Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OTA HD Signal Question

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:34:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

How does an HDTV signal differ from a regular signal in terms of the
distance and quality of the signal over that distance it can achieve? I
mean, I'm guessing the signal has a wider range with less power, is this
correct?

More about : ota signal question

Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:34:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

beernuts wrote:
>
> How does an HDTV signal differ from a regular signal in terms of the
> distance and quality of the signal over that distance it can achieve? I
> mean, I'm guessing the signal has a wider range with less power, is this
> correct?


Beer:

An HD Tv signal is different from an analog TV signal...

Analog has up & down power pulses... Digital is solid

level power with 'ones and zeroes'....

TV signal range is determined by:
Power Level, assigned channel number (Lower Nos better for
range),
Signal pattern (round or oval), and terrain & tower height.

Digital TV has Perfect Picture to Pixelation to Freeze to White
screen.
There is no snow nor Ghosts for HD Digital TV.

HD TV power transmission is expensive.. Some station go OFF from

Midnight to 6 AM to save $$.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:34:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <YJnDc.4334$Av3.1986@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> beernuts
<beerwithnutsNOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes:

>How does an HDTV signal differ from a regular signal in terms of the
>distance and quality of the signal over that distance it can achieve? I
>mean, I'm guessing the signal has a wider range with less power, is this
>correct?

Probably 99% of OTA HD signals are on the UHF channels (above 700 Mhz).
Propagation of these signals is absolutely line-of-sight and are seriously
affected by absorption through the trees in the Spring & Summer months.
UHF signals will reflect off large buildings and signboards, etc., causing
a phenomenon known as "multipath" where you are receiving multiple signals
of varying strength and phase from more than one direction. Multipath
signals cause really weird problems with received picture quality.

The advantage to UHF is that because of the very short wavelengths,
antennas are quite small and unobtrusive. The disadvantage is that due to
signal propagation difficulties, indoor antennas often do not work well
unless you're reasonably close to the transmitting site.

Many broadcast stations carrying HDTV programming also run their HDTV
transmitters with much lower power. They feel (rightly so) that a very
small percentage of viewers are watching in HDTV, hence there is no
incentive for them to waste energy pumping out a big signal that only a
handful of viewers are watching.

With HDTV there is no such thing as a marginal or weak signal. It's either
a 100% perfect picture or nothing. The inbetween is heavily pixelated and
the picture breaks up badly. There's really no middle ground. By contrast,
analog TV signals will begin to get snowy in weak signal conditions but
are usually still watchable.

With antenna height and transmitter power otherwise being equal, the old
analog signals will usually be viewable over a wider geographical area
than digital/HD. This is especially true when the analog is on VHF
channels (below 225 Mhz). The biggest difference you'll immediately notice
is that your digital pictures will be absolutely flawless out to the point
where they can no longer be received. Remember with digital it's either
all or nothing. An analog picture will be viewable even with a snowy
picture at a far greater distance.


--
Help Support Satellite Radio!
Your local radio broadcasters through their powerful NAB lobbyiests
are currently pushing a bill through Congress that if passed, would block
the Satellite Radio services from carrying local content (Traffic & Weather)
Please call your elected representatives at (202) 225-3121 and urge them to
Oppose HR 4026. We need your help, please.
<http://www.xmradio.com/grassroots/index.jsp&gt;
Related resources
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:34:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1a2sd01up4u28bsdgnrhalp45qs6nh81mg@4ax.com>,
MrFixit@msn.com says...
> In article <YJnDc.4334$Av3.1986@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> beernuts
> <beerwithnutsNOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >How does an HDTV signal differ from a regular signal in terms of the
> >distance and quality of the signal over that distance it can achieve? I
> >mean, I'm guessing the signal has a wider range with less power, is this
> >correct?
>

> Propagation of these signals is absolutely line-of-sight and are seriously
> affected by absorption through the trees in the Spring & Summer months.

Really? And how would you explain reception of OTA HD from San Diego
stations in the Los Angeles area on UHF channels? I guess I missed
the 50,000' mountain where those transmitters are located in order to
be line of sight from L.A. Also, amateur radio communications on 432
mhz between So. Calif and Hawaii are common enough not to be
remarkable. You might want to do a google search on "tropospheric
ducting".

