Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is this a good scenario to use OTA for HDTV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 3:12:04 AM

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

I live in the Philadelphia region and I have 10 local channels broadcasting
in HD, all on UHF. All are less than 3 miles away, and are all between 352
to 358 degrees.

Is it a no brainer that an indoor UHF HD antenna will be absolutely no
problem to pick these stations up? I live in the burbs, so there are no
tall skyscrapers around. Anyone have a suggestion for an antenna?

Is it possible to hook up both an OTA antenna AND the coax cable input into
the HDTV setup, so you can watch cable, normally, and the HD channels by
perhaps hitting an input button?

Thanks much!!

More about : good scenario ota hdtv

Anonymous
August 20, 2004 3:55:58 AM

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

Verizon User wrote:
> I live in the Philadelphia region and I have 10 local channels broadcasting
> in HD, all on UHF. All are less than 3 miles away, and are all between 352
> to 358 degrees.
>
> Is it a no brainer that an indoor UHF HD antenna will be absolutely no
> problem to pick these stations up? I live in the burbs, so there are no
> tall skyscrapers around. Anyone have a suggestion for an antenna?
>
> Is it possible to hook up both an OTA antenna AND the coax cable input into
> the HDTV setup, so you can watch cable, normally, and the HD channels by
> perhaps hitting an input button?
>
> Thanks much!!
>
>
>
Maybe you will have no problem but early reports on Phily close in the
broadcast towers had lots of problems.

One sure solution is to wait a few months for the fifth generation LG or
Hisense receivers to show up. I guarantee you will have no problem with
a simple loop $2 antenna.
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 12:58:11 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Verizon User wrote:
>
>> I live in the Philadelphia region and I have 10 local channels
>> broadcasting
>> in HD, all on UHF. All are less than 3 miles away, and are all
>> between 352
>> to 358 degrees.
>>
>> Is it a no brainer that an indoor UHF HD antenna will be absolutely no
>> problem to pick these stations up? I live in the burbs, so there are no
>> tall skyscrapers around. Anyone have a suggestion for an antenna?
>>
>> Is it possible to hook up both an OTA antenna AND the coax cable input
>> into
>> the HDTV setup, so you can watch cable, normally, and the HD channels by
>> perhaps hitting an input button?
>>
>> Thanks much!!
>>
>>
>>
> Maybe you will have no problem but early reports on Phily close in the
> broadcast towers had lots of problems.
>
> One sure solution is to wait a few months for the fifth generation LG or
> Hisense receivers to show up. I guarantee you will have no problem with
> a simple loop $2 antenna.


Bob: Can you please provide these "reports" so I can find out about
these "problems"? Thanks!
Related resources
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 7:28:07 PM

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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Verizon User wrote:
>>
>>> I live in the Philadelphia region and I have 10 local channels
>>> broadcasting
>>> in HD, all on UHF. All are less than 3 miles away, and are all
>>> between 352
>>> to 358 degrees.
>>>
>>> Is it a no brainer that an indoor UHF HD antenna will be absolutely no
>>> problem to pick these stations up? I live in the burbs, so there are no
>>> tall skyscrapers around. Anyone have a suggestion for an antenna?
>>>
>>> Is it possible to hook up both an OTA antenna AND the coax cable
>>> input into
>>> the HDTV setup, so you can watch cable, normally, and the HD channels by
>>> perhaps hitting an input button?
>>>
>>> Thanks much!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe you will have no problem but early reports on Phily close in the
>> broadcast towers had lots of problems.
>>
>> One sure solution is to wait a few months for the fifth generation LG
>> or Hisense receivers to show up. I guarantee you will have no problem
>> with a simple loop $2 antenna.
>
>
>
> Bob: Can you please provide these "reports" so I can find out about
> these "problems"? Thanks!

Do some Googling. I have personal reports of multipath chaos around
Philly. And there was the infamous CBS "fraud" test conducted there in
which CBS didn't test a single site within 15 miles of the city I was
told. Here is the BS report below and a "comment" from Mario the
"inside" reporter below that. The third URL is more in line with reality
in Philidelphia.

Of course all these difficulties go away if you simply wait for the
FIRST real 8-VSB receiver to arrive on the market in a few months. The
5th generation receiver from LG is the first one that works reasonably
well. Reasonably well means that with a simple loop antenna you will be
able to receive all stations in your coverage area with little or no
playing with the $2 indoor loop antenna. This receiver can be made to
fail easily with both static and dynamic multipath but the key word here
is that you have to try to make it fail. With all current and older
receivers you had to try to make it work.

It is far far inferior to 1998 COFDM tech but what can you do when your
government has to finance its electioneering with foreign special
interest money.

