Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

what TV receivers exist with DTV and screen under 17 inch?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 4:40:59 PM

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

What TV receivers (for OTA reception and viewing) exist with DTV (USA
market) and screen UNDER 17 inch, with a price that is comparable to
the analog products of that size plus the cost of adding the digital
reception and HDTV? Note, a 4:3 (HDTV broadcasts letterboxed) or 16:9
screen is acceptable, though a 16:9 screen would be a plus. A finer
stripe size would also be a plus with the 16:9.

I'd also like analog in/out connections. But is that asking too much
even though I can get these on several analog-only models now?

A web page of a manufacturer or of a retailer, showing the model and
some specifications, is what would be useful. But even if you don't
have that, but do know for certain a given manufacturer has such a
model (because you own one), just knowing that would be a start.

I've looked at the web sites of several major brands, and so far have
found nothing. That doesn't mean they don't exist; maybe all their big
marketing efforts are being focused on the big screen products for the
early adopters.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 9:23:24 AM

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

On 29 Jul 2005 12:40:59 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
posted:

>What TV receivers (for OTA reception and viewing) exist with DTV (USA
>market) and screen UNDER 17 inch, with a price that is comparable to
>the analog products of that size plus the cost of adding the digital
>reception and HDTV?

Probably very few (until the ATSC Tuner Mandate forces more
to be built).

ATSC receivers (in the USA) must deal with 1080i/p and 720p
HDTV, 480p EDTV and 480i SDTV video and 5.1 to 1.0 Dolby
Digital audio broadcasts, the RCA $300 27" NTSC and ATSC DTV
is about twice the price of a 27" NTSC only TV.

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 12:52:05 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:23:24 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
| On 29 Jul 2005 12:40:59 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| posted:
|
|>What TV receivers (for OTA reception and viewing) exist with DTV (USA
|>market) and screen UNDER 17 inch, with a price that is comparable to
|>the analog products of that size plus the cost of adding the digital
|>reception and HDTV?
|
| Probably very few (until the ATSC Tuner Mandate forces more
| to be built).
|
| ATSC receivers (in the USA) must deal with 1080i/p and 720p
| HDTV, 480p EDTV and 480i SDTV video and 5.1 to 1.0 Dolby
| Digital audio broadcasts, the RCA $300 27" NTSC and ATSC DTV
| is about twice the price of a 27" NTSC only TV.

Which will happen first? ATSC tuner mandate or analog cutoff?
IMHO, cutting off analog any closer than 2-3 years _after_ an
ATSC tuner mandate would be folly.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related resources
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 9:50:57 AM

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

On 1 Aug 2005 22:03:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
posted:

>My concern is the time
>between tuner mandate and analog shutoff, and whether sufficient products
>can be on the market in _all_ categories (TV sets, separate tuners, VCRs,
>DVD-R's, computer TV cards, etc).

According to a Buying Guide, TVs are replaced about every 9
years and VCRs are replaced about about 7 years.

I don't know how many people will replace a working TV or
VCR just to get an ATSC DTV tuner.

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:49:05 PM

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

"K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
news:q4l0f1lv9v7vn96c6312b5msv3j96j59hr@4ax.com...
> On 1 Aug 2005 22:03:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
> posted:
>
>>My concern is the time
>>between tuner mandate and analog shutoff, and whether sufficient products
>>can be on the market in _all_ categories (TV sets, separate tuners, VCRs,
>>DVD-R's, computer TV cards, etc).
>
> According to a Buying Guide, TVs are replaced about every 9
> years and VCRs are replaced about about 7 years.
>
>
Not mentioned in that statistic is that many people don't discard the TV
they "replaced", they move it to another room and it may still be in use.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:02:00 PM

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

In article <uwUHe.587$3M4.362@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:

> What I've discovered from looking at my TV last night. I get 9-"HD"TV
> signals over the air. and 9-analog.........all simply duplicate channels
> with same programs running.
>
> Analog NTSC with a good line-doubler looks BETTER than a Standard-def
> digital signal (gawd! talk about water-color painting artifacts!!! yuck!).

I guess you don't live where there's a lot of multipath ghosting
interference. I admit that I love my built-in NTSC line doubling, but
no way is it superior to digital with any analog signal from RF.

The only problem I have with SD resolution is that my ATSC tuner box has
the progressive-scan chroma bug in its MPEG decoder (the one that is
usually demonstrated on DVD players by use of the Toy Story 2 DVD menu).
This creates a bunch of horizontal lines that make it look like the
picture was upconverted from a 30fps non-interlaced signal (something
that does actually happen sometimes.)

Sometimes on highest-def (when the local PBS runs a full HD channel in
the evenings) I can see motion problems, and a bit of artifacting, but
never on SD to my Sony 32" 4:3 CRT.

