Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DTV reception is much more difficult than analog

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
March 25, 2005 7:59:04 PM

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

I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
an extremely frustrating experience.

One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!

The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
station which is VERY good news.
To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
miles away.
I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
unwatchable during bad weather.
The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
receive the digital signal!

I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.

All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.

I welcome any constructive advice.

Richard
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:59:05 PM

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

"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2pd841lc0kcesj3ajeavurnn4eticin7n0@4ax.com...
>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
> an extremely frustrating experience.
>
> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>
> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
> station which is VERY good news.
> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
> miles away.
> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
> unwatchable during bad weather.
> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
> receive the digital signal!
>
> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>
> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>
Every person in my area that I have that I talked to has given up trying
to receive all the local stations. Most get two or three but not all five
and
all are within 15 miles of the towers. My first hand experence is that DTV
is
not plug & play, far from it. You could end up spending more money the
antenna than the DTV receiver.

> I welcome any constructive advice.
>
> Richard
>
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:59:05 PM

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

All I can say is the next generation of receiver chips are supposed to
be allot better and may help your case. The LG 5th generation chip is
supposed to be very good, but when it is available is up in the air. I
would expect to see some news on new receivers by Fall and suggest you
not give up hope, but consider your current difficulties temporary.
There will be a fix over time as better chips come on-line.

IB
Related resources
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:59:05 PM

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

Here's the story
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_sincl...

Sinclair praises new LG Electronics DTV receiver chips

Jun 11, 2004

Sinclair Broadcast Group, a severe critic of early DTV reception, said
in the latest generation of DTV receiver technology that significant
improvements will mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals
using simple indoor antennas.

Sinclair's previous concerns were based on 8-VSB modulation standard
DTV signals with strong dynamic multipath (ghosts) and varying signal
levels. Earlier-generation receivers were unable to handle these signal
conditions.

Nat Ostroff, Sinclair's vice president of new technology, said that
he is pleased to see the progress made by Zenith (a brand of L.G.
Electronics) that will allow consumers to easily receive free digital
television broadcasts in their homes. He said that broadcasters and
consumers could now look forward to a robust DTV service delivered
over-the-air without having to subscribe to cable or satellite.

He added that this is especially timely because of the FCC-mandated
rollout of millions of large-screen HDTV receivers with integrated
over-the-air tuners beginning this summer.

Informal joint field tests, conducted last month in Baltimore by
representatives from Sinclair and Zenith, involved testing reception at
sites Sinclair had previously identified as having difficult multipath
conditions. Many of these sites did not have successful reception with
early generations of receivers investigated by Sinclair.

Sinclair said results of the new trials show dramatically improved
reception with the receiver built around a new DTV chip developed by LG
Electronics. The fifth-generation integrated circuit allows it to lock
onto signals in severe multipath environments even when the ghosts have
long delays or are larger than the main signal.

Ostroff said that, with indoor reception now more viable, broadcasters
need to examine their current transmitting power levels to assure that
they deliver an adequate signal inside the home, and consumer
electronics manufacturers need to ensure that breakthrough technologies
such as this are available in the market.

Field data was collected from multiple DTV stations at numerous sites,
including parking garages and sidewalk locations, many without direct
line of sight to the transmitter. Simple indoor antennas were used to
explore the improvements that have been made in indoor reception and
ease-of-use in moderate and strong signal areas.

The fifth-generation receiver chipset tested will be introduced by LG
Electronics later this summer.
March 25, 2005 7:59:06 PM

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

"Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8QY0e.5440$TZ.3638@okepread06...
>
> "Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2pd841lc0kcesj3ajeavurnn4eticin7n0@4ax.com...
>>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>> an extremely frustrating experience.
>>
>> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>
>> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>> station which is VERY good news.
>> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>> miles away.
>> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>> unwatchable during bad weather.
>> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>> receive the digital signal!
>>
>> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>
>> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>
> Every person in my area that I have that I talked to has given up trying
> to receive all the local stations. Most get two or three but not all five
> and
> all are within 15 miles of the towers. My first hand experence is that DTV
> is
> not plug & play, far from it. You could end up spending more money the
> antenna than the DTV receiver.
>
>> I welcome any constructive advice.
>>
>> Richard

Sorry you guys are having so much trouble. Analog television has always been
a bitch here [behind one major mountain range, and one more large hill, ~20
miles from NYC], but I've used 6 different DTV receivers here at one time or
another, [PC cards and Directv receivers] the OTA DTV signals appear to
practically jump into the sets.

There was some futzing of course, and after some experimenting the $25
Channel-Master 3021 works best. Luckily, all of the channels that matter are
UHF.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:30:08 PM

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

LG could afford to put out the LST-4200A. Why should a LST-4200A
modified with a 5th chip be more expensive? It does not make any
sense. LG knows there is a analogue cut-off date coming and more and
more people want OTA receivers. Why would they spend millions of
dollars on a new chip design and then not use it?

BTW Have you tested a prototype of the proposed RCA-Thompson OTA
receiver? Will it use the Casper chip?

IB
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 12:44:35 AM

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

Sounds pretty bleak. But why is it more expensive that their own
LST-4200A?

What about ATI and Samsung? Is there hope they will come up with
something better? ATI claims their new chip is better than the LG
chip. Can you ask them for a sample so you can verify this?

IB
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:19:55 AM

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

Richard wrote:
> I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
> an extremely frustrating experience.
>
> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>
> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
> station which is VERY good news.
> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
> miles away.
> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
> unwatchable during bad weather.
> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
> receive the digital signal!
>
> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>
> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>
> I welcome any constructive advice.
>
> Richard
>
I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
It is something else in the front end of that receiver.

But we did test a prototype receiver last summer that received all
channels we could see on a spectrum analyzer at numerous sites that all
were problematic for digital and in some cases analog. This reception
was made using a $2.00 loop antenna and we did not mess with the antenna
leaving it in the first position we placed it in, taped to a window and
hanging on a plant near a window in two locations.

The problem is getting any manufacturer to make such a receiver. No one
seems very interested. No on seems to have much faith in the US OTA
market. When the one working the hardest to get a decent 8-VSB receiver
is also the harshest critic of 8-VSB I think you have a problem.

Hours after our successful test last year Hisense said they would use
this 5th gen receiver chip in a new receiver and have it out by last
Christmas. LG said they would have one out in the first quarter. NEITHER
HAS OR WILL HAPPEN. Now I have talked to TEN other manufacturers all
with no luck.

This can be done but it will take money to get someone off their ***.
Otherwise we will shuffle on with our stagnant DTV transition.

BTW LG's reason for not producing such a workable receiver is cost.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:24:42 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Here's the story

>
> The fifth-generation receiver chipset tested will be introduced by LG
> Electronics later this summer.
>

That was last summer. NO receiver in sight. In fact LG now says that
they will not make any such receiver because it will cost too much.

I have five folks from LG in Seoul visiting Monday morning maybe I will
know more after that but I doubt it.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:27:03 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> LG could afford to put out the LST-4200A. Why should a LST-4200A
> modified with a 5th chip be more expensive? It does not make any
> sense. LG knows there is a analogue cut-off date coming and more and
> more people want OTA receivers. Why would they spend millions of
> dollars on a new chip design and then not use it?
>
> BTW Have you tested a prototype of the proposed RCA-Thompson OTA
> receiver? Will it use the Casper chip?
>
> IB
>
The last talk I had with RCA went like this.

I hear you have new low cost integrated HD sets coming to market this
year. Is it possible that they will include the Linx chip?

RCA
No we will be using standard receiver technology for these products.

We respond..
Would you be interested in using 5th generation LG chips in your
products? We have tested this technology and it is the first 8-VSB
receivers that we think have a chance of working plug and play. Our
business model requires such a receiver for cities like New York and San
Francisco.

RCA
No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated
sets with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This
group of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver
value to those customers.

(Hint, code for we are putting in the cheapest junk receivers we can
possibly construct)

We respond...
Well we think that there is a great market for plug and play receivers
for OTA irrespective of cable and satellite. We think you could sell
large quantities by addressing the OTA head on and building receivers
that are identified as having the best receiver technology instead of a
generic receiver of unknown quality. We think that their is an eager
market for such a receiver and that the word of mouth would be
especially good if we could demonstrate it in New York.

RCA...
We would not be interested at this time but once you are up and running
we would take a second look if you want.

Bob Miller

BTW the House Commerce Committee's hearing before last featured RCA with
one of their $300 HDTV sets working in the hearing room. During a voting
intermission someone touched the antenna killing reception. In talking
to the person responsible for that hearing the conversation went like this.