Here's an example of TV reception at ca. 250 miles
http://www.qsl.net/zs6bte/Tropospheric%20Ducting.html
or see
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-propa4.htm
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:34:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b47b6c9ef7ba2bc98983d@news.mminternet.com> Chris Thomas
<cthomas@mminternet.com> writes:


>Really? And how would you explain reception of OTA HD from San Diego
>stations in the Los Angeles area on UHF channels? I guess I missed
>the 50,000' mountain where those transmitters are located in order to
>be line of sight from L.A. Also, amateur radio communications on 432
>mhz between So. Calif and Hawaii are common enough not to be
>remarkable. You might want to do a google search on "tropospheric
>ducting".

Tropo ducting, temperature inversions, propagation over water, etc are
aberrations which cannot be predicted or depended upon for reliable
reception. Normal propagation of these frequencies will be line of sight.
--
Help Support Satellite Radio!
Your local radio broadcasters through their powerful NAB lobbyiests
are currently pushing a bill through Congress that if passed, would block
the Satellite Radio services from carrying local content (Traffic & Weather)
Please call your elected representatives at (202) 225-3121 and urge them to
Oppose HR 4026. We need your help, please.
<http://www.xmradio.com/grassroots/index.jsp&gt;
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:34:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b47b6c9ef7ba2bc98983d@news.mminternet.com> Chris Thomas
<cthomas@mminternet.com> writes:


>......... Also, amateur radio communications on 432
>mhz between So. Calif and Hawaii are common enough not to be
>remarkable. You might want to do a google search on "tropospheric
>ducting".

20+ db gain stacked/phased arrays, low noise FET preamps and 1/2 & 3/4"
heliax are also uncommon in the consumer market for broadcast television
reception... Last time I checked TV tuner front-ends were also
comparatively stone deaf/insensitive when compared to communications
transceivers that are designed to deal with narrowband signals at -120 db
below 1 uv.

--
Help Support Satellite Radio!
Your local radio broadcasters through their powerful NAB lobbyiests
are currently pushing a bill through Congress that if passed, would block
the Satellite Radio services from carrying local content (Traffic & Weather)
Please call your elected representatives at (202) 225-3121 and urge them to
Oppose HR 4026. We need your help, please.
<http://www.xmradio.com/grassroots/index.jsp&gt;
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 4:09:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, beernuts wrote:
> I live approx 30 mi due
> west from NYC, just at the perimeter or cut-off for some of these HD
> stations according to a few websites I've seen. I've got a hill rising
> upwards in my backyard and homes and trees scattered about in front and
> on both sides, though I can get a clean line of site from my roof top
> for miles and miles

The only way to know for sure is to try. I suspect that you'll be fine.
Many people get signals from much further away.

One of the main reasons why 8-VSB was selected over COFDM is that 8-VSB
travels much further. If the US had selected COFDM, every little town
would have had to have its own TV tower repeating the signal.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 6:57:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <8tasd0d0s7pi2ok0jst2j4qbv6o4dmgafn@4ax.com>,
MrFixit@msn.com (Mr Fixit) writes:
> In article <MPG.1b47b6c9ef7ba2bc98983d@news.mminternet.com> Chris Thomas
> <cthomas@mminternet.com> writes:
>
>
>>......... Also, amateur radio communications on 432
>>mhz between So. Calif and Hawaii are common enough not to be
>>remarkable. You might want to do a google search on "tropospheric
>>ducting".
>
> 20+ db gain stacked/phased arrays, low noise FET preamps and 1/2 & 3/4"
> heliax are also uncommon in the consumer market for broadcast television
> reception... Last time I checked TV tuner front-ends were also
> comparatively stone deaf/insensitive when compared to communications
> transceivers that are designed to deal with narrowband signals at -120 db
> below 1 uv.
>
In my own successful experience in dealing with reception of OTA HDTV,
I have seen that the 'front end' issues and wide power levels incident
on the receiver front end are more troublesome (in general) than multipath.
When a neophyte tries to overcome the problems of RF propagation, and
he/she has heard the word 'multipath' with too much emphasis, it is very
easy for he/she to blame the troubles on 'multipath.' Frankly, it is
definitely possible that various unreliable propagation paths and
interference sources will coincedentally work to allow for successful
reception, but high power interfering sources or very unrealistic
expectations (40+miles with indoor reception) will decrease the liklihood
of perceived success. In my own case, I do successfully recieve a signal
35miles away on channel 32, indoor antenna, and ugly reception environment,
but that isn't something that should be relied upon.