Are you sure you don't just have your sharpness control set too high?
It should normally be turned off (though on Sony sets like mine, the
zero setting seems to be in the middle). A sharpness setting that's too
high can create artifacts that look like compression artifacts. For
instance, my DVD player's on-screen menus start showing artifacts when
the sharpness is set too high.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:55:13 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:50:57 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
| On 1 Aug 2005 22:03:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| posted:
|
|>My concern is the time
|>between tuner mandate and analog shutoff, and whether sufficient products
|>can be on the market in _all_ categories (TV sets, separate tuners, VCRs,
|>DVD-R's, computer TV cards, etc).
|
| According to a Buying Guide, TVs are replaced about every 9
| years and VCRs are replaced about about 7 years.
|
| I don't know how many people will replace a working TV or
| VCR just to get an ATSC DTV tuner.

All of them that want to continue to receive OTA after the date of analog
cutoff ... or will buy a separate tuner (which is still not cheap, yet).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:21:00 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:49:05 -0700 Mike Rush <mikelr@avenuespamfreecable.com> wrote:
| "K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
| news:q4l0f1lv9v7vn96c6312b5msv3j96j59hr@4ax.com...
|> On 1 Aug 2005 22:03:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
|> posted:
|>
|>>My concern is the time
|>>between tuner mandate and analog shutoff, and whether sufficient products
|>>can be on the market in _all_ categories (TV sets, separate tuners, VCRs,
|>>DVD-R's, computer TV cards, etc).
|>
|> According to a Buying Guide, TVs are replaced about every 9
|> years and VCRs are replaced about about 7 years.
|>
|>
| Not mentioned in that statistic is that many people don't discard the TV
| they "replaced", they move it to another room and it may still be in use.

An old Zenith color TV my grandmother bought in 1967 was inherited by my
father when she died in 1972. In 1979 he gave it to me when I moved out
of state. I had it through 1987 when the picture tube finally died on it.
That was a good 20 years of service. I replaced it with a Sony that died
in 1997 by a lightning hit.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:06:42 AM

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

Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> In article <uwUHe.587$3M4.362@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
>
>
>>What I've discovered from looking at my TV last night. I get 9-"HD"TV
>>signals over the air. and 9-analog.........all simply duplicate channels
>>with same programs running.
>>
>>Analog NTSC with a good line-doubler looks BETTER than a Standard-def
>>digital signal (gawd! talk about water-color painting artifacts!!! yuck!).
>
>
> I guess you don't live where there's a lot of multipath ghosting
> interference.


no not here in Norman,

though Austin TX where I lived many years - we had TERRIBLE multipath
troubles - on the Eastside, Southside and Westside!!!


I never lived on the northside - so can't comment there.


> I admit that I love my built-in NTSC line doubling, but
> no way is it superior to digital with any analog signal from RF.
>
> The only problem I have with SD resolution is that my ATSC tuner box has
> the progressive-scan chroma bug in its MPEG decoder (the one that is
> usually demonstrated on DVD players by use of the Toy Story 2 DVD menu).
> This creates a bunch of horizontal lines that make it look like the
> picture was upconverted from a 30fps non-interlaced signal (something
> that does actually happen sometimes.)
>
> Sometimes on highest-def (when the local PBS runs a full HD channel in
> the evenings) I can see motion problems, and a bit of artifacting, but
> never on SD to my Sony 32" 4:3 CRT.
>
> Are you sure you don't just have your sharpness control set too high?




yes - it looked like Realplayer stuff / or low bit Divx. watercolor
artifacts. mostly on the religious station (so no big deal)- but a
little on the other local SDTV channel.




> It should normally be turned off (though on Sony sets like mine, the
> zero setting seems to be in the middle). A sharpness setting that's too
> high can create artifacts that look like compression artifacts. For
> instance, my DVD player's on-screen menus start showing artifacts when
> the sharpness is set too high.



sharpeness is at 75-percent. it is a Phillips 3:4.



--

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:43:37 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> What TV receivers (for OTA reception and viewing) exist with DTV (USA
> market) and screen UNDER 17 inch, with a price that is comparable to
> the analog products of that size plus the cost of adding the digital
> reception and HDTV? Note, a 4:3 (HDTV broadcasts letterboxed) or 16:9
> screen is acceptable, though a 16:9 screen would be a plus. A finer
> stripe size would also be a plus with the 16:9.