"No, no it was no big problem. We lost reception but it was restored
after a few minutes of fiddling with the antenna. It works better than
NTSC reception and we were told that if someone gets anywhere decent
NTSC reception that digital perfect reception is guaranteed. RCA
guarantees that will be true with their new line of HDTV sets that they
will introduce if we have a transition deadline."

At the moment it appears that the DTV policy of the US rest on the
guarantees of RCA and a demonstration of one of their low cost
integrated sets.

They do not want to hear anything about anything else. But they will.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 10:21:09 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sounds pretty bleak. But why is it more expensive that their own
> LST-4200A?
>
> What about ATI and Samsung? Is there hope they will come up with
> something better? ATI claims their new chip is better than the LG
> chip. Can you ask them for a sample so you can verify this?
>
> IB
>

Why is it more expensive that their own LST-4200A? I don't know that
they have a price since they say they will not make it.

I have asked ATI for a sample or a customer of theirs that would give me
a sample receiver. First was Hisense since Hisense said they would do
5th gen then declined because they said ATI was better, cheaper and more
available. While waiting for Hisense I went on looking finding the firm
that I am presently dealing with who had both ATI and 5th gen.

I didn't know they had 5th gen and in asking them for a sample receiver
with ATI they volunteered that they had 5th gen and thought it was far
superior to ATI.

So I am not looking for ATI receivers at the moment. They are reticent
to have me test their chips anyway.

I would love to test Samsung but have heard nothing about what they have.

Remember when LG had something good they knew where to go to get it
tested for real, Sinclair. They also sent me one overnight rush as soon
as I requested it.

Their behavior told me that the receiver was something special before I
got it. Most 8-VSB manufacturers have requested non-disclosures before
letting anyone test them. LG wanted a press release and are sending a
film crew right now for more publicity. Do I understand this? Not a bit
and I never understood LG's insane insistence on 8-VSB from the start
even though they owned the IP. They would have made a lot more money on
high margin HD displays over the last five years if they had dropped
8-VSB and praised COFDM.

ATI's behavior since 1999 tells me exactly what to expect from their chips.

Bob Miller

The simple fact is that in the 8-VSB world very few manufacturers are
interested in making receivers while in the COFDM world most
manufacturers are very eager to be making receivers. That includes those
that make both 8-VSB and DVB-T like SAMSUNG.

http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/set-top-boxes/samsu...

And LG

http://www.dba.org.au/newsletter/IB-SepOct04-full.asp#P...

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:13:52 PM

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

> RCA
> No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated sets
> with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This group
> of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver value to
> those customers.

I couldn't agree more.

There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically viable
systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial broadcast TV.

The only reason it still exist, is the government made it a right of passage
to gain access to other people's systems.
If it wasn't for that, then terrestrial broadcast TV would have died a long
time ago.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 10:03:57 PM

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

SATAN wrote:
>>RCA
>>No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated sets
>>with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This group
>>of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver value to
>>those customers.
>
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically viable
> systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial broadcast TV.
>
> The only reason it still exist, is the government made it a right of passage
> to gain access to other people's systems.
> If it wasn't for that, then terrestrial broadcast TV would have died a long
> time ago.
>
>
Agreed, without must carry broadcasters would have turned off their
transmitters in many markets and gone out of business long ago.

But I disagree on the future. With a better modulation or a better 8-VSB
receiver OTA can flourish.

The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite
and cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think so.
Long term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and
portable. With 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable and
satellite in the dustbin of history.

I should qualify that with; Cable could survive if it becomes more
broadband than cable like. That is if its bandwidth is massively
increased and is driven into the neighborhood further either wired or
wireless.

Of course the mobile replacement for current broadcasters is already
taking shape above channel #51 with Crown Castle and Qualcomm the first
new age broadcasters in the mobile market. When broadcasters wake up and
get greedy you can bet that the needed change in modulation will be made
in a heartbeat so that they can compete with these upstarts in mobile
reception. Most of broadcasters attention has been directed at must
carry of multicast so far. Once they lose that struggle or it becomes
more irrelevant expect them to get involved in OTA.

Competition does things like that.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:57:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

> The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite and
> cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think so. Long
> term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and portable. With
> 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable and satellite in the
> dustbin of history.

For subscription based services, that is true. But BB, or any of the other
pay services does not pose any direct threat to free OTA, or free satellite
based services.

The only threat that they pose is the way they are implemented. A person
will have more stick'tion to a condensed, multi channel, multiprogramming
steam.

The person can usually find some channel from that source, that holds their
attention. So they usually have no reason to turn to another programming
source. While OTA is limited in programming, and channel selection. They
quickly search through all the channels, and usually find nothing to watch,
so they go to a different programming source, that being cable, and pay
satellite..

And since the other source holds their attention, then they never turn back
to OTA. So the only option in the OTA broadcaster's minds is to try and get
into the satellite/cable programming stream.

That way, they can still collect viewers that have become stuck on the multi
channel programming stream.

There is a break over point on the channel selection. Anything fewer than X
channels, and you can't hold the viewer's attention. Anything over X, and
you can usually hold the viewer's attention. Free programming sources have a
lower value of X. Pay sources have a higher value of X. People have a habit
of getting irritated at poor channel selection from something they pay for.

FM radio just meets these requirements, for that type of media. It exceeds
the break over point in channels that can be heard in any one place. With a
cheap 5 dollar radio, I can get 15 stations. And with a good radio I can get
over 20. With a good antenna I can get over 30 to 50+ stations. Something on
that band will usually hold my attention. AM radio and short wave is also a
good program source.

That is why people that discover the miracle of SW is usually hooked for
life. You can spend months listening to the radio, and never turn on a TV.
There is always something a few Khz down that grabs your attention.

One access point, with a wide variety of information. That is what cable and
pay satellite has went to.

If advertising supported broadcasters want to compete, they need to go to a
condensed delivery stream. It can not be a bandwidth limited delivery
stream. A maximum of sixty some stations is not adequate.
(US TV channels) If you had 30 broadcast TV stations viewable at any
location, then OTA broadcast TV could compete. But the normal 3 or 5, or
even 10 with a good antenna, is never going to hold the attention of the
viewer.

You need a stream that can deliver at lest 20 to 30 stations minimum to each
and every customer. For pay TV services, you need to have at lest a 50 or
more channels. That is why voom failed.

If the advertising supported broadcasters in one area or state, (over 30or
so) condensed all their broadcast feeds on to one satellite, and avoided
duplicating each other's programming, while still offering local targeted
news and information, then the program source would have incredible sticking
power for the viewer.

Yes, the satellite would cover the entire united states, but the programming
would be targeted to the local viewers. Yes, they could watch programming
from other states, and people in other states can watch their programming,
but they usually won't. Like me watching northwest cable news. (I am on the
east coast.) I can watch it all day long, but I usually get tired of it in a
few minutes, and turn to a local station. If I had access to a satellite
delivered set of local stations, that actually had local content, I would
not mess with the other TV stations from the west.

There is no need for enforced control over who can see a local satellite
broadcast based on where you live. If the station is targeting their
programming to that area, then the viewers will naturally gravitate as long
as you have an adequate selection.

But all in all, OTA TV broadcasting does not have enough bandwidth to offer
the necessary variety to compete. So, by default, it has no future and is a
dead man walking..

That is why I seen multicasting as the only way local OTA broadcasting could
compete. It would push the number of viewable channels up to the critical
value in most areas. Or a more robust transmission system that would allow
you to receive a station on almost every channel setting. But the same hand
full of channels in HD will not cut it.

If all the broadcasters from the east condensed their programming onto DVB
feeds on one satellite. And all the broadcasters in the west condensed all
their programming on a second satellite. Where anyone in the east/west side
of united states could get all their local channels by putting up a small
dish, And a small receiver, without paying a penny in subscription charges.

And the Broadcast companies worked with the stores to get low cost DVB
satellite receivers to the store shelves. They are already selling for under
a $100 with the dish antenna included from small mom an pop shops. They
could easily hit the $50 tag for a complete system that would allow you to
watch your local stations in digital quality, anywhere in the united states.
And if all the local stations had nothing on them worth anything at that
moment, then you could just switch over to see what the Florida stations are
playing at that moment.. But most importantly, you will not turn to another
program source. They would no longer feel a need to keep a pay service to
have something to watch.