The take on this fiasco by Washington politicos is in the order of
millions, the cost to US citizens will be in the many billions not
counting the waste of time the last 5 years has been for the digital
transition.

http://web-star.com/hdtv/8vsbcbstst.html

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/f-...
"My explication (or should I say exegesis?) of the CBS KYW-DT test
report last lunar cycle wasn't meant to praise or put down either
modulation technique. I was merely pointing' out that what a buncha
folks were callin' CBS's 99% successful DTV reception rate in
Philadelphia was neither 99% successful nor in Philadelphia (but it was
CBS, and it was DTV)."

http://www.transmitter.com/curr2000/curr000103.html
" Tests were conducted at twelve sites. At one of the sites, no DTV
statiosn were received. At the other eleven sites, all four stations
were seen at one, three stations were receivable at two of the sites,
two of the stations at seven of the sites and one at all eleven sites.
In this market, KYW was clearly the leader - receivable in all eleven
sites. WPVI was received reliably at seven sites. WCAU could be reliably
received at only one of the sites. WTXF was somewhat better, being
received at three of the sites. These results are not encouraging. Even
if the two stations that performed the worst are dropped, the remaining
two were receivable at only 64 percent of the sites where any station
could be received. This drops to less than 60 percent if all the test
sites are consider. The test report conclused:

"The field test data clearly reveals that multipath in the real world is
much more complicated than what we are able to generate in the lab with
a 6-ray dynamic ghost simulator. The field tests also revealed that the
spectrum analyzer display is not always a good indication of the
severity of a multipath channel. We often observed channels which had a
"reasonable" looking spectrum and yet were unreceivable, while others
had deep notches at particular frequencies and were received without
difficulty."

"It was revealing, though unfortunate, to find that in many sites (or
antenna positions at a site), the limiting factor preventing reception
was multipath, not received signal power.""
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 7:28:08 PM

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

> It is far far inferior to 1998 COFDM tech but what can you do when your
> government has to finance its electioneering with foreign special
> interest money.
>

Oh boy, here we go.

I asked for specific reports that you referenced regarding the Philly
reception problems. I did not need another conspiracy theory answer
concerning COFDM in Zimbabwe or something.

To quote your original reply: "Maybe you will have no problem but
early reports on Phily close in the broadcast towers had lots of
problems". So, where, exactly, are these reports of which you speak?

I'm looking forward to reading them!

Thanks,
-Mike
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 12:21:56 AM

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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>> It is far far inferior to 1998 COFDM tech but what can you do when
>> your government has to finance its electioneering with foreign special
>> interest money.
>>
>
> Oh boy, here we go.
>
> I asked for specific reports that you referenced regarding the Philly
> reception problems. I did not need another conspiracy theory answer
> concerning COFDM in Zimbabwe or something.

All URLs below refer to Philadelphia.

The first URL below that I repost from my first post is a "specific
report" or do you have a problem with it? They were using a 100 to 750
kW ERP power level. With COFDM we would have had perfect reception at
all sites from all stations using 10 kW or less. Again any attempt using
current 8-VSB receivers is a waste of time and money when a few months
from now a decent receiver will be available. As far as conspiracy
theories Washington is far ahead of that. They are pretty upfront about
the current situation. You want something you pay for it and to hell
with the public. Its pretty straight foward.

And you don't have to go to Zimbabwe for COFDM. It is used by all
civilized nations with the exeption of Canada and S. Korea. But S. Korea
has now allowed the use of COFDM for mobile.

http://www.transmitter.com/curr2000/curr000103.html

"The Philadelphia Pennsylvania tests looked at four stations: KYW (CBS)
with 750 kW ERP on channel 26, WPVI (ABC) with 500 kW ERP on channel 64,
WCAU (NBC) with 100 kW ERP on channel 67 and WTXF (Fox) with an
unspecified ERP on channel 42. The WTXF CP shows an authorized ERP of
305 kW. The FCC engineering database did not provide antenna data for
any of these stations. Tests were conducted at twelve sites. At one of
the sites, no DTV statiosn were received. At the other eleven sites, all
four stations were seen at one, three stations were receivable at two of
the sites, two of the stations at seven of the sites and one at all
eleven sites. In this market, KYW was clearly the leader - receivable in
all eleven sites. WPVI was received reliably at seven sites. WCAU could
be reliably received at only one of the sites. WTXF was somewhat better,
being received at three of the sites. These results are not encouraging.
Even if the two stations that performed the worst are dropped, the
remaining two were receivable at only 64 percent of the sites where any
station could be received. This drops to less than 60 percent if all the
test sites are consider. The test report conclused:

"The field test data clearly reveals that multipath in the real world is
much more complicated than what we are able to generate in the lab with
a 6-ray dynamic ghost simulator. The field tests also revealed that the
spectrum analyzer display is not always a good indication of the
severity of a multipath channel. We often observed channels which had a
"reasonable" looking spectrum and yet were unreceivable, while others
had deep notches at particular frequencies and were received without
difficulty."

"It was revealing, though unfortunate, to find that in many sites (or
antenna positions at a site), the limiting factor preventing reception
was multipath, not received signal power.""