as far as i can tell, HD TV sets still
don't exist in smaller TV sets ( < 25/27"),
and likely won't for another 2/3 years

buy a digital tuner for roughly $200
(Wal-Mart fer a US Digital TV tuner)

odds are it'll work with yer existing SD TV
(and antenna), double yer OTA chanels, and give
superior results. get a 2 way antenna splitter
(for your 75 ohm antenna feed) and an $18 4/1
mechanical (not the powered units) video
switcher. take the two antenna inputs into
the digital tuner and yer vhs/dvd recorder

for HD background/info, see:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/dtv.htm

having recently moved to a digital tuner,
who needs a HD TV? certainly not me;
and likely not you either

bill

>
> I'd also like analog in/out connections. But is that asking too much
> even though I can get these on several analog-only models now?
>
> A web page of a manufacturer or of a retailer, showing the model and
> some specifications, is what would be useful. But even if you don't
> have that, but do know for certain a given manufacturer has such a
> model (because you own one), just knowing that would be a start.
>
> I've looked at the web sites of several major brands, and so far have
> found nothing. That doesn't mean they don't exist; maybe all their big
> marketing efforts are being focused on the big screen products for the
> early adopters.
>
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 5:15:40 AM

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

willbill wrote:
>
> as far as i can tell, HD TV sets still
> don't exist in smaller TV sets ( < 25/27"),
> and likely won't for another 2/3 years

Sony has a 27" set that shows HDTV in letterbox format.

One of the HS420 series IIRC.









C.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 12:29:58 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:49:05 -0700 Mike Rush <mikelr@avenuespamfreecable.com> wrote:
| "K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
| news:q4l0f1lv9v7vn96c6312b5msv3j96j59hr@4ax.com...
|> On 1 Aug 2005 22:03:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
|> posted:
|>
|>>My concern is the time
|>>between tuner mandate and analog shutoff, and whether sufficient products
|>>can be on the market in _all_ categories (TV sets, separate tuners, VCRs,
|>>DVD-R's, computer TV cards, etc).
|>
|> According to a Buying Guide, TVs are replaced about every 9
|> years and VCRs are replaced about about 7 years.
|>
|>
| Not mentioned in that statistic is that many people don't discard the TV
| they "replaced", they move it to another room and it may still be in use.

Actually, I am in the market for a new TV right now. My old Sony died
in 1997 due to a lightning strike that fried the front end and CPU.

The specs I want are:
1. DTV OTA reception so it works well beyond 2009.
2. 14 to 17 inch CRT display, though I may consider LCD.
3. Either 4:3 or 16:9 screen acceptable.
4. Native scanning or conversion for all ATSC formats.
5. Analog baseband A/V in/out (composite NTSC, stereo).
6. PAL/SECAM a plus (on the A/V input).

Aside from the DTV and HDTV aspects, this is what I had before. I see
no reason such a thing cannot be offered with DTV/HDTV. I guess I have
to wait (I've had no TV for 8 years, so I can still wait) until the FCC
mandate forces them to make it. I do not want to waste my money on
something that won't work in a few years.

FYI: NO STB for OTA

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 6:35:53 PM

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

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:43:37 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> What TV receivers (for OTA reception and viewing) exist with DTV (USA
|> market) and screen UNDER 17 inch, with a price that is comparable to
|> the analog products of that size plus the cost of adding the digital
|> reception and HDTV? Note, a 4:3 (HDTV broadcasts letterboxed) or 16:9
|> screen is acceptable, though a 16:9 screen would be a plus. A finer
|> stripe size would also be a plus with the 16:9.
|
|
| as far as i can tell, HD TV sets still
| don't exist in smaller TV sets ( < 25/27"),
| and likely won't for another 2/3 years

There are two issues for HD and I cannot tell which you are referring to.
One is the ability to display something (even letterboxed) from an HD 16:9
transmission. The other is having an actual 16:9 display geometry. I can
expect the latter to take some time. The former is a "must have right now"
thing (since not having it means not being able to view some broadcasts).


| buy a digital tuner for roughly $200
| (Wal-Mart fer a US Digital TV tuner)

Still too pricy. Let me know when it gets below $75 without a drop in
quality (e.g. will perform at the same distance from the station on the
same channel at the same tower with the licensed full power level as
compared to the original NTSC).

Note that a noisy RF front end is not really an issue since it can be
corrected with a very low noise preamplifier (so I'm not expecting such
consumer grade units to be the VLN type). But it should have all the
state of the art for demodulating for all the steps down to the bitstream
output of the trellis decoder, plus correct handling of all the ATSC
formats, etc.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 6:35:54 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:43:37 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |
> |> What TV receivers (for OTA reception and viewing) exist with DTV (USA
> |> market) and screen UNDER 17 inch, with a price that is comparable to
> |> the analog products of that size plus the cost of adding the digital
> |> reception and HDTV? Note, a 4:3 (HDTV broadcasts letterboxed) or 16:9
> |> screen is acceptable, though a 16:9 screen would be a plus. A finer
> |> stripe size would also be a plus with the 16:9.
> |
> |
> | as far as i can tell, HD TV sets still
> | don't exist in smaller TV sets ( < 25/27"),
> | and likely won't for another 2/3 years

