Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best antenna amp for UHF HDTV reception?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:27:35 AM

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

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
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:27:36 AM

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

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> 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.

Channel Master makes a perfectly acceptable antenna amp. But the
*best* amp is none at all. Get a better antenna, mount it higher,
and use 300 ohm twinlead properly mounted all the way to the receiver.

Also, an amp will do nothing for problems cause by multi-path. That
must be solved by a better antenna.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 1:37:47 PM

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

"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:riuli0t56234d22kh07m9db0ttjle09mah@4ax.com...
> "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> 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.
>
> Channel Master makes a perfectly acceptable antenna amp. But the
> *best* amp is none at all. Get a better antenna, mount it higher,
> and use 300 ohm twinlead properly mounted all the way to the receiver.
>
> Also, an amp will do nothing for problems cause by multi-path. That
> must be solved by a better antenna.
>
>

1) No amp is better. If you must, because of long wire runs, have an amp
then get one that has a HIGH immunity to overdrive. Typically they will
have less gain.
2) Your location and the problems associated with it will determine the type
of antenna you need.
3) Higher is almost always better (unless you have distant stations on the
same frequencys. A problem that we have in many urban areas untill analog
stations are eliminated)
4) If you have an older ATSC receiver then you are more sensitive to
"issues"
5) 300 Ohm cable has less loss to UHF unless it gets wet or dirty. Shielded
300 ohm is immune to water and dirt but you now have about the same loss as
75 ohm coax. Still, impedance is a better match. One of the reasons to
install an antenna amp is that you get a better impedance match when using
75 ohm coax.

If you have multiple antennas then you may need to trap out a channel that
is causing multipath problems or you may need to attenuate a strong channel
if you are using an antenna amp. 1/2 wave stub traps are easy to make and
use. See: http://www.csgnetwork.com/freqwavelengthcalc.html and
http://www.tinlee.com/ to get the freq then the 1/2 wave length. A Half
wave stub will trap (usually 20 db down) any freq selected. Just attach a
wire of slightly longer length (than the 1/2 wavelength) in the middle of a
short piece of coax. 1/4 inch at a time advance up the stub with wire
cutters pressing firmly into the stub (not enough to cut but enough to
pinch) When the channel you want to attenuate gets snowy (if it's an analog
channel other wise you will need a signal strength meter) back off 1/4 inch
so you have enough lead to short and short the wire ground to center
conductor.

Stub traps work well for one channel but adding several to a line causes too
much loss and they have harmonic loss that may cause problems with higher
channels.

You can buy better traps from: http://www.tinlee.com/ for $47 per trap.
They have only 1 db loss 2 channels away from the selected channel.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 4:12:02 PM

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

Not trying to highjack the thread but have a related question.

I already have an amp in my system. A # AP 8275 (whatever that is). I know
it has part of it near the antenna and another piece (that plugs into the
wall) near my 811receiver . Does just unplugging it revert the antenna back
to being the same as if it didn't have an amp or do you have to remove both
parts?

Why I ask is currently I only get 2 digital stations (both PBS) and they
both get about 80% signal when I rotate the antenna to their respective
directions. They lock fine and provide a great HD picture. I seem to get
about the same signal readings whether the base part of the amp is plugged
in or not. Its only rotating the antenna that effects the signal strength.

I also have a few other stations that indicate some signal activity but not
enough to "lock". They bounce around from 0 to 49% with occasional brief
spikes to 56% but will not lock. I suspect that these stations are either
too far away or currently at too low a power. I really don't want to go up
on the roof but would if removing the upper part of the amp will help with
those stations.

Thanks for your help,
WaltinVt

"Jeff Rigby" <jeffg212@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:x_CdnSrZAceQ2LbcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>
> "Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
> news:riuli0t56234d22kh07m9db0ttjle09mah@4ax.com...
> > "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> 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.
> >
> > Channel Master makes a perfectly acceptable antenna amp. But the
> > *best* amp is none at all. Get a better antenna, mount it higher,
> > and use 300 ohm twinlead properly mounted all the way to the receiver.
> >
> > Also, an amp will do nothing for problems cause by multi-path. That
> > must be solved by a better antenna.
> >
> >
>
> 1) No amp is better. If you must, because of long wire runs, have an amp
> then get one that has a HIGH immunity to overdrive. Typically they will
> have less gain.
> 2) Your location and the problems associated with it will determine the
type
> of antenna you need.
> 3) Higher is almost always better (unless you have distant stations on the
> same frequencys. A problem that we have in many urban areas untill analog
> stations are eliminated)
> 4) If you have an older ATSC receiver then you are more sensitive to
> "issues"
> 5) 300 Ohm cable has less loss to UHF unless it gets wet or dirty.
Shielded
> 300 ohm is immune to water and dirt but you now have about the same loss
as
> 75 ohm coax. Still, impedance is a better match. One of the reasons to
> install an antenna amp is that you get a better impedance match when using
> 75 ohm coax.
>
> If you have multiple antennas then you may need to trap out a channel that
> is causing multipath problems or you may need to attenuate a strong
channel
> if you are using an antenna amp. 1/2 wave stub traps are easy to make and
> use. See: http://www.csgnetwork.com/freqwavelengthcalc.html and
> http://www.tinlee.com/ to get the freq then the 1/2 wave length. A Half
> wave stub will trap (usually 20 db down) any freq selected. Just attach a
> wire of slightly longer length (than the 1/2 wavelength) in the middle of
a
> short piece of coax. 1/4 inch at a time advance up the stub with wire
> cutters pressing firmly into the stub (not enough to cut but enough to
> pinch) When the channel you want to attenuate gets snowy (if it's an
analog
> channel other wise you will need a signal strength meter) back off 1/4
inch
> so you have enough lead to short and short the wire ground to center
> conductor.
>
> Stub traps work well for one channel but adding several to a line causes
too
> much loss and they have harmonic loss that may cause problems with higher
> channels.
>
> You can buy better traps from: http://www.tinlee.com/ for $47 per trap.
> They have only 1 db loss 2 channels away from the selected channel.
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:36:06 PM