If they did that, all the people paying for basic cable service to get local
channels will switch. All the people that pay for satellite TV with a basic
package, just so they can get local channels will switch. And a large chunk
of people that just pay for satellite/cable service to get something to
watch once in a while, will also switch. Once they watch it for a while,
then paying for 50 or so channels will seem stupid. Then local broadcasters
will finally have a foot hold of their own, without relying on must carry
rules.

The only way I see for local broadcasting to survive is by breaking away
from terrestrial OTA TV, and going to a more bandwidth/channel rich delivery
method.

If they stay on the path they are on, It's guarantied suicide.

A viewer should be able to watch a minimum of twenty stations without
moving/rotating an antenna, or re-pointing a dish. Any system that doesn't
meet that specification should be ignored as a possible delivery option for
advertising supported local broadcast TV.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:43:59 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:xmi1e.4702$gI5.2529@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> SATAN wrote:
>>>RCA
>>>No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated
>>>sets with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver.
>>>This group of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to
>>>deliver value to those customers.
>>
>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>>
>> There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically
>> viable systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial
>> broadcast TV.
>>
>> The only reason it still exist, is the government made it a right of
>> passage to gain access to other people's systems.
>> If it wasn't for that, then terrestrial broadcast TV would have died
>> a long time ago.
>>
>>
> Agreed, without must carry broadcasters would have turned off their
> transmitters in many markets and gone out of business long ago.
>
> But I disagree on the future. With a better modulation or a better
> 8-VSB receiver OTA can flourish.
>
> The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite
> and cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think
> so. Long term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and
> portable. With 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable
> and satellite in the dustbin of history.
>
> I should qualify that with; Cable could survive if it becomes more
> broadband than cable like. That is if its bandwidth is massively
> increased and is driven into the neighborhood further either wired or
> wireless.

This is potentially possible with the use of fiber optic cables. Indeed,
it offers one advantage over satellite that won't easily go away. I'm
referring to interactivity. When the recipients of a broadcast can
actually interact with the facility that is transmitting, or even
producing it, the whole state of the art moves along a notch.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:45:27 AM

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

In article <%M21e.4059$gI5.762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Richard wrote:
>> I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>> receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>> reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>> an extremely frustrating experience.
>>
>> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>> broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>> stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>> channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>> located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>> ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>
>> The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>> will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>> station which is VERY good news.
>> To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>> along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>> cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>> channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>> miles away.
>> I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>> UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>> there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>> Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>> the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>> is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>> unwatchable during bad weather.
>> The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>> channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>> do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>> possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>> To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>> antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>> antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>> here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>> receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>> antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>> receive the digital signal!
>>
>> I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>> in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>> during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>
>> All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>> receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>> HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>> is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>
>> I welcome any constructive advice.
>>
>> Richard
>>
> I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
> Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
> solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
> it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
> It is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>
BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.

(Front end quality can affect high signal level handling,
proper pick up of all channels due to filtering effects,
proper effective behavior of 'antennas', etc.)

It is exactly the 'single issue' type people like Bob who deflect the
issue away from the real, true troubles. Admittedly, neither 8VSB nor
COFDM derived systems are perfect, but the junky front end design
that I have seen is EXACTLY most of the reception problems that I have
had.

Being an EE (a real one), not just a hobby-type person, I understand
the matching issues, and I am sometimes amazed that some of the consumer
junk works as well as it does... The problem is NOT with the quality of
the design engineers, but the design tradeoffs that are forced for cost
and marketing reasons.

Nowadays, designing a ruler-flat, rock-solid front end that doesn't need
all of the filters before the first stage (put some of the filters after
the 1st stage), would give better/easier front end matching along with
adequate intermod type performance. Nowadays, the RF transistors can
provide less than 1dB NF while also pushing 100mw out... This is
coincedental with 10-15dB of gain, and better than 10dB return loss,
so there is more than enough ability to deal with hot RF signals (use
an attenuator when needed.)

When a front end is badly matched, then (depending upon the architecture
of the rest of the system), then the effects of a directional antenna can
be made less optimal. (But that is not the only problem with the front
ends that I have seen.)

My suggestion is the following:

VHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN1 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN3 \
DIPLEXER -- ATTEN5 -- TUNER
UHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN2 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN4 /

ATTEN1 and ATTEN2 is to mitigate signals that are too hot.
ATTEN3 and ATTEN4 provide a 'better' match to the diplexer.
ATTEN5 forces a prefect 75ohm source impedance to the TUNER.
DIPLEXER is a true diplexer and not just a splitter. (Diplexer
does a frequency dependent mixing.)

Each preamp shouldn't provide more than 16dB of gain, but 10dB
would be better (even for an indoor antenna, even though more
gain might be good.) The preamps MUST be capable of high signal
level in most areas.

I use exactly the setup above, and happen to use a 30dB preamp (because
it was the only one that I have) for the UHF side.

Using various combinations, the results above (with indoor antennas)
is the best. ATTEN5 is important. In high signal level situations,
the PREAMPS might be unneeded (but I need them for my indoor reception
10-15miles away for best reception.)

John
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:52:22 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <%M21e.4059$gI5.762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>>>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>>>receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>>>reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>>>an extremely frustrating experience.
>>>
>>>One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>>>broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>>>stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>>>channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>>>located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>>>ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>>
>>>The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>>>will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>>>station which is VERY good news.
>>>To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>>>along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>>>cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>>>channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>>>miles away.
>>>I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>>>UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>>>there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>>>Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>>>the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>>>is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>>>unwatchable during bad weather.
>>>The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>>>channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>>>do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>>>possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>>>To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>>>antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>>>antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>>>here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>>>receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>>>antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>>>receive the digital signal!
>>>
>>>I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>>>in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>>>during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>>
>>>All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>>>receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>>>HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>>>is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>>
>>>I welcome any constructive advice.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>>
>>
>>I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
>>Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
>>solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
>>it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
>>It is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>>
>
> BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
> vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
> a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
> alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
> se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
> issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.

Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
receivers for less than $60 that will work in the most extreme multipath
environments such as mobile. The same cannot be said for 8-VSB where
even the BEST receiver anyone has seen so far and one which I would
endorse as decent enough for reception in a fixed environment is easily
defeated by motion or just standing in a particular position relative to
the antenna.

And, (drum roll) LG does not want to build that receiver because of TOO
HIGH COST!!!

Major difference I am afraid.