> There are two issues for HD and I cannot tell which you are referring to.
> One is the ability to display something (even letterboxed) from an HD 16:9
> transmission. The other is having an actual 16:9 display geometry. I can
> expect the latter to take some time. The former is a "must have right now"
> thing (since not having it means not being able to view some broadcasts).


all i have is a half decent 2 year old 20" standard
definition Panasonic TV (specifically CT-2017).
besides the antenna input, it has a single
composite input

"setup" on my digital tuner has 5 choices
under "Set Video Mode"

1. Composite/S-Video

2. Component 480i

3. Component 480p (HDTV)

4. Component 720p (HDTV)

5. Component 1080i (HDTV)

both 1 and 2 work with my TV, and
give slightly different results.
(the tuner setup defaulted me
into 480i)

an "aspect" button my my tuner remote
allows me to get optimum display proportions,
regardless of any 16:9 vs 4:3 issues

at least with output as Composite/S-Video.
the 480i output is sometimes a bit off
for display proportions (no matter what aspect
choice i choose), and while the definition
(with 480i) is slightly better, the color
is slightly off (slightly washed out)

anyhow, the overall picture improvement with
this US Digital digital tuner (vs the normal/old
analog tuner) is nothing less than amazing (with
my 20" TV). for info, see: www.usdigitalhdtv.com


> | buy a digital tuner for roughly $200
> | (Wal-Mart fer a US Digital TV tuner)
>
> Still too pricy. Let me know when it gets below $75


i didn't shop around that much, so maybe someone
else will post about a digital tuner that costs
less than $200

but even if they do, my own view of your above comments
on holding out till digital tuners get to "below $75"
make me think you are pinching the pennies too hard

also, you might do a separate post on what
low cost digital tuners are now on the market


> without a drop in
> quality (e.g. will perform at the same distance from the station on the
> same channel at the same tower with the licensed full power level as
> compared to the original NTSC).
>
> Note that a noisy RF front end is not really an issue since it can be
> corrected with a very low noise preamplifier (so I'm not expecting such
> consumer grade units to be the VLN type).


i'm interested in finding a low noise preamplifier
for my TV antenna

would i find one at a Best Buy store? what do i ask
for and what would it cost?

at the moment i'm using a $30 Radio Shack antenna amp

if not Best Buy, could you provide an online ref
to one? thank you in advance. :) 

bill


> But it should have all the
> state of the art for demodulating for all the steps down to the bitstream
> output of the trellis decoder, plus correct handling of all the ATSC
> formats, etc.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 9:57:10 AM

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

A basic NTSC 19"/20" TV with a composite video input and a
US DTV STB seems like a good low cost solution for OTA ATSC
DTV reception.

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:25:04 PM

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

willbill (trek@worldwide.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> i'm interested in finding a low noise preamplifier
> for my TV antenna

ChannelMaster CM7777 if you need both UHF and VHF. Other models in the 777x
line have the same internals but only amplify one or the other. They aren't
very popular, though, so the prices aren't much cheaper.

The only thing with lower noise and as much gain is a really expensive one
from the UK.

--
Jeff Rife | "My God, what if the secret ingredient is people?"
| "No, there's already a soda like that: Soylent Cola."
| "Oh. How is it?"
| "It varies from person to person."
| -- Fry and Leela, "Futurama"
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:01:32 PM

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

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:58:08 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

| i didn't shop around that much, so maybe someone
| else will post about a digital tuner that costs
| less than $200
|
| but even if they do, my own view of your above comments
| on holding out till digital tuners get to "below $75"
| make me think you are pinching the pennies too hard

It's not about whether I will pinch the pennies or not. My concern is
that STB tuner prices may not have dropped enough by the analog cutoff
date to avoid an angered public. I am recommending to my Congress
person that they pressure the FCC to hold off the analog cutoff until
such time as a sufficient number of models are available under a price
point that makes the general public accepting of DTV (at least those
that use OTA). I'm not sure what pressure Congress or the FCC could
apply to manufacturers to get to that point other than the tuner
mandate.

