Best antenna amp for UHF HDTV reception?

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article . net,
Bob Miller writes:

This was from a personal trial of the receiver supplied by LG and which
was accompanied by the two top engineers who personally developed the
5th generation receiver. They admitted to studying COFDM to make this
happen.


Firstly, I know enough about 8VSB vs. COFDM to understand that the
claim that 'studying COFDM' has almost nothing to do with the improvements
to the 8VSB reception. The difficulties with 8VSB were/are/always were
understood, and the solutions have little to do with COFDM techniques
per se.

Well you can take that up with the LG engineers. They readily conceded
that COFDM was superior, that they relied on COFDM in working on the 5th
generation 8-VSB receiver and that there was no hope that 8-VSB would
ever match the reception of COFDM.

This is not " NEW & IMPROVED" blah blah blah." This is the real deal. It
is a MAJOR transforming difference. It is truly plug and play.


Of course, that is to be expected.

It wasn't to be expected. Without the constant irritation of COFDM LG
would have been content with 8-VSB as it is. The 5th generation
receivers would still be years away.

Nothing that I have seen about the
new 8VSB receivers is outside of what should have been predicted.

Predicted? They flat out said all these problems including mobile
reception had been solved in 1999.

Frankly,
I am NOT surprised, and I have told you all along that the new technology
would help. For nay-saying, I'd seem to remember your own claims.

What is to be expected? That we chose a modulation that wasted six years
of time and cost many a lot of money and hassle only to arrive five
years later at a minimally acceptable receiver that still does not allow
what SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED, NO, DEMANDED of any DTV modulation,
mobile reception. Especially since it was KNOWN that such reception was
possible and indeed was being achieved by another modulation.

As I said before I was able to defeat this receiver with both dynamic
and static multipath, something you could not easily do with a COFDM
receiver, but that is not the test that I am interested in. That test is
simple.


Yes, COFDM and 8VSB (as the technologies are fully developed) will have
different behaviors, but the differences result from tradeoffs.

There is NO TRADEOFF. Unless you mean that you give up mobile reception
for nothing or that you give up data rate for nothing or if you mean you
give up another "X" number of years while they try to get 8-VSB to work
as well at SFNs or on channel repeaters as COFDM. There is no trade off
except in the minds of those who have not seen the difference and cling
to fantasies about 8-VSB that do not exist and lies about COFDM that are
disproven daily in many countries which use COFDM at minuscule power
levels compared to 8-VSB in the US.

We are stuck with 8-VSB, it works for me and our business. But the
process and the result is something we should be ashamed of in the US.
For years foreign visitors will marvel at how backward we are in DTV as
they do now with our cell phone system. And they will cluck about how it
was done to us using our corrupt political process. They already do.

COFDM
is a relatively old technique (and the FFT-concept schemes have been
used in old telephone modems until the near-8VSB equivalents had taken
over.) The COFDM-type schemes aren't really a panacea, but are very
well developed over the years. COFDM is certainly very good for mobile.
8VSB has probably 10-15yrs less development than the semi-FFT type
schemes. Even though 8VSB will eventually surpass COFDM in most-all ways
(where it probably does better in many ways already), the mobile niche
will be the domain of COFDM... Eventually, with infinite amounts of
CPU, and a full development effort where there might be a more significant
American interest, 8VSB might work out more of the mobile issues, but I
suspect that the new 8VSB tuner will have done much of what is possible.
With blind equalization techniques, more CPU can be helpful, there is
probably alot of opportunity to better exploit the signal. Geesh, the
original TV sets in general didn't receive as much of the video signal
as they could have.

8-VSB will never surpass COFDM. 8-VSB is stuck in a relatively small
niche market called full power DTV in a few countries, the US, S. Korea,
Mexico and Canada. Very little development work will proceed on 8-VSB as
most of the world and most spectrum uses COFDM type modulation already.
Expect the broadcasters to try to change to a COFDM type modulation in a
few years after competition arises using COFDM.