After dealing with the poor receiver front-end issues (which includes
the higher power UHF NTSC transmitters and closer UHF mobile
communications), the US OTA scheme works very well indeed. The numerous
real world problems of RF propagation, power levels and poor front end
design aren't overcome by any transmission scheme.

John
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 7:00:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In <YJnDc.4334$Av3.1986@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> beernuts wrote:
> How does an HDTV signal differ from a regular signal in terms of the
> distance and quality of the signal over that distance it can achieve?
> I mean, I'm guessing the signal has a wider range with less power, is
> this correct?
>

Thanks for the info everyone. I'm really curious as to whether I'll be
getting jack squat where I'm at. Specifically, I live approx 30 mi due
west from NYC, just at the perimeter or cut-off for some of these HD
stations according to a few websites I've seen. I've got a hill rising
upwards in my backyard and homes and trees scattered about in front and
on both sides, though I can get a clean line of site from my roof top
for miles and miles (as long as I don't look in back where that hill is).
I'm very excited to try a good UHF attennae on the roof, maybe multi-
path, but whatever antennae.org recommends is what I'll probably go with.
I just hope the return policy on these antennas is good in case it
doesn't work.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 7:10:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mr Fixit wrote:

> In article <MPG.1b47b6c9ef7ba2bc98983d@news.mminternet.com> Chris Thomas
> <cthomas@mminternet.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>Really? And how would you explain reception of OTA HD from San Diego
>>stations in the Los Angeles area on UHF channels? I guess I missed
>>the 50,000' mountain where those transmitters are located in order to
>>be line of sight from L.A. Also, amateur radio communications on 432
>>mhz between So. Calif and Hawaii are common enough not to be
>>remarkable. You might want to do a google search on "tropospheric
>>ducting".
>
>
> Tropo ducting, temperature inversions, propagation over water, etc are
> aberrations which cannot be predicted or depended upon for reliable
> reception. Normal propagation of these frequencies will be line of sight.

Normal propagation for 8-VSB reception maybe but not integral to the
frequencies. COFDM works fine NON LINE of Sight in 700 MHz frequencies
for the reception of DTV signals.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 12:26:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <vUqDc.14915$w07.5960@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> Bob
Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:

>Mr Fixit wrote:

>> In article <MPG.1b47b6c9ef7ba2bc98983d@news.mminternet.com> Chris Thomas
>> <cthomas@mminternet.com> writes:

>>>Really? And how would you explain reception of OTA HD from San Diego
>>>stations in the Los Angeles area on UHF channels? I guess I missed
>>>the 50,000' mountain where those transmitters are located in order to
>>>be line of sight from L.A. Also, amateur radio communications on 432
>>>mhz between So. Calif and Hawaii are common enough not to be
>>>remarkable. You might want to do a google search on "tropospheric
>>>ducting".

>> Tropo ducting, temperature inversions, propagation over water, etc are
>> aberrations which cannot be predicted or depended upon for reliable
>> reception. Normal propagation of these frequencies will be line of sight.

>Normal propagation for 8-VSB reception maybe but not integral to the
>frequencies. COFDM works fine NON LINE of Sight in 700 MHz frequencies
>for the reception of DTV signals.

Perhaps true, but your point is moot because 8-VSB is the modulation
"standard" that was selected for the U.S. and that decision-making process
is over, period. Metaphorically speaking, that train has left the station
and the COFDM proponents are crying over spilled milk. We can debate the
pros and cons of one format over another from now through eternity, but
the long and short of it is that the decision has been made and we need to
move on.