But I will also personally hold off going DTV until the price point
is reached ... and then I will buy a high end model anyway. So the
"pennies" theory is not really there.


| also, you might do a separate post on what
| low cost digital tuners are now on the market

I don't know of any. It's still a wait-and-see for me. When models
show up from well known manufacturers, I'll start looking.


| i'm interested in finding a low noise preamplifier
| for my TV antenna
|
| would i find one at a Best Buy store? what do i ask
| for and what would it cost?
|
| at the moment i'm using a $30 Radio Shack antenna amp
|
| if not Best Buy, could you provide an online ref
| to one? thank you in advance. :) 

I have not been looking at these in the recent past (years). My first
thought is even at Radio Shack you could find one with a noise figure
less than 6 db. As you go to lower noise figures, other things like
intermodulation products tend to go up. If your pre-amplifier is getting
a mix of strong and weak signals, the strong ones may result in intermod
before the weak ones are brought up sufficiently. It depends on just
what you are trying to accomplish. If you have a couple deep fringe
stations you want to pull in around strong stations I would suggest that
those be brought in with single channel antennas and single channel tuned
pre-amplifiers that can go to lower noise figures without being impacted
by so much signal from the nearby stations.

Good antenna gain and placement should be part of the equation. Since
you get only 3 db gain each time your antenna aperture is doubled, there
is a practical limit to that. A forward gain of 12db to 15db for UHF,
9db to 12db for hi-band VHF, and 6db for lo-band VHF, is a reasonable
point in most cases.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:01:33 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> If you have a couple deep fringe
> stations you want to pull in around strong stations I would suggest that
> those be brought in with single channel antennas

These basically don't exsit for UHF. Even very high gain narrow band
ones are several channels wide.


> and single channel tuned
> pre-amplifiers that can go to lower noise figures without being impacted
> by so much signal from the nearby stations.

That true. You can get a great narrow band GaAsFet preamp with a 0.6 dB
NF from Advanced Receiver Research for about $115. These also have very
high overload levels.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 6:29:19 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> willbill (trek@worldwide.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:

>> i'm interested in finding a low noise preamplifier
>> for my TV antenna

> ChannelMaster CM7777 if you need both UHF and VHF. Other models in the 777x
> line have the same internals but only amplify one or the other. They aren't
> very popular, though, so the prices aren't much cheaper.


thank you very much for the post and the reference. :) 

i saw your post early this morning, and did an advanced
www.google.com search (100 items/page, English only) on:
"channelmaster cm7777"
and got 44 hits

i didn't have much time to look at length, but
one site gave a suggested list of $85, with
their price being $48 (didn't have time to
check what their shipping charge is)

i also stopped in at a local Target store this morning
(not a Super Target) and was informed that they don't
carry "exotic" stuff like the cm7777 but that their
Super Target stores might have it (google gave a ref
to target.com, but i didn't have time to confirm
that target.com actually sells the cm7777)


> The only thing with lower noise and as much gain is a really expensive one
> from the UK.


am i correct in thinking that the cost for this
unit from the UK would be well above $125/$150?

you don't need to spend time tracking it down,
just provide your guess of a ballpark estimate
of total cost to get it

anyhow, the info/price at the one site i saw this
morning (maybe $60 or $65 total cost for the cm7777),
was positive enough that the cm7777 is on my buy list

i'll check the ChannelMaster web site and see if
they provide local dealers who carry the cm7777
(by zip code)

fwiw, the google.com search also gave a ref to a "discussion"
site that made a positive comparative mention of Radio
Shack's 15-2505 TV amp; $31 at a local Radio Shack store
i stopped in at this morning

it sure looks identical to a Philips unit that Wal-Mart
sells for $18 or $19. but it's clearly not a low noise amp.
it's also not clear if the ref was to using it in combo
with the cm7777

given that i need two amps (one as a gift for
a family member), and that i already have a cheap
inline amp (Radio Shack $30), odds are i'll get
both the cm7777 and also pick up the $18 Philips unit
(at Wal-Mart) and do some 1st hand comparisons

the nice thing about buying at a local Radio Shack
or Wal-Mart is that if i don't like the unit
i can get a full refund with no questions asked

bill
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 7:00:48 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

<big snips>

> But I will also personally hold off going DTV until the price point
> is reached ... and then I will buy a high end model anyway. So the
> "pennies" theory is not really there.


imo, we might see ~$125 for a digital tuner
in 18/24+ months, coz as the volume increases,
the current prices (for separate digital
TV tuners) will finally fall significantly

fwiw, i'm in suburban Chicago and have 10 English
OTA analog channels

8 of them now transmit digital, 3 of them
with subchannels

with analog tuner, only 2 of them give a good
picture all of the time

with this new digital tuner, i get usable input
(that doesn't break up) with 7 channels all of the
time, and 3 of these 7 have -2, -2/-3, and
-2/-3/-4/-5/-6 sub channels

it's like getting cable quality for free

meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
(especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)

why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
for the tuner prices to drop?

buy one now, and wait 12+ months before you
buy any more

bill
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 7:14:04 PM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:28:50 -0500 Doug McDonald <mcdonald@snpoam_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> If you have a couple deep fringe
|> stations you want to pull in around strong stations I would suggest that
|> those be brought in with single channel antennas
|
| These basically don't exsit for UHF. Even very high gain narrow band
| ones are several channels wide.