Here is another:
http://www.tech-notes.tv/Archive/tech_notes_045.htm

" The field tests conducted by NxtWave (which I did NOT personally see)
were conducted under conditions similar to those used in the
non-Sinclair testing: van, 30-foot mast, log-periodic directional
antenna on a rotator. The big difference is that there was no MPEG
decoder. They tested based on "eye" (line) pattern. I believe that to be
valid methodology (I also believe Sinclair used valid methodology in its
tests -- in both cases one could argue about the equipment used and
sites selected). You may wish to take this entire section with a grain
of salt because it's secondhand, but I think there's a very important
point at the end that is quasi-first hand. I'll concentrate on just the
Philadelphia field tests. There were seven sites: Sites 1-4 were NOT in
center-city locations; sites 5-7 were. Sites 1-4 were said to be
successful on all four Philadelphia DTV stations. That means that, with
the antenna rotated for maximum signal strength, a clear eight-line
pattern was demodulated. Sites 5-7, the inner-city sites, were NOT
successful on all stations. It is said that CBS was okay at all sites,
ABC less so, and NBC and Fox not receivable. That's in approximate
descending order of transmitting-antenna height and effective radiated
power.

Now comes the quasi-first-hand stuff: NxtWave personnel described what
they called a "tunneling" effect at the bad sites, where a signal
bounces back and forth between buildings, creating a very long ghost.

We discussed this at length and eventually got around to what it looked
like on a spectrum analyzer. We were at the demo setup at the time and
had a spectrum analyzer in front of us so we could point and gesture and
say things like, "It looked like that part, but maybe 10 dB
peak-to-peak." As a result, we came to the conclusion that what the
NxtWave personnel had seen at the inner-city sites where some DTV
stations could not be received very closely matched what I had seen once
before. The place I had seen it was at the high-rise, Inner Harbor
apartment site at the Sinclair tests in Baltimore. Take this for what
it is worth. What is odd about it is that the NxtWave personnel believe
that problem to be caused by a very lengthy echo, which would supposedly
cause a problem for COFDM if it exceeded the guard-interval length. Yet,
there was clearly perfect and stable COFDM reception in the apartment;
it was the 8-VSB receivers that failed. I was there. The Sinclair
personnel couldn't understand why the 8-VSB had failed there, since
there were no huge nulls visible on the analyzer."

Another
http://www.widescreenreview.com/todaynews/crippscomm.ht...

"Here is the issue that won’t go away: A question over the utility of
8-VSB modulation in dynamic multipath environments has been raised, and
the notion of substituting COFDM modulation has been proposed. Further
tests to compare 8-VSB with COFDM have been organized in Boston for
May/June of this year. The question is: Is this meaningful, or just "so
what?" Nat Ostroff, Vice President of Sinclair Broadcast Group, ran a
somewhat informal test of in-home indoor reception of 8-VSB looking for
signals from his Philadelphia transmitter. The results were "surprising"
to him and definitely not to his liking. The "tests" were conducted to
see if the coverage with 8-VSB in the inner city, where dynamic
multipath is greatest, was equivalent to their existing NTSC coverage.
This was done close in to their transmitter (within ten miles) in seven
homes. The signal was lost to all but the most carefully managed antenna
placements. The conclusion drawn by Ostroff was that there simply had to
be a better way to get those terrestrial signals to the H/DTV receivers
in these ghost-haunted regions. If nothing changes, 8-VSB is not
satisfactory for their business. Something has to be done before he is
ready to commit to a $100 million DTV investment. He does not rely upon
consumer adaptations or their extra efforts to secure DTV signals, and
worries further that multiple DTV receivers in the home would require
multiple solutions--like many rotating roof antennas."

Another

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/On-RF/f_dl_rf_tech...
At "12 outdoor sites in Philadelphia" (That means NO INDOOR SITES AT
ALL) "In Philadelphia, the failure percentages were 26.3 for the Linx
prototype and 75 percent for both receivers A and B."

The failure rate for indoor reception in Philadelphia would have been
higher. Read that in other cities in the test they did do indoor test.
They didn't even try in Philadelphia. The numbers would have been in the
56% to 87% range for failure.

I would say that the failure rate for the new 5th generation receiver
will be in the 3% or less range INDOOR not the 26.3 to 75% range
Philadelphia had above OUTDOOR.

As I said Philadelphia had poor reception data especially near the
transmitters.

BTW COFDM would be in the sub .1% failure rate for this same test.

>
> To quote your original reply: "Maybe you will have no problem but early
> reports on Phily close in the broadcast towers had lots of problems".
> So, where, exactly, are these reports of which you speak?
>
> I'm looking forward to reading them!

If you want to read more you will have to find them yourself. Google is
easy and there are lots more.
>
> Thanks,
> -Mike
August 21, 2004 6:27:24 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote>
> All URLs below refer to Philadelphia.

Here's another important URL for Bob:

http://members.aol.com/west24th/
!