--
Help Support Satellite Radio!
Your local radio broadcasters through their powerful NAB lobbyiests
are currently pushing a bill through Congress that if passed, would block
the Satellite Radio services from carrying local content (Traffic & Weather)
Please call your elected representatives at (202) 225-3121 and urge them to
Oppose HR 4026. We need your help, please.
<http://www.xmradio.com/grassroots/index.jsp&gt;
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 12:51:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <l1asd0pna95dqv0dnumd4ei17tiubbcgb2@4ax.com>,
MrFixit@msn.com says...
> In article <MPG.1b47b6c9ef7ba2bc98983d@news.mminternet.com> Chris Thomas
> <cthomas@mminternet.com> writes:
>
>
> >Really? And how would you explain reception of OTA HD from San Diego
> >stations in the Los Angeles area on UHF channels? I guess I missed
> >the 50,000' mountain where those transmitters are located in order to
> >be line of sight from L.A. Also, amateur radio communications on 432
> >mhz between So. Calif and Hawaii are common enough not to be
> >remarkable. You might want to do a google search on "tropospheric
> >ducting".
>
> Tropo ducting, temperature inversions, propagation over water, etc are
> aberrations which cannot be predicted or depended upon for reliable
> reception. Normal propagation of these frequencies will be line of sight.

Now your statement is correct. Your original post said that LOS was
the ONLY propagation mechanism extant at UHF, which is simply
incorrect. As I said, I often receive San Diego UHF in Los Angeles,
ca. 120 miles away on a standard TV with a Zenith Silver Sensor. I've
also talked to Hawaii from L.A. running 5w and using a 3 element
beam, but that's on 144 mhz, not UHF. Oh, and tropo CAN be
predicted, at least statistically, quite nicely:
http://www.iprimus.ca/~hepburnw/tropo.html

/Chris, AA6SQ
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 2:51:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>> One of the main reasons why 8-VSB was selected over COFDM is that 8-VSB
>> travels much further. If the US had selected COFDM, every little town
>> would have had to have its own TV tower repeating the signal.
> Simply not true. COFDM can be received at any location that 8-VSB can be
> received at using the same power levels in the real world and far many more
> when you factor in multipath which kills the reception of 8-VSB in many
> locations while enhancing the reception using COFDM.

Remember: whatever BOB says, exactly the opposite is true!

BOB will have you believe that throughout the USA, reception of 8-VSB is
being "killed" by multipath -- even though nothing of the sort has
actually been observed! When reception problems have been noted, the
cause has been readily identified as other, more basic problems. COFDM is
not going to magically make a picture appear when there's no UHF carrier.

COFDM's impulse noise problems are regularly reported in the UK and
Australia. They, like BOB, bet on the wrong horse.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 6:54:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Normal propagation for 8-VSB reception maybe but not integral to the
>frequencies. COFDM works fine NON LINE of Sight in 700 MHz frequencies
>for the reception of DTV signals.

Hey BOOBY, nobody cares or was asking about COFDM. People are interested in the
FCC standard here in AMERICA, not the Australian standard. You are pathetic
BOOBY.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 6:55:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Perhaps true, but your point is moot because 8-VSB is the modulation
>"standard" that was selected for the U.S. and that decision-making process
>is over, period. Metaphorically speaking, that train has left the station
>and the COFDM proponents are crying over spilled milk

VERY true, but BOOBY will never get it. He hasn't gotten it since day one. Poor
boy.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 6:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>One of the main reasons why 8-VSB was selected over COFDM is that 8-VSB
>travels much further. If the US had selected COFDM, every little town
>would have had to have its own TV tower repeating the signal.

Bingo! And just imagine the incredibly long delays that would have been
required as each repeater would have had to have been approved by the local
town. You need look no further than cellphone companies and the agonies these
guys go through just to get repeaters placed in towns all over. Hell, companies
are STILL trying to get cellphone tower approval on the North Shore of Long
Island.

