en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Hall
Re: Hello??
Get an HD antenna. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| 
$35.00 and they suck |
said by en102  :Get an HD antenna. HD antennas dont exist. they're just jazzy looking rabbit ears and DONT WORK any better than a dollar store set of rabbit ears.
And with digital TV's its all or nothing
got iffy signal? no snowy but watchable picture. forcing digital is bad for those with only indoor antennas.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
| have you ever actually seen an hdtv signal OTA?
It just plays like a scratched dvd, or satelite during a light storm.
You'll see artifacts and some jumping, but it's not quite on or off like a light switch.
analog is such a waste of potential bandwidth. A signal that had some snow is FLAWLESS in digital. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| reply to dvd536
More misunderstanding.
You are correct that there is no HD antennas. Thats more of a marketing concept.
Rabbit ears are used for VHF reception. Digital stations in most areas of the US are broadcasting on UHF. For lowest cost this would be a 'bowtie' style antenna.
You will generally be able to pick up more analog signals on the edge of usable then digital. But the quality is usually so low I don't particularly agree that its better in anyway. Where as the digital signals that are received by a low cost antenna suited to the location (UHF/VHF/directional/multi-direction) are all good quality. So if really want an extra few channels that sort of resemble a picture with sound, then yes a digital upgrade is probably bad for you. |
|
jgelow
join:2005-05-28
Moreno Valley, CA | reply to Fluker
It depends on how far away you are from the broadcaster. I set my mother-inlaw's tv with a decent ota ant and the picture was dead on. I was jealous since I couldn't get a signal like that unless I pay for it through sat or cable. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to Fluker
said by Fluker :have you ever actually seen an hdtv signal OTA? It just plays like a scratched dvd, or satelite during a light storm. You'll see artifacts and some jumping, but it's not quite on or off like a light switch. analog is such a waste of potential bandwidth. A signal that had some snow is FLAWLESS in digital. Hmmm...My neighbor is a broadcast engineer and his testing makes him an advocate of Digital OTA vice digital over AT&T cable. But time will tell when we all have to shift.
And yes, digital is more efficient, but conversely is less fringe area friendly.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Fluker
said by Fluker :have you ever actually seen an hdtv signal OTA? It just plays like a scratched dvd, or satelite during a light storm. You'll see artifacts and some jumping, but it's not quite on or off like a light switch. OTA HDTV is in the uhf band - you just need a good uhf antenna. I got one for about $25, it's small and worked like a champ.
with regard to quality, I never had problems with picture quality except during storms. In fact, OTA HD looks better than satellite or cable because it's not compressed as much. |
|
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
1 edit | reply to RayW
I imagine that a comparison of quality over distance would look like this, with the top line representing digital vs analog on the bottom |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| said by Fluker :I imagine that a comparison of quality over distance would look like this, with the top line representing digital vs analog on the bottom You are almost right. Analog extends much further to the right past digital and the digital is a much sharper cutoff. Digital seems to be an all or nothing proposition and unlike FM and AM, if you miss any data you lose all of it.
We played around with the digital radios a year or two ago and found that they stay much clearer and seem to have more information carrying capability for a given bandwidth, however if you are working under marginal conditions, they stopped working where a FM radio could still make contact (granted we sometimes had to repeat several times it was so poor, but it at least worked).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
| reply to nasadude
Bad answer -
WHEN the analog is shutoff, the Digital TV range will be in the exact same frequencies as the current 2-51. Since 2-13 are VHF - that puts your statement inaccurate in the first place.
Another thing - due to some issues, channels 2-6 will generally be avoided by commercial TV broadcasters when possible. But channel 7-13 are quite desireable - lower power required than the UHF band, yet relatively free of the problems of 2-6. What channels your TV stations will be on after Feb 17, 2009 depends on several things, but there are sources for that out on the net. nasadude - you better do some checking.... |
|
BrotherJPW
join:2003-11-27
Glen Ellyn, IL
| reply to Fluker
It is more like this with the top line representing digital vs analog on the bottom, which extends further right |
|
Squidii
join:2004-06-30
Little Rock, AR
1 edit | reply to Fluker
... |
|
bobb cobb
@sbcglobal.net | reply to scooper
There are stations using vhf for their digital broadcast. WFAA (ABC)in Dallas is one of them. |
|