Bob Miller
>
> (Front end quality can affect high signal level handling,
> proper pick up of all channels due to filtering effects,
> proper effective behavior of 'antennas', etc.)
>
> It is exactly the 'single issue' type people like Bob who deflect the
> issue away from the real, true troubles. Admittedly, neither 8VSB nor
> COFDM derived systems are perfect, but the junky front end design
> that I have seen is EXACTLY most of the reception problems that I have
> had.
>
> Being an EE (a real one), not just a hobby-type person, I understand
> the matching issues, and I am sometimes amazed that some of the consumer
> junk works as well as it does... The problem is NOT with the quality of
> the design engineers, but the design tradeoffs that are forced for cost
> and marketing reasons.
>
> Nowadays, designing a ruler-flat, rock-solid front end that doesn't need
> all of the filters before the first stage (put some of the filters after
> the 1st stage), would give better/easier front end matching along with
> adequate intermod type performance. Nowadays, the RF transistors can
> provide less than 1dB NF while also pushing 100mw out... This is
> coincedental with 10-15dB of gain, and better than 10dB return loss,
> so there is more than enough ability to deal with hot RF signals (use
> an attenuator when needed.)
>
> When a front end is badly matched, then (depending upon the architecture
> of the rest of the system), then the effects of a directional antenna can
> be made less optimal. (But that is not the only problem with the front
> ends that I have seen.)
>
> My suggestion is the following:
>
> VHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN1 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN3 \
> DIPLEXER -- ATTEN5 -- TUNER
> UHF ANT -- OPT ATTEN2 -- PREAMP -- OPT ATTEN4 /
>
> ATTEN1 and ATTEN2 is to mitigate signals that are too hot.
> ATTEN3 and ATTEN4 provide a 'better' match to the diplexer.
> ATTEN5 forces a prefect 75ohm source impedance to the TUNER.
> DIPLEXER is a true diplexer and not just a splitter. (Diplexer
> does a frequency dependent mixing.)
>
> Each preamp shouldn't provide more than 16dB of gain, but 10dB
> would be better (even for an indoor antenna, even though more
> gain might be good.) The preamps MUST be capable of high signal
> level in most areas.
>
> I use exactly the setup above, and happen to use a 30dB preamp (because
> it was the only one that I have) for the UHF side.
>
> Using various combinations, the results above (with indoor antennas)
> is the best. ATTEN5 is important. In high signal level situations,
> the PREAMPS might be unneeded (but I need them for my indoor reception
> 10-15miles away for best reception.)
>
> John
March 27, 2005 11:28:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"SATAN" <satan@hell.net> wrote in message
news:iVk1e.11851$cg1.2991@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> The real question is with broadband competition growing can satellite and
>> cable survive and without mobile can OTA survive. I don't think so. Long
>> term there is only OTA broadcasting if it works mobile and portable. With
>> 8-VSB there is no OTA long term. OTA will join cable and satellite in the
>> dustbin of history.
>
> For subscription based services, that is true. But BB, or any of the other
> pay services does not pose any direct threat to free OTA, or free
> satellite based services.
>
> The only threat that they pose is the way they are implemented. A person
> will have more stick'tion to a condensed, multi channel, multiprogramming
> steam.
>
> The person can usually find some channel from that source, that holds
> their attention. So they usually have no reason to turn to another
> programming source. While OTA is limited in programming, and channel
> selection. They quickly search through all the channels, and usually find
> nothing to watch, so they go to a different programming source, that being
> cable, and pay satellite..
>
> And since the other source holds their attention, then they never turn
> back to OTA. So the only option in the OTA broadcaster's minds is to try
> and get into the satellite/cable programming stream.
>
> That way, they can still collect viewers that have become stuck on the
> multi channel programming stream.
>
> There is a break over point on the channel selection. Anything fewer than
> X channels, and you can't hold the viewer's attention. Anything over X,
> and you can usually hold the viewer's attention. Free programming sources
> have a lower value of X. Pay sources have a higher value of X. People have
> a habit of getting irritated at poor channel selection from something they
> pay for.
>
> FM radio just meets these requirements, for that type of media. It exceeds
> the break over point in channels that can be heard in any one place. With
> a cheap 5 dollar radio, I can get 15 stations. And with a good radio I can
> get over 20. With a good antenna I can get over 30 to 50+ stations.
> Something on that band will usually hold my attention. AM radio and short
> wave is also a good program source.
>
> That is why people that discover the miracle of SW is usually hooked for
> life. You can spend months listening to the radio, and never turn on a TV.
> There is always something a few Khz down that grabs your attention.
>
> One access point, with a wide variety of information. That is what cable
> and pay satellite has went to.
>
> If advertising supported broadcasters want to compete, they need to go to
> a condensed delivery stream. It can not be a bandwidth limited delivery
> stream. A maximum of sixty some stations is not adequate.
> (US TV channels) If you had 30 broadcast TV stations viewable at any
> location, then OTA broadcast TV could compete. But the normal 3 or 5, or
> even 10 with a good antenna, is never going to hold the attention of the
> viewer.
>
> You need a stream that can deliver at lest 20 to 30 stations minimum to
> each and every customer. For pay TV services, you need to have at lest a
> 50 or more channels. That is why voom failed.
>
> If the advertising supported broadcasters in one area or state, (over 30or
> so) condensed all their broadcast feeds on to one satellite, and avoided
> duplicating each other's programming, while still offering local targeted
> news and information, then the program source would have incredible
> sticking power for the viewer.
>
> Yes, the satellite would cover the entire united states, but the
> programming would be targeted to the local viewers. Yes, they could watch
> programming from other states, and people in other states can watch their
> programming, but they usually won't. Like me watching northwest cable
> news. (I am on the east coast.) I can watch it all day long, but I usually
> get tired of it in a few minutes, and turn to a local station. If I had
> access to a satellite delivered set of local stations, that actually had
> local content, I would not mess with the other TV stations from the west.
>
> There is no need for enforced control over who can see a local satellite
> broadcast based on where you live. If the station is targeting their
> programming to that area, then the viewers will naturally gravitate as
> long as you have an adequate selection.
>
> But all in all, OTA TV broadcasting does not have enough bandwidth to
> offer the necessary variety to compete. So, by default, it has no future
> and is a dead man walking..
>
> That is why I seen multicasting as the only way local OTA broadcasting
> could compete. It would push the number of viewable channels up to the
> critical value in most areas. Or a more robust transmission system that
> would allow you to receive a station on almost every channel setting. But
> the same hand full of channels in HD will not cut it.
>
> If all the broadcasters from the east condensed their programming onto DVB
> feeds on one satellite. And all the broadcasters in the west condensed all
> their programming on a second satellite. Where anyone in the east/west
> side of united states could get all their local channels by putting up a
> small dish, And a small receiver, without paying a penny in subscription
> charges.
>
> And the Broadcast companies worked with the stores to get low cost DVB
> satellite receivers to the store shelves. They are already selling for
> under a $100 with the dish antenna included from small mom an pop shops.
> They could easily hit the $50 tag for a complete system that would allow
> you to watch your local stations in digital quality, anywhere in the
> united states. And if all the local stations had nothing on them worth
> anything at that moment, then you could just switch over to see what the
> Florida stations are playing at that moment.. But most importantly, you
> will not turn to another program source. They would no longer feel a need
> to keep a pay service to have something to watch.
>
> If they did that, all the people paying for basic cable service to get
> local channels will switch. All the people that pay for satellite TV with
> a basic package, just so they can get local channels will switch. And a
> large chunk of people that just pay for satellite/cable service to get
> something to watch once in a while, will also switch. Once they watch it
> for a while, then paying for 50 or so channels will seem stupid. Then
> local broadcasters will finally have a foot hold of their own, without
> relying on must carry rules.
>
> The only way I see for local broadcasting to survive is by breaking away
> from terrestrial OTA TV, and going to a more bandwidth/channel rich
> delivery method.
>
> If they stay on the path they are on, It's guarantied suicide.
>
> A viewer should be able to watch a minimum of twenty stations without
> moving/rotating an antenna, or re-pointing a dish. Any system that
> doesn't meet that specification should be ignored as a possible delivery
> option for advertising supported local broadcast TV.
>

One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
self-serving nonsense.
BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues _exactly
the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:05:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
> additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
> newgroup and I hope it stays that way.

There is vast difference between a "lively" debate and repetitive posting
of lies that have been repeatedly debunked with first-hand information.

Nor do I think that there is any sort of serious consideration of the pros
and cons of COFDM vs. 8-VSB. Psycho Bob has thoroughly poisoned that
well.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:06:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Ivan wrote:
> Agreed, I can't help noticing that when Bob's not involved this newsgroup
> can go as quiet as the grave for days on end.

And what is wrong with that? Why can't alt.tv.tech.hdtv be about HDTV
news and events, and be quiet when there isn't anything to report at the
current time?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
March 27, 2005 2:12:38 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GIl1e.5568$H06.1241@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>> In article <%M21e.4059$gI5.762@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am particularly interested in the messages here about current
>>>>receivers for digital reception. Why? At my location in central KY
>>>>reception of digital has been no easy task and, in fact, it has been
>>>>an extremely frustrating experience.
>>>> One of the problems is that two of the available digital stations
>>>>broadcast on VHF channels 4 and 13, while the other digital and analog
>>>>stations all broadcast on UHF. To make matters worse, one the two VHF
>>>>channels is located at the BOTTOM of the spectrum and the other is
>>>>located at the TOP. Try to find an antenna with good gain at both
>>>>ends of the spectrum that is not a mass of metal!
>>>>
>>>>The closest DTV station (UHF) is only 2.2 miles away and its tower
>>>>will also eventually become the home for a competing second UHF
>>>>station which is VERY good news.
>>>>To receive this channel, I use a 4 bay UHF antenna mounted in my attic
>>>>along with a 14 db line amp/splitter connected through 70% shield RG6
>>>>cable. With that I get very good to excellent reception on this
>>>>channel at all times. The most distant stations from me are about 10
>>>>miles away.
>>>>I am able to receive the VHF channel 4 with a small Antennacraft
>>>>UHF/VHF antenna pointed toward the station but during bad weather,
>>>>there can be MANY dropouts that sometimes make it unwatchable.
>>>>Channel 13 is 2.4 miles from me and I am receiving it off the side of
>>>>the Antennacraft. Because of the proximity of this station, reception
>>>>is good during good weather but reception can become marginal to
>>>>unwatchable during bad weather.
>>>>The Educational channel is on UHF 42 and is physically located near
>>>>channel 4 so the combo antenna (6db UHF gain) should work. However, I
>>>>do not get enough signal for a lock! I only get about a 70% out of a
>>>>possible 125% and my receiver needs 90% or more to lock!
>>>>To get this station I am going to have to install a second 4 bay UHF
>>>>antenna. I know this will work as I turned the existing 4 bay UHF
>>>>antenna in that direction and it did work. It is important to note
>>>>here that there is adequate signal off the side of the UHF antenna to
>>>>receive the analog educational broadcast and yet a 6 db gain UHF
>>>>antenna pointed in the direction of the station is not enough to
>>>>receive the digital signal!
>>>>
>>>>I have even considered building some single channel vhf wire antennas
>>>>in the attic for the VHF stations. I have made, many wire antennas
>>>>during my amateur radio days so I am willing to give it a try.
>>>>
>>>>All I can say is that unless others are having an easier task of
>>>>receiving digital than I am, they will be using cable or satellite for
>>>>HD and digital. I can tell you that analog reception in my location
>>>>is no problem at all on my Mitsubishi TV or Dish 921 receivers.
>>>>
>>>>I welcome any constructive advice.
>>>>
>>>>Richard
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
>>>Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
>>>solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in it
>>>was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution. It
>>>is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>>>
>>
>> BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
>> vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
>> a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
>> alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
>> se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
>> issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.
>
> Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
> receivers for less than $60 ------------ nonsense snipped