Another gem by BOOBY.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 8:28:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, beernuts wrote:
>
>> I live approx 30 mi due
>> west from NYC, just at the perimeter or cut-off for some of these HD
>> stations according to a few websites I've seen. I've got a hill rising
>> upwards in my backyard and homes and trees scattered about in front and
>> on both sides, though I can get a clean line of site from my roof top
>> for miles and miles
>
>
> The only way to know for sure is to try. I suspect that you'll be fine.
> Many people get signals from much further away.
>
> One of the main reasons why 8-VSB was selected over COFDM is that 8-VSB
> travels much further. If the US had selected COFDM, every little town
> would have had to have its own TV tower repeating the signal.

Simply not true. COFDM can be received at any location that 8-VSB can be
received at using the same power levels in the real world and far many
more when you factor in multipath which kills the reception of 8-VSB in
many locations while enhancing the reception using COFDM.

As it is the US is already using REPEATERS for analog, 5000 or them are
used to cover over 30% of the land area of the US. The reality is that
COFDM DOES NOT NEED EVEN ONE of those repeaters because it can repeat ON
CHANNEL. The ability of COFDM to do SFNs and on channel repeating are
FEATURES of COFDM that 8-VSB proponents are trying DESPERATELY to copy.

But without any of these FEATURES and using COFDM just like 8-VSB HAS TO
BE USED with a single stick antenna and MASSIVE power COFDM will do
better than 8-VSB in ALL ASPECTS including the FAR FIELD.

After the MSTV test where a transmitter monitor was used fraudulently as
a COFDM receiver, Sinclair went to seven FAR FIELD sites in which the
testers said COFDM had failed and where in SIX cases 8-VSB had worked
(failed in one). Sinclair ADDED the FRONT END filters that ANY receiver
would need and which the 8-VSB receivers indeed had to the TRANSMITTER
MONITOR making it into a jury rigged COFDM receiver and VIOLA!!! COFDM
now EASILY received ant all SEVEN sites including the one that 8-VSB had
failed at.

At all other test done in the world this was not an issue since they
were done in the naked light of day instead of in secret and they
welcomed all COFDM receivers into the testing.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 8:28:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1BCDc.2826$lh4.1236@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Bob
Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:


>Simply not true. COFDM can be received at any location that 8-VSB can be
>received at using the same power levels in the real world and far many
>more when you factor in multipath which kills the reception of 8-VSB in
>many locations while enhancing the reception using COFDM.

snip..

Bob, I've got to agree at this point with one of the other posters. This
torch you seem to be carrying for COFDM doesn't make so much as a fart in
a whirlwind of difference, because whether -YOU- agree or disagree, the
simple fact is that the standard has been decided and I'm sorry to have to
inform you of this, but it didn't go your way. The decision has been made
that the United States will use 8-VSB, period, paragraph, form-feed!

It doesn't matter how many more times you want to recount the ballots, or
beat your drum, the decision was made and it's over. For Chrissakes and
for the betterment of everyone in this discussion group, please let it go.


--
CHIROPRACTOR: (noun). A person with a 4-yr college degree, but no medical
degree, no medical training, no medical license, no medical hospital
staff priviledges and who has not even received training as a paramedic,
but who dare call themselves "Doctor" while hawking non-prescription
strength vitamins, potions, lotions and herbal remedies, while duping a
naive and trusting public into believing that if s/he cannot cure you,
likely no one can.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 11:05:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1BCDc.2826$lh4.1236
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> After the MSTV test where a transmitter monitor was used fraudulently as
> a COFDM receiver, Sinclair went to seven FAR FIELD sites in which the
> testers said COFDM had failed and where in SIX cases 8-VSB had worked
> (failed in one). Sinclair ADDED the FRONT END filters that ANY receiver
> would need and which the 8-VSB receivers indeed had to the TRANSMITTER
> MONITOR making it into a jury rigged COFDM receiver and VIOLA!!! COFDM
> now EASILY received ant all SEVEN sites including the one that 8-VSB had
> failed at.
>

Bob, you keep citing this "test" over and over, but if I go to the MSTV
website, the only thing I can find are very positive reports and articles
about 8-VSB with no mention of COFDM at all. And hasn't Sinclair stopped
all their complaining about 8-VSB?