(snipped)

Mobile consumer DTV viewing really has few day-to-day real-world applications
in the US, given probable US traffic laws and the probable criminal charges
for driving while watching TV. (Mass transit Max Headroom blipverts and
saturation advertising isn't a good application in the US either.) The
only potentially useful applications in cars: entertaining children, are
likely better implemented by DVD-type technology.

Mobile is coming in a big way. You can relegate it to the one small area
that it is dangerous in all you want, front seat in view of driver of
vehicle, but mobile DTV will be the killer application for cell phones,
PDAs, laptops, portable DTVs and a myriad of other devices in the next
few years. All of these devices can be carried into a vehicle and
misused by the driver just like a cell phone or an ice cream cone. But
mobile DTV will be pervasive very soon.

Bob, I still KNOW that the killer app is bidirectional and last mile
connectivity for true communications (not just push) (which would include
all kinds of data, where TV would be one of the data types.) I wish that
you would have concentrated on that, thereby avoiding the delays in
the market caused by you and your ilk. Such a full bidirectional solution
would have potentially justified your mobile application that would
partially usurp HDTV. Unidirectional data in general has only one real
killer app, and that is TV... We already have that and it works well.

You keep bringing up bi-directionality. Why? It has nothing to do with
the discussion. We are talking about DTV and reception problems of our
inferior 8-VSB modulation.

Blaming the messenger for the problem has been a timeless tradition.
Never worked. You have to fix the problem.

Your mantra of saying that pre 5th generation receivers already work and
work well can be and has been emphatically disproved by our recent test
of 5th generation receivers. When these receivers get on the market the
public will second my opinion. Many post here and elsewhere comparing
older 8-VSB receivers to 5th generation receivers will exclaim at JUST
HOW UGLY the performance of all older 8-VSB receivers are.

This would have been even more true if the public had ever been allowed
to chose between COFDM and 8-VSB receivers. Someday soon that will
happen and even 5th generation 8-VSB receivers will look ugly compared
to COFDM.

Bob Miller

John

In article ,
Bob Miller writes:
John S. Dyson wrote:

In article . net,
Bob Miller writes:

This was from a personal trial of the receiver supplied by LG and which
was accompanied by the two top engineers who personally developed the
5th generation receiver. They admitted to studying COFDM to make this
happen.


Firstly, I know enough about 8VSB vs. COFDM to understand that the
claim that 'studying COFDM' has almost nothing to do with the improvements
to the 8VSB reception. The difficulties with 8VSB were/are/always were
understood, and the solutions have little to do with COFDM techniques
per se.

Well you can take that up with the LG engineers.

Since we cannot trust your claims (due to history), please provide
reference.


This is not " NEW & IMPROVED" blah blah blah." This is the real deal. It
is a MAJOR transforming difference. It is truly plug and play.


Of course, that is to be expected.

It wasn't to be expected.

I know the math and engineering issues, you don't. I expected it.
You didn't expect it, because you just don't know.

John

Bob Miller wrote:
8-VSB is stuck in a relatively small niche market called full power DTV
in a few countries, the US, S. Korea, Mexico and Canada. Very little
development work will proceed on 8-VSB ...

Are you suggesting that North America is a niche market, and North America
won't have the resources or inclination to improve 8-VSB?

Thomas Gilg

Yes. North America will do little or nothing to improve 8-VSB. Virtually
all improvements will come from LG and a a few other companies. What I
am saying is that most development dollars will go into DVB-T COFDM
technology both here in the US and overseas.

Qualcomm alone is investing 800 million into a DVB broadcast TV network
in the US. Crown Castle will spend a like amount on their US DVB TV
network. Others will follow. Billions are and will be invested in COFDM
networks in the US and far more overseas. In the meantime what
investment do you envision in the US full power broadcast DTV 8-VSB
network or in further development of the technology?

http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?1003197
This article says that " and 2.5 million households making terrestrial
or other TV connections." digitally by the end of 2007 in the US. That
is the entire universe of 8-VSB unless you really think Canada or Mexico
are going to add a large number to that 2.5 million. Or maybe the
incredible S. Korea will make the 8-VSB universe something of consequence.