True, but it still beats using a full band antenna which can have some
funny patterns at a few channels. Sure, a single channel yagi at channel
30 might well be usable from 24 to 36. Buy the antenna for the channel
you want (or at least very close to it) and you get a clean and narrow
pattern.


|> and single channel tuned
|> pre-amplifiers that can go to lower noise figures without being impacted
|> by so much signal from the nearby stations.
|
| That true. You can get a great narrow band GaAsFet preamp with a 0.6 dB
| NF from Advanced Receiver Research for about $115. These also have very
| high overload levels.

This is a good source for preamps.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:01:49 AM

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

willbill (trek@worldwide.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > The only thing with lower noise and as much gain is a really expensive one
> > from the UK.
>
>
> am i correct in thinking that the cost for this
> unit from the UK would be well above $125/$150?

Yep. I've lost the link for it, since it's performance (although great)
isn't worth the price for me. It runs about 1dB noise, while the CM7777
is around 2.2dB or so.

--
Jeff Rife | "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders,
| the most famous of which is 'Never get involved
| in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less
| famous is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian,
| when death is on the line!'"
| -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 1:51:26 AM

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

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

| it's like getting cable quality for free
|
| meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
| and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
| (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
|
| why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
| for the tuner prices to drop?

You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).


| buy one now, and wait 12+ months before you
| buy any more

For myself, I will wait until the market matures a bit more. When I
see the low priced units around, then I will know that the maturity is
being reached with the higher end units. Then I will buy one. But at
that point I expect quality interfaces, too, such as SDI.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:10:23 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> Then there are many people on the borderline. They manage to keep all
> bills paid

Like the cable bill?

> and even own a DVD player. But they don't buy things as
> costly as $200. These are people that will be screaming bloody murder
> at their congress people once they find out about the analog cutoff,
> unless the tuner/converter boxes are under $40.

Why do they need one if they have cable TV? Yes, the vast majority of
households in this country subscribe cable or satellite. The real problem
in the transition is the OTA-only TVs (that exist even in homes with
cable and satellite...I have several that get locals only from OTA, even
though I have DirecTV).

But, anybody that can pay a cable/satellite bill (which is well over 75%
of the country) can pay for an ATSC receiver when they hit $50. And, the
rest will be subsidized.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/GutterBall.gif
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 5:25:04 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
>
> | it's like getting cable quality for free
> |
> | meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
> | and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
> | (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
> |
> | why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
> | for the tuner prices to drop?

> You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
> what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
> again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
> cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
> And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
> should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).


ah, a do-gooder

fwiw, i'll be very surprised if the USA government
pays a penny to subsidize digital TV tuners when
analog TV transmission gets turned off

bill
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:28:34 AM

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:10:23 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> Then there are many people on the borderline. They manage to keep all
|> bills paid
|
| Like the cable bill?
|
|> and even own a DVD player. But they don't buy things as
|> costly as $200. These are people that will be screaming bloody murder
|> at their congress people once they find out about the analog cutoff,
|> unless the tuner/converter boxes are under $40.
|
| Why do they need one if they have cable TV? Yes, the vast majority of
| households in this country subscribe cable or satellite. The real problem
| in the transition is the OTA-only TVs (that exist even in homes with
| cable and satellite...I have several that get locals only from OTA, even
| though I have DirecTV).

You cannot say even "majority" for the Dallas / Fort Worth area, since
(according to an article published a few years ago in the Dallas Morning
News newspaper there) indicated that the cable penetration of that market
was less than 50% (I believe the figure was 46%). Satellite may be a
part of what is left, but so is OTA as that market has more channels than
any other market except maybe for Los Angeles.

Maybe the ATSC to NTSC converter boxes will also have an RF modulator
for a couple channels. If not, then one can be added; they are fairly
cheap.

Portable TVs that only analog will be another issue.


| But, anybody that can pay a cable/satellite bill (which is well over 75%
| of the country) can pay for an ATSC receiver when they hit $50. And, the
| rest will be subsidized.

At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
it. Be glad you don't work in the Congressional mailroom when the analog
cutoff hits. In general, people don't like having their property made to
be worthless, even if they can afford to replace it. As a lot of people
will see it, that $50 could be spent on other things (but that varies from
person to person ... it might be a keg of beer for some people).

Congress will need to subsidize it for those that can't afford it, and will
need to justify it to those who can, but are pissed off about the change.
Lots of people know HDTV is coming. Few of them understand that their
existing TV won't work even on the programs that are in SD.