So, John's intelligent, level-headed discourse went right over your head.

You posted awhile ago that antennas make no difference for 8VSB reception,
so we're not surprised.
March 27, 2005 2:18:15 PM

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

"SATAN" <satan@hell.net> wrote in message
news:ADh1e.461713$w62.116434@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> RCA
>> No we think that most of our customers will be using these integrated
>> sets with cable and satellite and will never use the OTA receiver. This
>> group of products is meant to satisfy the FCC mandate and to deliver
>> value to those customers.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> There is far more flexible, efficient, reliable, and economically viable
> systems to address the non paying TV public than terrestrial broadcast TV.

And just think how datacasting advertising could line your pockets, bob.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.63.0503270934210.32574@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy
>> at
>> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup.
>> I
>> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
>> additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
>> newgroup and I hope it stays that way.
>
> There is vast difference between a "lively" debate and repetitive posting
> of lies that have been repeatedly debunked with first-hand information.
>
> Nor do I think that there is any sort of serious consideration of the pros
> and cons of COFDM vs. 8-VSB. Psycho Bob has thoroughly poisoned that
> well.

Bob is not cussing or calling people names. He's well within the boundaries
of good netiquette and easy to kill file if you really don't want him. He
may be full of it but he certainly has opened up some new ground and
information, right or wrong, that would probably not have been discussed on
this for the most part North American frequented newsgroup.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 3:25:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

I am willing to concede that Bob is probably right that we made a
mistake to pick 8-VSB over COFDM, but the point is that decision was
made and we are committed to 8-VSB. Even according to Bob, the best
system in the world now is the new Chinese system, not COFDM. We
should try to make our system better instead of crying about past
history, which is now irreversible.

IB
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 3:38:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
> He's well within the boundaries
> of good netiquette

Repetitive restatement of disproven statements is not "good netiquette".

Use of sock puppets is not "good netiquette".

Spreading FUD (which he proudly admits to doing) on an HDTV newsgroup to
discourage people from HDTV is not "good netiquette".

> He
> may be full of it

He is.

> but he certainly has opened up some new ground and
> information, right or wrong, that would probably not have been discussed on
> this for the most part North American frequented newsgroup.

What "new ground"?

Every one of Psycho Bob's postings are gloom and doom about how the rest
of the world is far beyond the US. Yet, upon factual investigation, these
statements are repeatedly and consistantly shown to be false.

Yet he continues to repost the same lies, as if by doing so he can make
them true. That is not a "lively discussion", nor is it "good
netiquette"; that is nothing more than propaganda, straight from Goebbels'
strategy book.

When confronted by facts from individuals with first-hand knowledge,
Psycho Bob trots out out of context statements from press releases.

Psycho Bob's focus is solely on small screen mobile videocasting, and he
sees HDTV as a barrier blocking it. Every one of his postings is aimed at
discrediting HDTV. He has admitted to this.

Psycho Bob's participation on this newsgroup is a negative. We need a
moderated HDTV newsgroup.

By the way, I hope that other people have been forwarding Psycho Bob's
postings to their Congresscritter, especially the parts where Psycho Bob
says that Congress is going to do such-and-such imminently to screw people
who have HDTV.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 4:01:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.63.0503271122220.3112@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> He's well within the boundaries
>> of good netiquette
>
> Repetitive restatement of disproven statements is not "good netiquette".
>
> Use of sock puppets is not "good netiquette".
>
> Spreading FUD (which he proudly admits to doing) on an HDTV newsgroup to
> discourage people from HDTV is not "good netiquette".
>
>> He
>> may be full of it
>
> He is.
>
>> but he certainly has opened up some new ground and
>> information, right or wrong, that would probably not have been discussed
>> on
>> this for the most part North American frequented newsgroup.
>
> What "new ground"?
>
> Every one of Psycho Bob's postings are gloom and doom about how the rest
> of the world is far beyond the US. Yet, upon factual investigation, these
> statements are repeatedly and consistantly shown to be false.
>
> Yet he continues to repost the same lies, as if by doing so he can make
> them true. That is not a "lively discussion", nor is it "good
> netiquette"; that is nothing more than propaganda, straight from Goebbels'
> strategy book.
>
> When confronted by facts from individuals with first-hand knowledge,
> Psycho Bob trots out out of context statements from press releases.
>
> Psycho Bob's focus is solely on small screen mobile videocasting, and he
> sees HDTV as a barrier blocking it. Every one of his postings is aimed at
> discrediting HDTV. He has admitted to this.
>
> Psycho Bob's participation on this newsgroup is a negative. We need a
> moderated HDTV newsgroup.

Well, the good part about Usenet is that we can freely disagree with each
other! :) 
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 4:56:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

David wrote:
>
> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.
>
>

You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
fictitious names. They knew who I was as Bob Miller. You know who I am
here. Who are you?

I have no need for using other identities to post here. Their is no
censorship here.

Why did they deny me access on AVSForum? I think it was because each
time someone posted a falsehood on AVSForum I answered with facts. Each
time.

They did not want to hear what has become painfully obvious over the
intervening five years. That we need to switch to a COFDM modulation and
we need a better compression system than MPEG2. The same message I held
then and now.

I don't know who David or SATAN is. If I were to have a fictitious
pretense in this newsgroup I would be David first. Such a fictitious
identity would serve my purposes more than SATAN's. But I don't have to
invent a David since there are plenty of them on this forum.

Bob Miller
March 27, 2005 4:56:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David wrote:
> >
>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum,
>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
>> here.
>
> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted entire
> threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access. That is when
> I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other fictitious names.
> They knew who I was as Bob Miller. You know who I am here. Who are you?
>
> I have no need for using other identities to post here. Their is no
> censorship here.
>
> Why did they deny me access on AVSForum? I think it was because each time
> someone posted a falsehood on AVSForum I answered with facts. Each time.
>
> They did not want to hear what has become painfully obvious over the
> intervening five years. That we need to switch to a COFDM modulation and
> we need a better compression system than MPEG2. The same message I held
> then and now.
>
> I don't know who David or SATAN is. If I were to have a fictitious
> pretense in this newsgroup I would be David first. Such a fictitious
> identity would serve my purposes more than SATAN's. But I don't have to
> invent a David since there are plenty of them on this forum.
>
> Bob Miller

Tell us how you used your daughters internet account to sneak back on AVS.
We know how sick you are.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:09:58 PM

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

In article <xCx1e.5217$gI5.3149@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>>>>I can only say wait for 5th gen LG receivers with proper front ends.
>>>>>Can't say 5th generation LG receivers anymore because that is not the
>>>>>solution. Our second test of a receiver that had an LG 5th gen chip in
>>>>>it was a total failure. It is not the 5th gen chip that is the solution.
>>>>>It is something else in the front end of that receiver.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BINGO!!! I have been claiming all along that my own results were
>>>>vastly improved (almost rock solid) when using my RCA DTC100 with
>>>>a properly matched front end arrangement!!! It is my contention that
>>>>alot of the problems with 8VSB have little to do with 'multipath' per
>>>>se, but to do with the quality of front end design. These quality
>>>>issues are NOT any different whether or not one is use 8VSB or COFDM.
>>>
>>>Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
>>>receivers for less than $60 that will work in the most extreme multipath
>>>environments such as mobile.
>>>
>>
>> Again -- the problem that I have seen with 8VSB isn't multipath,
>> but poor front end. You keep making up stories about things that
>> aren't the primary problem with existing 8VSB receivers. Given the same
>> lousy front ends, in the extreme signal environments in the US, NO
>> technology will have much fun.
>>
>> AGAIN -- artificial situations that don't eliminate the tuner
>> front end as an issue simply cannot provide a valid comparision.
>
> My mistake. My last post should have read a little different. It should
> have read...
>
> "Quite a bit different for COFDM since you can buy any of 30 or 40 COFDM
> receivers WHICH INCLUDE PROPERLY DESIGNED FRONT ENDS for less than $60
> that will work in the most extreme multipath environments such as
> mobile.
>
Again -- the problem that I have seen with 8VSB isn't multipath,
but poor front end. You keep making up distractions about multipath,
but I haven't seen the case where multipath is the primary problem
for reception.

