtual channel 2.1 but actual
transmitter on Channel 43 and it's pretty far down the list for signal
strengths. CBS in San Diego is KFMB, v irtual Channel 8.1, actual
transmitter also on Channel 8 and it's pretty high on the list of signal
strengths. Unfortunately, you have a stronger, non-CBS Channel 8 to the
east from your location. I cannot say it won't be your dominant Channel 8.
It could depend on what antenna you get.

Can both channel 8 fight over each other? Say one day, I get CBS. Next
day, I get a non-CBS feed. I have never seen that happened before in my
current city (soon to be old/former).


Do you need help interpreting the numerical data on your tvfool results?

Um, sure in case I missed something! It is technical.


You can have two antennas, one San Diego and one Mt. Wilson, and switch
between them. (Yes, you can combine them but that presents a separate set
of problems.) I had relatives who lived in Vista CA years ago. They had
two antennas, just as I have described, with a simple switch. Good pix from
both cities.

Would two antennae be in one spot or separate places?


Being an experimenter myself, I have five antennas and a five-position
rotary switch that lets me instantly select among them.

FIVE ANTENNAE AND SWITCHES??? You're hardcore. I want to see
photographs/photos. of your setup. I thought people with giant satellite
dishes were hardcore.
--
"In an ant colony, dew is a flood." --Afghan
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.