It seems with the FCC unable to get their computers to work right to accept
applications from LP stations for switching to digital, there may still be
some OTA available in analog.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:28:35 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> You cannot say even "majority" for the Dallas / Fort Worth area, since
> (according to an article published a few years ago in the Dallas Morning
> News newspaper there) indicated that the cable penetration of that market
> was less than 50% (I believe the figure was 46%).

This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.

> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
> it.

Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:30:01 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:25:04 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
|>
|> | it's like getting cable quality for free
|> |
|> | meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
|> | and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
|> | (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
|> |
|> | why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
|> | for the tuner prices to drop?
|
|> You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
|> what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
|> again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
|> cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
|> And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
|> should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).
|
|
| ah, a do-gooder
|
| fwiw, i'll be very surprised if the USA government
| pays a penny to subsidize digital TV tuners when
| analog TV transmission gets turned off

I'd be surprised, too. But it is they who have to pay the consequences.
I doubt it will be riots in the streets. But crime _will_ go up.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 3:44:53 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:34:25 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> You cannot say even "majority" for the Dallas / Fort Worth area, since
|> (according to an article published a few years ago in the Dallas Morning
|> News newspaper there) indicated that the cable penetration of that market
|> was less than 50% (I believe the figure was 46%).
|
| This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
| in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.

I find it hard to believe that the number of households with cable or
satellite doubled in just 6 years.


|> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
|> it.
|
| Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
| and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
| be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.

Crime will go up.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 3:44:54 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> | This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
> | in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.
>
> I find it hard to believe that the number of households with cable or
> satellite doubled in just 6 years.

Since your original number was from cable only, and since satellite has
more than doubled the number of subscribers they have in that time, it's
not at all unlikely.

> |> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
> |> it.
> |
> | Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
> | and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
> | be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.
>
> Crime will go up.

Ah, right. Prove *that* cause and effect and win a Nobel prize.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:49:28 PM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:51:01 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> | This must be outdated. Nationwide, cable and satellite subcriptions are
|> | in nearly 90% of households. DFW isn't much different.
|>
|> I find it hard to believe that the number of households with cable or
|> satellite doubled in just 6 years.
|
| Since your original number was from cable only, and since satellite has
| more than doubled the number of subscribers they have in that time, it's
| not at all unlikely.

So you think satellite has taken up the slack? Satellite is still a
fraction of what cable is. Maybe you should go live in that area a while
and see for yourself how TV works there. You can get 18 analog channels
OTA. Most apartment complexes have an MATV system. But half the
apartments don't have the right look angle for satellite. Apartments make
up a big chunk of the households around there (biggest complex I saw was
over 8,000 units). The fact remains DFW has plenty of OTA (maybe that
will change when Bob Miller's prediction of the death of OTA comes to
pass) and that reduces the desire for cable or satellite. Little do they
know what is coming along in 2009 for them.

At least lots of people here in WV have satellite, though a lot of that is
still on C-band.


|> |> At $50, sure, most can afford it. But many will still be pissed off about
|> |> it.
|> |
|> | Well, too bad. Everybody is pissed off at the government about something,
|> | and a $50 expenditure that you almost certainly don't *have* to make should
|> | be way down on the list of things to get really worked up about.
|>
|> Crime will go up.
|
| Ah, right. Prove *that* cause and effect and win a Nobel prize.

It's a prediction. We wait until analog gets cut off and see what happens.
You can prove me wrong in 2009, if it turns out I really am wrong.

It's similar to why crime goes up in heat waves. People too poor to buy
air conditioners don't want to sit around the house so they go out for the
night. More people out partying, drinking, cruising, and crime simply
goes up. That and a few might even figure out the need to steal a new TV
or and STB.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:11:38 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:25:04 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |
> |> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:00:48 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
> |>
> |> | it's like getting cable quality for free
> |> |
> |> | meaning that it has paid for itself immediately.
> |> | and i LOVE the 24 hour NBC/ABC weather forcasts
> |> | (especially the radar and 12 hour forcasts)
> |> |
> |> | why would you want to wait for another 2+ years
> |> | for the tuner prices to drop?
> |
> |> You didn't understand my original context. What I am referring to is
> |> what cost most people would be expected to pay to get their TV signals
> |> again when the analog cutoff happens. I'm referring to people who
> |> cannot afford cable or satellite and in many cases barely even a TV.
> |> And please don't suggest that these elderly shutins on fixed incomes
> |> should go out and get a job (as some people have suggested).
> |
> |
> | ah, a do-gooder
> |
> | fwiw, i'll be very surprised if the USA government
> | pays a penny to subsidize digital TV tuners when
> | analog TV transmission gets turned off
>
> I'd be surprised, too. But it is they who have to pay the consequences.
> I doubt it will be riots in the streets.