You keep on trying to change the subject away to an almost non-problem.
Most interestingly, 5th generation receivers seem also to have interesting
troubles when the front end isn't properly designed. Perhaps the CATV
mentality has de-emphasized front end design too seriously.

John
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> David wrote:
> >
>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.
>>
>>
>
> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
> fictitious names.
>
Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
is consistent with your behavior here.

John
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
> In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>> David wrote:
>> >
>>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum,
>>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
>> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
>> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>> fictitious names.
>>
> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
> is consistent with your behavior here.
>
> John

I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
newgroup and I hope it stays that way. When threads break down to name
calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...to my knowledge Bob has
never stooped to that level so I welcome his right to post and shake things
up a bit with different ideas and conversation.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
March 27, 2005 5:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:EdednW9QL-fgW9vfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>> David wrote:
>>> >
>>>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>>>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>>>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS
>>>> forum, yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent
>>>> behavior here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
>>> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
>>> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>>> fictitious names.
>>>
>> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
>> is consistent with your behavior here.
>>
>> John
>
> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
> additional research about it without his persistence.


That is true. Because of bob, I've spent a lot of time reading foreign
newsgroups and DTV/DVB forums, finding out how amazingly, consistently wrong
he is.

>This is a lively newgroup and I hope it stays that way. When threads break
>down to name calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...to my
>knowledge Bob has never stooped to that level so I welcome his right to
>post and shake things up a bit with different ideas and conversation.

Bob's "different ideas" have been proven to be nothing but lies.

He's one of the 10-20 ATSC/8VSB bashers in this country. Simply because it
doesn't support datacasting/advertising business schemes.

>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:37:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
> I'm not saying I agree with him but if he is stifled it presents a very bad
> precedent.

Not at all. The problem is not new, and there are well-established
mechanisms in place for dealing with individuals who abuse a public forum.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you surrender your freedom from
speech. He has every right to create his own alt.tv.tech.psycho-bob
newsgroup where he can pontificate to a willing audience.

That does not give him the right to harass (and what he is doing *is*
harassment) a newsgroup by repetitively posting the same falsehoods and
forcing others to debunk them, lest some innocent newcomer be misled into
believing them.

And they are lies. I spent a fair amount of time in my most recent trip
to Japan specifically researching his claims and determining that they
were false.

Furthermore, his postings are completely off-topic for alt.tv.tech.hdtv.
It is up to the membership of alt.video.digital-tv to decide if his
postings are on-topic for that group.

> I'll take a thousand Bob's over what I imagine the Chinese
> version of the Usenet provides.

What you don't realize is what he is doing *is* what happens in Red China.
The truth is available to the average Chinese; the bamboo curtain isn't
soundproof. However, the average Chinese is overwhelmed by the relentless
broadcasting of lies, to the point that even though he knows that he is
being told lies, he still ends up believing some of the lies.

It is possible for someone to advocate COFDM intelligently; but that is
not what he does. When confronted with technical facts, he asserts
conspiracy theories or even resorts to racism.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:52:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:
>
> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
> is consistent with your behavior here.
>
> John

I am not dishonest here John nor do I have other identities. On AVSForum
I had one identity until they denied that identity access. I had broken
none of their rules. The only thing they admonished me for in private
was posting to much and riling up the natives. But they offered no
remedy to my complaint that if I did not answer post that consistently
offered the same lies about our plans or the truth about COFDM then
those lies and my non-response could be taken as my acceptance of them.

I then re-joined with a new email address and a new screen name which
they surprisingly accepted. I think using other identities is a pretty
standard practice there and here. If everybody understands that is the
practice it is not dishonest. The only dishonesty would have been on the
part of AVSForum if they suggest that I broke any of their published rules.

Basically they got pressure from some of their sponsors that I was
hurting the cause. The cause was pushing a bankrupt 8-VSB modulation and
receivers that did not, do not meet minimal reception standards, that is
they were and are junk, overpriced junk.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 6:36:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <dUy1e.5246$gI5.2577@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>>
>> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
>> is consistent with your behavior here.
>>
>> John
>
> I am not dishonest here John nor do I have other identities. On AVSForum
> I had one identity until they denied that identity access.
>
Again, you clipped your admission of using other identities on AVS Forum.
Effectively, you were being dishonest (and effectively being dishonest
here by clipping the quote.)

>
> Basically they got pressure from some of their sponsors that I was
> hurting the cause. The cause was pushing a bankrupt 8-VSB modulation and
> receivers that did not
>
Again again, your characterization of 8VSB is contrary to my REAL WORLD
experience. Even claiming that multipath is the actual REAL WORLD
problem with current (even early) HDTV receivers is misguided. I have
found that proper matching to the front end of the receiver mitigates
most (for me, ALL) of the problems.

Perhaps, you'd have more credibility if it was consistent with the
real world experience of those who actually use 8VSB (and know the
limitations of RF.) There will certainly be cases where 8VSB doesn't
work, but I have seen that most are real world RF limitations, and not
directly related to 8VSB itself.

COFDM cannot compensate for big fat notches due to bad matching either,
unless you have enough redundancy to cover up the losses. Intermod
along with the notches has to make for 'challenging' decoding to say
the least.

(For those who don't understand the reason for the 'notches' (in
non technical paralance), think about the premium channel filters --
they are either stubs or in-line coax that are carefully mismatched
and of carefully adjusted length.) The nasty mismatches due to
lousy front end design (poor match to 75ohms) can cause really strange
freq response problems. It isn't just manifest as reflections, but
also act like a filter. Once a signal is essentially cancelled out
and then replaced by intermod components, reception of the data represented
by that mess will be lost.

John
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 7:19:34 PM

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

I am very late to this discussion. What is the difference between
"8VSB" and "COFDM?" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

I have a Samsung receiver, presumably 8VSB, connected to a rather large
rotating antenna mounted in my attic and I am quite surprised at how
good DTV reception is compared to what I get from analog. I am also
pleased that digital seems to work 100% or not at all instead of getting
fuzzy as analog does. The one problem I have is that certain digital
channels seem not always to be working at 100% or even at all. However,
when they are up, I get them.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 8:04:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"It would really be quite easy to switch now. Most OTA people are worn
out by the current stagnation." -Bob Miller
--------------------------------
I think all the people who bought 8-VSB receivers for between $200. and
$600. might disagree with your assessment. In any case, the FCC
controls that, not the people you are talking to on this newsgroup.

IB
March 27, 2005 8:24:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:EdednW9QL-fgW9vfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
> > In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> >> David wrote:
> >> >
> >>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
> >>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
> >>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS
forum,
> >>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
> >>> here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
> >> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
> >> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
> >> fictitious names.
> >>
> > Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
> > is consistent with your behavior here.
> >
> > John
>
> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
> additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
> newgroup and I hope it stays that way. When threads break down to name
> calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...to my knowledge Bob
has
> never stooped to that level so I welcome his right to post and shake
things
> up a bit with different ideas and conversation.
>

Agreed, I can't help noticing that when Bob's not involved this newsgroup
can go as quiet as the grave for days on end.

Ever seen the Python sketch, "Excuse me, but is this the right room for an
argument ?".

Perhaps it could be brought up to date, by exchanging the room for a
newsgroup!


> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>
>
March 27, 2005 9:16:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David wrote:
> >
>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum,
>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
>> here.
> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post,

No, the AVS *members* complained [VERY LOUDLY] about your nonstop lies, so
the forum owners listened and complied. Thank God.

>then they deleted entire threads that they disagreed with.

I remember threads that consisted of nothing but posts, mostly lies, from
YOU.
Again, 'twas the AVS MEMBERS who demanded that your worthless horseshit be
deleted.

>Then they denied me access.

No....come on now ...... really?

>That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>fictitious names. They knew who I was as Bob Miller.

That's right, whenever there were strange, suspicious and non-sensical
pro-cofdm rantings. There were remarks from members like, "I smell a
BM....".

>I have no need for using other identities to post here. Their is no
>censorship here.

That's why you're here and not on other forums where you've been asked to
leave.

> Why did they deny me access on AVSForum? I think it was because each time
> someone posted a falsehood on AVSForum I answered with facts. Each time.

They denied you access because you were a liar. Each time.
Your "facts" have been disproven over and over as lies.

> They did not want to hear what has become painfully obvious over the
> intervening five years. That we need to switch to a COFDM modulation and
> we need a better compression system than MPEG2. The same message I held
> then and now.

You have Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder and I guess you must be a nightmare
of concerns to your family.

> I don't know who David or SATAN is. If I were to have a fictitious
> pretense in this newsgroup I would be David first. Such a fictitious
> identity would serve my purposes more than SATAN's. But I don't have to
> invent a David since there are plenty of them on this forum.

That's right, I need to change my screen name.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:32:14 PM

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

Robert Peirce wrote:
> I am very late to this discussion. What is the difference between
> "8VSB" and "COFDM?" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
>
> I have a Samsung receiver, presumably 8VSB, connected to a rather large
> rotating antenna mounted in my attic and I am quite surprised at how
> good DTV reception is compared to what I get from analog. I am also
> pleased that digital seems to work 100% or not at all instead of getting
> fuzzy as analog does. The one problem I have is that certain digital
> channels seem not always to be working at 100% or even at all. However,
> when they are up, I get them.
>
Better late than never.

Both are digital TV modulations. The way a signal is "modulated" so that
it can be carried over an analog TV signal. If that is not confusing
enough I will go on.

COFDM stands for Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing and it
is not a modulation actually. It is used to refer to QAM modulation that
has been multiplexed using COFDM. By now you should have a mild
headache. The core of COFDM, OFDM, was developed at Bell Labs many years
ago and was updated in Europe with the addition of the "C". Its design
direction was to solve the main problem of TV analog broadcasting which
was multipath signal interference. Europe had already had a
mis-adventure in their even more frenzied response to the Japanese
taking over the world of TV when they developed and quickly abandoned
the HD-MAC system so they were burned by HD and retreated to developing
a digital system that would allow more programming to be delivered via
multicasting. Their success in dealing with multipath reflections of DTV
signals, both dynamic (airplanes, traffic dogs and people moving) and
static (buildings), created a benefit they didn't design for, mobile and
portable reception with omni antennas.

8-VSB is a modulation developed at breakneck speed in fear and loathing
of all things Japanese in a contest to see you could develop a digital
replacement for our current NTSC analog TV over the air broadcast system
that has lost as much as 90% of its customers to cable and satellite if
you count households who buy or steal cable or satellite. Its design
parameters included, match the coverage and receive characteristics of
NTSC and be able to deliver enough bits to carry an HDTV signal
compressed with MPEG2 compression. It had to be receivable using a 30 ft
directional antenna. It did not address any of the receive problems of
NTSC and it did not try to advance the state of the art as to reception.
And it didn't.

One major difference with digital reception using COFDM or 8-VSB is that
if you have interference of a certain amount you will lose the picture
totally unlike analog reception where snow or lines in the picture do
not totally kill the reception. So with digital you don't want to have
these drop outs at all where with analog you can tolerate interference
more since you may still be able to follow the game or story line.

The big benefit of COFDM is that it does a very good job of handling
multipath as is demonstrated in this video of mobile reception in the
most hostile RF environment you can devise, Manhattan. We are using
simple 3 inch and 12 inch omni antennas and the broadcast is coming from
a single transmitter with only one kW of power.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

There are three receivers. The one on the back of the seat is using two
antennas connected to two tuners that combine the signals of both
antennas in what is called diversity reception. The other two receivers
include a USB receiver attached to a laptop and an STB with an internal
screen that works off the cigarette lighter.

There are six programs being broadcast using MPEG2 though you only see
three since we do not change the channels in the video. With MPEG4 we
could deliver up to 16 programs in a year or two. France is going with
COFDM using MPEG4.

The other advantage of COFDM is that it allows for the use of more than
one transmitter in a diverse transmitter version of the diverse antenna
concept. It is called and SFN or Single Frequency Network. It allows for
each transmitter to be low powered with a much shorter tower and offers
much better reception than a single stick high powered transmitter while
using much lower power and being more reliable. If one transmitter fails
for any reason the network would hardly notice.

We have seen a large number of big stick fires, collapses and terrorist
hits in just the last few years which have taken OTA broadcasting off
the air in such places as Moscow, New York and other large populated
areas. Neither New York or Moscow have totally recovered even after years.

there is more.

Bob Miller
March 27, 2005 9:32:15 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:y6C1e.43$x4.3@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Robert Peirce wrote:
>> I am very late to this discussion. What is the difference between "8VSB"
>> and "COFDM?" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
>>
>> I have a Samsung receiver, presumably 8VSB, connected to a rather large
>> rotating antenna mounted in my attic and I am quite surprised at how good
>> DTV reception is compared to what I get from analog. I am also pleased
>> that digital seems to work 100% or not at all instead of getting fuzzy as
>> analog does. The one problem I have is that certain digital channels seem
>> not always to be working at 100% or even at all. However, when they are
>> up, I get them.
>>
> Better late than never.
>
> Both are digital TV modulations. The way a signal is "modulated" so that
> it can be carried over an analog TV signal. If that is not confusing
> enough I will go on.
>
> COFDM stands for Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing and it
> is not a modulation actually. It is used to refer to QAM modulation that
> has been multiplexed using COFDM. By now you should have a mild headache.
> The core of COFDM, OFDM, was developed at Bell Labs many years ago and was
> updated in Europe with the addition of the "C". Its design direction was
> to solve the main problem of TV analog broadcasting which was multipath
> signal interference. Europe had already had a mis-adventure in their even
> more frenzied response to the Japanese taking over the world of TV when
> they developed and quickly abandoned the HD-MAC system so they were burned
> by HD and retreated to developing a digital system that would allow more
> programming to be delivered via multicasting. Their success in dealing
> with multipath reflections of DTV signals, both dynamic (airplanes,
> traffic dogs and people moving) and static (buildings), created a benefit
> they didn't design for, mobile and portable reception with omni antennas.
>
> 8-VSB is a modulation developed at breakneck speed in fear and loathing of
> all things Japanese in a contest to see you could develop a digital
> replacement for our current NTSC analog TV over the air broadcast system
> that has lost as much as 90% of its customers to cable and satellite if
> you count households who buy or steal cable or satellite. Its design
> parameters included, match the coverage and receive characteristics of
> NTSC and be able to deliver enough bits to carry an HDTV signal compressed
> with MPEG2 compression. It had to be receivable using a 30 ft directional
> antenna. It did not address any of the receive problems of NTSC and it did
> not try to advance the state of the art as to reception. And it didn't.
>
> One major difference with digital reception using COFDM or 8-VSB is that
> if you have interference of a certain amount you will lose the picture
> totally unlike analog reception where snow or lines in the picture do not
> totally kill the reception. So with digital you don't want to have these
> drop outs at all where with analog you can tolerate interference more
> since you may still be able to follow the game or story line.
>
> The big benefit of COFDM is that it does a very good job of handling
> multipath as is demonstrated in this video of mobile reception in the most
> hostile RF environment you can devise, Manhattan. We are using simple 3
> inch and 12 inch omni antennas and the broadcast is coming from a single
> transmitter with only one kW of power.
>
> www.viacel.com/bob.wmv
>
> There are three receivers. The one on the back of the seat is using two
> antennas connected to two tuners that combine the signals of both antennas
> in what is called diversity reception. The other two receivers include a
> USB receiver attached to a laptop and an STB with an internal screen that
> works off the cigarette lighter.
>
> There are six programs being broadcast using MPEG2 though you only see
> three since we do not change the channels in the video. With MPEG4 we
> could deliver up to 16 programs in a year or two. France is going with
> COFDM using MPEG4.
>
> The other advantage of COFDM is that it allows for the use of more than
> one transmitter in a diverse transmitter version of the diverse antenna
> concept. It is called and SFN or Single Frequency Network. It allows for
> each transmitter to be low powered with a much shorter tower and offers
> much better reception than a single stick high powered transmitter while
> using much lower power and being more reliable. If one transmitter fails
> for any reason the network would hardly notice.
>
> We have seen a large number of big stick fires, collapses and terrorist
> hits in just the last few years which have taken OTA broadcasting off the
> air in such places as Moscow, New York and other large populated areas.
> Neither New York or Moscow have totally recovered even after years.
>
> there is more.
>
> Bob Miller

Robert,
Just so you know, bob miller is a notorious usenet crank,
who would stoop so low as to use 9/11 to try to bolster his failed
datacasting/advertising
schemes and his general hatred of our over-the-air HDTV.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:32:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
> self-serving nonsense.
> BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues
> _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.