Hmmm... Doesn't that indicate that regardless of some ancient test results,
_the_ US DTV modulation standard works now? And doesn't that agree with
most of the first-hand results reported here?

And we really don't care about any years-old test in Mark Schubin's (sp?)
apartment or your tests with a "custom YAGI" antenna.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 11:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Shoaf wrote:

>
> And we really don't care about any years-old test in Mark Schubin's (sp?)
> apartment ...
>

Marc Schubin does receive ATSC in his apartment. He reported that the
station is in Philadelphia.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 11:20:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mr Fixit wrote:

> In article <YJnDc.4334$Av3.1986@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> beernuts
> <beerwithnutsNOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>How does an HDTV signal differ from a regular signal in terms of the
>>distance and quality of the signal over that distance it can achieve? I
>>mean, I'm guessing the signal has a wider range with less power, is this
>>correct?
>
>
> Probably 99% of OTA HD signals are on the UHF channels (above 700 Mhz).
> Propagation of these signals is absolutely line-of-sight and are seriously
> affected by absorption through the trees in the Spring & Summer months.
>

Don't overlook diffraction. Diffraction may be the dominate mode for
reception when the line of sight path is blocked. I did a test from a
location 20 miles due west of NYC where the line of sight path was
blocked by two 600 foot granite hills and was able to achieve perfect
digital reception. The broadcaster was WCBS-DT channel 56 (722 to 728
mhz) transmitted from the ESB.
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 1:55:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>It doesn't matter how many more times you want to recount the ballots, or
>beat your drum, the decision was made and it's over. For Chrissakes and
>for the betterment of everyone in this discussion group, please let it go.

I'm telling you there is something truly wrong with BOB. I do not mean that
facetiously. He was not dealt a full 52.
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 2:36:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> Normal propagation for 8-VSB reception maybe but not integral to the
> frequencies. COFDM works fine NON LINE of Sight in 700 MHz frequencies
> for the reception of DTV signals.

Bob Miller you are an idiot! The subject is OTA HD, not just dtv.
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 4:13:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, John S. Dyson wrote:
> Even though I agree with you, I TRULY wish that we could be kinder
> to Bob.

Why?

He doesn't deserve it; and (as you pointed out!) doing so inevitably
implies trust and/or endorsement of Bob's claims.

For better or worse, crackpots like Bob are to found in every technical
forum, and cause immense damage wherever/whenever they show up.

> Side comment, but on similar topic: I have seen a progressive
> degradation in 'integrity' from the political advocates and even
> in the technical fields. I wonder if this is a manifestation of
> a decay in our civilization, or has this extreme mishonesty always
> existed?

I contend that this is just your own maturity. That is, as we mature we
see the world less with a child's unquestioning trust, and become more
skeptical. The danger is in allow skepticism (a healthy trait) to become
cynicism (a less-healthy trait).

In any case, none of this is new. The nastiness in recent US elections is
nothing compared to those of the 19th century. I personally remember
vicious technical arguments of 25+ years ago in the network community on
points of discussion that today seem quaint or even silly.

> On the other hand, there
> are individuals who totally ignore 'ethics' and/or 'legality' because
> of their own personal rationalization.

There is a word for such individuals -- criminals -- and unfortunately
they are quite common. It's unrealistic (and somewhat immature) to expect
otherwise.

The notion that bad behavior is caused by unfortunate circumstances, and
not by a bad person, is fundamentally insulting to everybody who suffers
under the same misfortune and does not behave badly. We hear the
relentless drumbeat that "poverty causes crime [or terrorism]", yet deep
inside we acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of impoverished
people are neither criminals nor terrorists. We often forget the other
side of the coin: the overwhelming majority of criminals (and terrorists)
are not (and were never) impoverished. "Les Miserables" was propaganda,
not reality.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 6:32:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <20040627175518.05710.00000769@mb-m14.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) writes:
>>It doesn't matter how many more times you want to recount the ballots, or
>>beat your drum, the decision was made and it's over. For Chrissakes and
>>for the betterment of everyone in this discussion group, please let it go.
>
> I'm telling you there is something truly wrong with BOB. I do not mean that
> facetiously. He was not dealt a full 52.
>
Even though I agree with you, I TRULY wish that we could be kinder
to Bob. The problem with being kind to Bob is that it is important
to avoid any implication of trust or endorsement about what Bob
claims.