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

Guy Gordon wrote:

> "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> 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.
>
>
> Channel Master makes a perfectly acceptable antenna amp. But the
> *best* amp is none at all. Get a better antenna, mount it higher,
> and use 300 ohm twinlead properly mounted all the way to the receiver.
>
> Also, an amp will do nothing for problems cause by multi-path. That
> must be solved by a better antenna.
>
>
Better yet a better receiver! Wait for 5th generation. Simple loop
antenna scotch taped to a bedroom window matched rooftop antenna with
rotor at 22 miles. And for the yagi to match the $2 loop we had to use
the rotor.

A higher percentage of problems people are having with reception have to
do with multipath than most people realize. When 5th gen receivers
become common place it will become obvious. Since we have been dealing
with 8-VSB and COFDM for the last 5 years it has been obvious to us all
along.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:36:07 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> A higher percentage of problems people are having with reception have to
> do with multipath than most people realize. When 5th gen receivers
> become common place it will become obvious. Since we have been dealing
> with 8-VSB and COFDM for the last 5 years it has been obvious to us all
> along.

What exactly is a "5th gen receiver?" Cost? Availability?

Ed
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:47:09 PM

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

C. E. White wrote:

>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>A higher percentage of problems people are having with reception have to
>>do with multipath than most people realize. When 5th gen receivers
>>become common place it will become obvious. Since we have been dealing
>>with 8-VSB and COFDM for the last 5 years it has been obvious to us all
>>along.
>
>
> What exactly is a "5th gen receiver?" Cost? Availability?
>
> Ed

5th generation receiver is one using the latest chip set from LG
Industries (Zenith). They will be in WalMart as Hisense USDTV receivers
in the fourth quarter and under LG or Zenith brand in first quarter.

This is the first decent 8-VSB receiver ever offered. The designers
studied COFDM. This is a plug and play receiver though only 10% as good
as any COFDM receiver sold in the rest of the world.

Bottom line, it works, don't buy anything else.
August 25, 2004 8:50:09 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xaLWc.32320$9Y6.4770@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
> >
> > Bob Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> >>A higher percentage of problems people are having with reception have to
> >>do with multipath than most people realize. When 5th gen receivers
> >>become common place it will become obvious. Since we have been dealing
> >>with 8-VSB and COFDM for the last 5 years it has been obvious to us all
> >>along.
> >
> >
> > What exactly is a "5th gen receiver?" Cost? Availability?
> >
> > Ed
>
> 5th generation receiver is one using the latest chip set from LG
> Industries (Zenith). They will be in WalMart as Hisense USDTV receivers
> in the fourth quarter and under LG or Zenith brand in first quarter.
>
> This is the first decent 8-VSB receiver ever offered. The designers
> studied COFDM. This is a plug and play receiver though only 10% as good
> as any COFDM receiver sold in the rest of the world.
>
> Bottom line, it works, don't buy anything else.

Bob is this pure speculation or is this from personal trials ? Having read
all the hype on the 5th gen receivers, will it really be all that ? Or is it
like what every other manufacture says " NEW & IMPROVED" blah blah blah.
Please give us web sites and independent evaluations of this "NEW" 5th
generation. Sorry to sound like the pessimists but I've seen allot people
jumping on this bandwagon that hasn't arrived yet .
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 7:13:41 PM

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

Lenbo wrote:

>>5th generation receiver is one using the latest chip set from LG
>>Industries (Zenith). They will be in WalMart as Hisense USDTV receivers
>>in the fourth quarter and under LG or Zenith brand in first quarter.
>>
>>This is the first decent 8-VSB receiver ever offered. The designers
>>studied COFDM. This is a plug and play receiver though only 10% as good
>>as any COFDM receiver sold in the rest of the world.
>>
>>Bottom line, it works, don't buy anything else.
>
>
> Bob is this pure speculation or is this from personal trials ? Having read
> all the hype on the 5th gen receivers, will it really be all that ? Or is it
> like what every other manufacture says " NEW & IMPROVED" blah blah blah.
> Please give us web sites and independent evaluations of this "NEW" 5th
> generation. Sorry to sound like the pessimists but I've seen allot people
> jumping on this bandwagon that hasn't arrived yet .
>
>