IN THE MEANTIME China is talking of having 300 million digital TV homes
by the Olympics in 2008. And they will probably fall back on DVB-T also
because making their own COFDM standard is taking too long.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servl...ry/Technology/

Now I have a contrary opinion to the one I express above. That with the
new 5ht gen receiver from LG 8-VSB might get a second chance and do very
well in the US. But this will depend on companies like USDTV being
successful with SD and ED based wireless cable type subscription services.

And even then in the end the COFDM ventures in the US mentioned above
will drive broadcasters to ask for a new COFDM like modulation in the
near future so that they to can compete with the new age broadcasters
who will be eating their lunch.

It has been 7 years now since 8-VSB was picked and we are told that by
the end of 2007 we will have maybe 2.5 million 8-VSB users. 8-VSB will
be 10 years old then or 1/5 the entire history of NTSC. Does anyone
think that the FCC or Congress is going to be paying any attention to
OTA broadcast DTV if that is the best that it can do? Powell was already
saying "what are we protecting" about OTA a couple of years ago. Expect
Congress to be asking for all TV spectrum back by then if something
doesn't happen soon. As I say it could with 5th gen receivers but it
will not be the broadcasters leading the way.

Bob Miller



news.cup.hp.com wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:

8-VSB is stuck in a relatively small niche market called full power DTV
in a few countries, the US, S. Korea, Mexico and Canada. Very little
development work will proceed on 8-VSB ...


Are you suggesting that North America is a niche market, and North America
won't have the resources or inclination to improve 8-VSB?

Thomas Gilg

On Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:27:35 PM UTC+7, dg wrote:
Is there any amps that really stand out among the rest when it comes to
quality signal? Of course, I have to draw the line somewhere, I don't
really want to spend more than $100 but it seems like there should be
something good in that range. ANY tips appreciated, even if you say the
good ones aren't that cheap.

THANKS!
--Dan

visit https://www.pfantenna.com

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:08:13 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:27:35 PM UTC+7, dg wrote:
Is there any amps that really stand out among the rest when it comes to
quality signal? Of course, I have to draw the line somewhere, I don't
really want to spend more than $100 but it seems like there should be
something good in that range. ANY tips appreciated, even if you say the
good ones aren't that cheap.

THANKS!
--Dan

visit https://www.pfantenna.com

Eight years after the original post, we can hope that dg has solved his
problem, or perhaps gone on to new problems :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Thursday, November 1st, 2012, at 10:40:09h -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

Eight years after the original post, we can hope that dg has solved his
problem, or perhaps gone on to new problems :-)

Sadly you failed to spot that this was a SPAM post.

The poster had merely used an eight year old question as a pretext to post
a link to an antenna manufacturing company in Bandung, Indonesia which
does *not* manufacture or sell TV antenna amplifiers.

Also their https site uses an invalid security certificate which
betrays any semblance of professional competence, so if you do want
to see what they produce just drop the s from the https URL.

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:11:47 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

On Thursday, November 1st, 2012, at 10:40:09h -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

Eight years after the original post, we can hope that dg has solved his
problem, or perhaps gone on to new problems :-)

Sadly you failed to spot that this was a SPAM post.

The poster had merely used an eight year old question as a pretext to post
a link to an antenna manufacturing company in Bandung, Indonesia which
does *not* manufacture or sell TV antenna amplifiers.

Also their https site uses an invalid security certificate which
betrays any semblance of professional competence, so if you do want
to see what they produce just drop the s from the https URL.

I plan to go to that site later.

Actually, I should have been more careful. I usually remember to clip
the link from such posts if I reply, and I apologize for my oversight.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)