If you are too stupid, or lazy to look at the header information to see that
me and bob has no connection, then that gives me an indication of the value
I should put on your comments.
March 27, 2005 9:32:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"SATAN" <satan@hell.net> wrote in message
news:27C1e.467926$w62.225958@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>> self-serving nonsense.
>> BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum, yet he continues
>> _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior here.
>
> If you are too stupid, or lazy to look at the header information to see
> that me and bob has no connection, then that gives me an indication of the
> value I should put on your comments.
>

Well, it's easy enough to ask one of your friends at opendtv for some help.
And I know about source headers and they do appear differently, but
your writing style is exactly the same as yours.

And instead of "me and bob has no connection",
try "bob and I have no connection" next time. :-/
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 9:47:06 PM

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

"The rest of you come across as rather hostile'
charlie
---------------
I assume you do not include me in that broad statement.

Is the reason OTA digital TV has not caught fire because 8-VSB is so
bad, or is because those people who pay the extra bucks to buy a
digital TV are already hooked up to cable or satellite and don't want
to change their provider?

People like pay cable stations and don't see a need to put a UHF
antenna on their roof when they already are connected to a pay
provider.

I believe that 8-VSB is doable and that in time every new receiver will
be as good as the famed LG 5th chip receiver that Bob likes. Digital
TV has only been broadcasting a couple of years and these ARE the early
years of digital. Receiver chips from all manufacturers get better
with each new generation of design and when we have a analogue cut-off
I believe there will be a big demand for quality receivers which
manufacturers will rush to supply.

Predictability is important in the marketplace. If we switch to COFDM
then we would junk all the current receivers in homes and in the
pipeline and every station would have to change their transmission
equipment. There would be an outcry from all sides if we tried to kill
the current system even before it has a chance to take hold. I think
changing the system would be more complicated and expensive that Bob
thinks and I doubt he would find support in Congress for it.

The best bet is better 8-VSB chips combined with full power
broadcasting and a cut-off of analogue. That will fix the problems at
lower cost and with stability of the marketplace.

IB
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 11:37:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

<inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111951517.451555.251910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I am willing to concede that Bob is probably right that we made a
> mistake to pick 8-VSB over COFDM, but the point is that decision was
> made and we are committed to 8-VSB. Even according to Bob, the best
> system in the world now is the new Chinese system, not COFDM. We
> should try to make our system better instead of crying about past
> history, which is now irreversible.

Actually, we should make our system FLEXIBLE, so it can be easily altered as
improvements occur.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:38:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <EdednW9QL-fgW9vfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>> David wrote:
>>> >
>>>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>>>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>>>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS forum,
>>>> yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent behavior
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
>>> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
>>> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>>> fictitious names.
>>>
>> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
>> is consistent with your behavior here.
>>
>> John
>
> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy at
> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup. I
> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
> additional research about it without his persistence.
>
Unfortunately, you are wrong... I keep up with technology as a matter
of habit, and the technical issues that are uncontrollable by us only
are a matter of rants. Bob is a loser in the market, and continues to
rant and spew his nonsense and rather dishonest claims.


>
> When threads break down to name
> calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...
>
My patience is tested when a liar is in our midst, spewing dishonesty.


>
>to my knowledge Bob has
> never stooped to that level
>
Telling lies is much worse than showing extreme irritation at them.

The cause of the irritable responses is the lies as spewed by your
beloved Bob. Your toleration of his dishonesty helps this nonsense.

John
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:40:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <zNudnZiQ3aN7d9vfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
>
> "David" <davey@home.net> wrote in message
> news:D eudndupU6-hSdvfRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
>> news:EdednW9QL-fgW9vfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
>>> news:D 26bko$okr$2@news.iquest.net...
>>>> In article <%3y1e.5229$gI5.402@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>>> David wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>>> One of the reasons BM was thrown out of AVS forum was for creating
>>>>>> fictitious posters who popped up out of nowhere and "agreed" with his
>>>>>> self-serving nonsense. BM complains about being thrown out of AVS
>>>>>> forum, yet he continues _exactly the same_ childish, transparent
>>>>>> behavior here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You got it backwards. First they deleted my post, then they deleted
>>>>> entire threads that they disagreed with. Then they denied me access.
>>>>> That is when I rejoined AVSForum with other email addresses and other
>>>>> fictitious names.
>>>>>
>>>> Very good -- you just admitted to trespassing and dishonesty. This
>>>> is consistent with your behavior here.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy
>>> at times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this
>>> newsgroup. I don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done
>>> nearly as much additional research about it without his persistence.
>>
>>
>> That is true. Because of bob, I've spent a lot of time reading foreign
>> newsgroups and DTV/DVB forums, finding out how amazingly, consistently
>> wrong he is.
>
> So you have learned and gained knowledge?
>
Luckily, he has been able to clear up Bobs lies.

>
>>
>>>This is a lively newgroup and I hope it stays that way. When threads break
>>>down to name calling and swearing is when my patience is tested...to my
>>>knowledge Bob has never stooped to that level so I welcome his right to
>>>post and shake things up a bit with different ideas and conversation.
>>
>> Bob's "different ideas" have been proven to be nothing but lies.
>>
>> He's one of the 10-20 ATSC/8VSB bashers in this country. Simply because it
>> doesn't support datacasting/advertising business schemes.
>>
>
> And the problem with that is?
>
Bob is a liar, and you encourage it.


>
> I have no problems with his presence.
>
I have problems with liars and those who consiously support them.

John
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:40:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <mZWdnfbB5d2HYNvfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
>
> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.63.0503270934210.32574@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>> I need to jump in here. Bob may overstate his position and he may annoy
>>> at
>>> times but I think he has brought valuable perspective to this newsgroup.
>>> I
>>> don't think any of us would have considered CODFM or done nearly as much
>>> additional research about it without his persistence. This is a lively
>>> newgroup and I hope it stays that way.
>>
>> There is vast difference between a "lively" debate and repetitive posting
>> of lies that have been repeatedly debunked with first-hand information.
>>
>> Nor do I think that there is any sort of serious consideration of the pros
>> and cons of COFDM vs. 8-VSB. Psycho Bob has thoroughly poisoned that
>> well.
>
> Bob is not cussing or calling people names.
>
Bob is telling lies, which is much more destructive. You obviously
like liars, and I don't.

John
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:45:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <I92dna4GCN6VjNrfRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
>
> Well, the good part about Usenet is that we can freely disagree with each
> other! :) 
>
Factually: you tolerate those who mislead others and tell lies. I don't
tolerate liars. It is better to be honest and try to be honest, correcting
lies, rather than to be overly 'liberal' with the truth.

Tolerating a few 'glitches' or mistaken claims is a good thing. Tolerating
and supporting the repeated lies from Bob is also problematical.

John
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:47:59 AM

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

In article <bob-FAA206.10193427032005@news.verizon.net>,
Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com.invalid> writes:
>
> I am very late to this discussion. What is the difference between
> "8VSB" and "COFDM?" What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
>
You can get HDTV reception in the major cities in the US with the FCC
ATSC system. That just happens to use 8VSB (which works really well in
fixed applications.) There is another system that works farily well
in mobile applications, and that is called COFDM (or its derivatives.)
COFDM also works in fixed applications, but with differing tradeoffs
than 8VSB.

Bottom line: if you want OTA HDTV in the US, you will use an 8VSB
receiver. There are some companies that want to push mass advertisement
in mass transit systems (e.g. push ads on busses), and that is the kind
of venture that Bob has tried to get started.

John
!