You really need to read Bobs prior posts regarding 8VSB and Zenith. If
Bob says that the new 5th generation receiver is better then all other
currently available 8VSB receivers, then my tendency would be to believe
him. As is consistent with his personal testing of COFDM performance, I
am sure that he would never recommend an 8VSB receiver unless he
actually tested and proved the performance himself. True more input is
needed, but this sounds like the best next candidate and raises the bar
on 8VSB receiver performance expatiations.
The only problem with USDTV is that should they offer their services in
your area you might see less HDTV programming on the public airwaves.
Its a simple equation; their gain is your loss.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 9:18:16 AM

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

numeric wrote:

>
>
> Lenbo wrote:
>
>>> 5th generation receiver is one using the latest chip set from LG
>>> Industries (Zenith). They will be in WalMart as Hisense USDTV receivers
>>> in the fourth quarter and under LG or Zenith brand in first quarter.
>>>
>>> This is the first decent 8-VSB receiver ever offered. The designers
>>> studied COFDM. This is a plug and play receiver though only 10% as good
>>> as any COFDM receiver sold in the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> Bottom line, it works, don't buy anything else.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob is this pure speculation or is this from personal trials ? Having
>> read
>> all the hype on the 5th gen receivers, will it really be all that ? Or
>> is it
>> like what every other manufacture says " NEW & IMPROVED" blah blah blah.
>> Please give us web sites and independent evaluations of this "NEW" 5th
>> generation. Sorry to sound like the pessimists but I've seen allot
>> people
>> jumping on this bandwagon that hasn't arrived yet .
>>
>>
>
>
> You really need to read Bobs prior posts regarding 8VSB and Zenith. If
> Bob says that the new 5th generation receiver is better then all other
> currently available 8VSB receivers, then my tendency would be to believe
> him. As is consistent with his personal testing of COFDM performance, I
> am sure that he would never recommend an 8VSB receiver unless he
> actually tested and proved the performance himself. True more input is
> needed, but this sounds like the best next candidate and raises the bar
> on 8VSB receiver performance expatiations.
> The only problem with USDTV is that should they offer their services in
> your area you might see less HDTV programming on the public airwaves.
> Its a simple equation; their gain is your loss.
>
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.

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.

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.

If I can envision Joe Sixpack picking up this receiver at WalMart and
taking it home and plugging it in, attaching it to his analog TV or
digital TV set and receiving with a simple indoor loop antenna and
receiving most if not all the stations you can visualize on a spectrum
analyzer at that location with little or no special orientation of the
loop antenna then we have a winner.

I can envision this. I have seen it. Yes you can cause it to fail but
you have to work at it. In the past you were more likely to have to work
at getting it too work with your rotorized rooftop antenna. For fixed
reception this receiver is close to COFDM. As close as it probably has
to be.

We could have had this in 1999 with COFDM and had mobile reception also.
Can't imagine how cheap the receivers would be by now at the volumes we
would have by now. I would suggest that in the year 2003 we would have
seen the sale of 20 million COFDM DTV receivers in the US and I have now
predicted that we will see at least 12 million and as many as 15 million
8-VSB receivers sold in 2006.

Go to

http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/gallery/showgallery.php?c...

And you can see photos of the antennas, participants, receiver and
locations.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 10:04:01 AM

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

In article <suzXc.14613$3O3.337@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> 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.

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

>
> 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. 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.

To fully decode NTSC for home TV sets, it took from 1955 to 1980 (plus
or minus) or 25yrs. To improve 8VSB receivers (without changing the
signal) for working in much more difficult areas (where people would
anyway likely be using cable because of horrible NTSC reception), it
has taken from 1998 until 2004 or 6yrs!!! This is even more amazing
when the market hadn't been very active until 2-3yrs ago!!!

>
> I can envision this. I have seen it. Yes you can cause it to fail but
> you have to work at it. In the past you were more likely to have to work
> at getting it too work with your rotorized rooftop antenna. For fixed
> reception this receiver is close to COFDM. As close as it probably has
> to be.
>
It is very good that 8VSB does work very well for fixed (as it has for
me for years), and even my oldest generation receiver works better than
what you had claimed several years ago. Geesh, I still believe that you
owe me the money for an HDTV tuner that I didnt' really need. (Not really,
but your nay-saying went a long way until I learned to distrust your
claims. My extra tuner resulted from your nay-saying and my caution that
justified surveying my very difficult (for NTSC) reception conditions.) The
behavior of the more advanced receivers is expected
and unsurprising to me. It is VERY VERY reassuring that my judgement was
valid. I seem to remember a certain nay-sayer earlier this year who
suggested that the new technology wouldn't really solve significant problems,
but there certainly wasn't a reason to argue about it until the results
were more public.

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.

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.

John
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 6:08:34 PM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <suzXc.14613$3O3.337@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> 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
>
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 2:06:36 AM

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

In article <CfHXc.110$w%6.31@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>> In article <suzXc.14613$3O3.337@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> 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
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 9:26:43 PM

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

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
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 12:06:59 AM

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

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/servlet/story/RTGAM.2004...

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
>
>
!