I'd really like to be kinder to Bob, but it is VERY VERY sad that
because it could hurt unsuspecting 'newbies' when some of the more
ourtrageous claims aren't challenged, it is necessary to be
superficially unkind.

I give myself leave to be superficially unkind when it is done
to protect unsuspecting newbies. This is VERY VERY different from
political discussion, where intensity is normally expected. This
'Bob' issue is perhaps the worst technical dysinformation (the
anti-8VSB, aggressive pro-COFDM attitude) that I have seen. Even
my heated discussions with the GPL crowd and Linus himself (and
the intrinsic dysinformation professed by the GPL advocates) isn't as
blatent as Bob' own dysinformation.

Side comment, but on similar topic: I have seen a progressive
degradation in 'integrity' from the political advocates and even
in the technical fields. I wonder if this is a manifestation of
a decay in our civilization, or has this extreme mishonesty always
existed? If I was in Bob's position (or in some of the hate
filled political advocacy positions), I'd be embarassed and even
have a resulting self-hatred. Looking at Global Crossing, Enron,
and even the apparent mismanagement of the resources of continued
(somewhat) successful large corporations, it seems like there
is a cultural decay.

In my own case, (not meant to be confessional, but to give an
example), I sometimes have difficulties in recognizing legal/ethics
in certain aspects of intellectual property. When working professionally,
I tend to default to being extremely conservative, because some aspects
of 'ethics' or 'legality' can be subtile. On the other hand, there
are individuals who totally ignore 'ethics' and/or 'legality' because
of their own personal rationalization. I admit that not all 'laws'
are fair, but the large scale violation of laws, licenses and other
such behavior is worrisome.

It saddens me that someone who does appear to be 'intelligent' like
Bob has such a character flaw, and is willing to act the way that
he does.

Some of his claims are true at a 'micro level', but part of the skill of
being a good liar is to be able to mix the truth and lies so that the
deception is maximally effective.

Stuff like the COFDM thing, disregard for other people's property, and
convienient misunderstandings between intentional prevarication and
honest, but erroneous claims, all tends to prove the total lack of
sensitivity and loss of a compass about ethics in current human
society.

John
June 28, 2004 10:02:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1a2sd01up4u28bsdgnrhalp45qs6nh81mg@4ax.com> MrFixit@msn.com (Mr Fixit) writes:
>In article <YJnDc.4334$Av3.1986@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> beernuts
><beerwithnutsNOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>How does an HDTV signal differ from a regular signal in terms of the
>>distance and quality of the signal over that distance it can achieve? I
>>mean, I'm guessing the signal has a wider range with less power, is this
>>correct?
>
>Probably 99% of OTA HD signals are on the UHF channels (above 700 Mhz).


700 MHz lands in channel 52, so only the channels 52 and up have any part
above 700 MHz.

UHF TV starts at 470 MHz.

As I recall, most of the digital channels are below channel 52, and are
therefore below 700 MHz.


>Propagation of these signals is absolutely line-of-sight and are seriously
>affected by absorption through the trees in the Spring & Summer months.

Well, no. There is a factor in the line of sight equation to account for
a small amount of bending beyond line of sight.


>With antenna height and transmitter power otherwise being equal, the old
>analog signals will usually be viewable over a wider geographical area
>than digital/HD. This is especially true when the analog is on VHF
>channels (below 225 Mhz). The biggest difference you'll immediately notice
>is that your digital pictures will be absolutely flawless out to the point
>where they can no longer be received. Remember with digital it's either
>all or nothing. An analog picture will be viewable even with a snowy
>picture at a far greater distance.

There are a number of reports that digital on the same channel with the
same power will have greater range. This is, of course, difficult to really
quantify, since some folks will watch analog signals that others consider
totally useless.

Comparing digital on UHF with analog on VHF is not a fair range comparison.


Alan
!