glad to hear that coz i was starting to
wonder about you


> But crime _will_ go up.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

maybe, but not due to the discontinuation
of analog TV transmission. imo, you really
need to get out in the real world and find
out what is going on

fwiw, i got out today and asked some
questions at a local Best Buy, and at a
high-end audio/visual store. Best Buy
had two digital TV tuners at $250 and $300.
the high-end store had a Samsung at $250.
the high-end rep mentioned that small sets
were just mandated (last month) to have
digital tuner capability, but so far,
i haven't seen it

i also suspect that the initial small TV sets
with built in digital tuners will be limited
in their digital capability

just keep holding your breath for
another 18 months or so

bill
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 6:47:39 PM

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:11:38 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> I'd be surprised, too. But it is they who have to pay the consequences.
|> I doubt it will be riots in the streets.
|
|
| glad to hear that coz i was starting to
| wonder about you

Because you were reading some posts by a couple of sociopath crackpots?


|> But crime _will_ go up.
|
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| maybe, but not due to the discontinuation
| of analog TV transmission. imo, you really
| need to get out in the real world and find
| out what is going on

I have been out there. Have you taken courses in Criminial Justice and
Criminal Sociology? I have. It is already well known that the more you
can keep people home or at work at night, the fewer there are out tempted
to commit crimes. This has been known for decades. If the TV doesn't
work, a few more will be out instead of at home. And some of them will
be angry, too. A few will even figure out that some other people have
TV's that do work (and then the temptation to burglary becomes real to
these people who aren't at home). Big screen TVs won't be easy to steal.
But supposedly the small ones will be out by the cutoff date, and those
will be the likely targets of theft by these people who have always had
only small screen TVs anyway (they might dream of having a big screen but
will be quite happy with the same old small size to get one that works).


| fwiw, i got out today and asked some
| questions at a local Best Buy, and at a
| high-end audio/visual store. Best Buy
| had two digital TV tuners at $250 and $300.
| the high-end store had a Samsung at $250.
| the high-end rep mentioned that small sets
| were just mandated (last month) to have
| digital tuner capability, but so far,
| i haven't seen it

We'll have to wait and see how much then end up costing. Try visiting
your local Wal-Mart or Target (or equivalent discount) store and see
what some bottom of the line TV sets cost. When the ATSC capable models
show up, compare prices. The previous prices represent what the market
will bear in terms of the percentages of people that do get TVs. To the
extent the new prices are higher, that represents fewer people who can
buy a replacement TV.

There is a certain rate of TV turnover as sets break down. Some people
can't even afford to replace their broken TV, so they may be out on the
streets finding something else to do. We have to live with these
percentages as they are. If the TV prices go up, the percentage out on
the street goes up. And when the analog cutoff happens, a *lot* of TVs
will then break, and there will be a surge of people out on the streets
because not all of them can afford to immediately replace the TVs.

If STB prices have dropped a lot by that time, it could be an option in
lieu of a whole TV replacement, and help mitigate the problem.


| i also suspect that the initial small TV sets
| with built in digital tuners will be limited
| in their digital capability

That's possible, depending on how the mandate is worded and enforced.
I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
the big football game.


| just keep holding your breath for
| another 18 months or so

I am in the market for a small portable model right now. But I do not
want to waste money on one that will be obsolete in a few years. Who
would even buy a used analog-only set when analog transmissions (other
than by LPTV) are off?

I think it is time to start spreading the word to people to warn them
that buying a new TV today is wasted money unless it has digital tuning
capability. The average person doesn't know there is an analog cutoff.
Most don't even know what analog is.

I also realize that if people stop buying the analog-only models, the
retailers may be even slower getting the digital models to the shelves.
But whoever realizes its time to dump the analog stock and bring out
the digitals will be the first to pick up the new sales.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:38:41 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:11:38 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

> | i also suspect that the initial small TV sets
> | with built in digital tuners will be limited
> | in their digital capability


> That's possible, depending on how the mandate is worded and enforced.


we may see the answer at the stores
in the next 6 months


> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
> the big football game.


maybe

my bet is maybe not


> | just keep holding your breath for
> | another 18 months or so
>
> I am in the market for a small portable model right now. But I do not
> want to waste money on one that will be obsolete in a few years. Who
> would even buy a used analog-only set when analog transmissions (other
> than by LPTV) are off?


like i said, just keep holding your breath
for another 18 months or so


> I think it is time to start spreading the word to people to warn them
> that buying a new TV today is wasted money unless it has digital tuning
> capability. The average person doesn't know there is an analog cutoff.
> Most don't even know what analog is.
>
> I also realize that if people stop buying the analog-only models, the
> retailers may be even slower getting the digital models to the shelves.
> But whoever realizes its time to dump the analog stock and bring out
> the digitals will be the first to pick up the new sales.


cable quality is here now and free

you only need a *decent* digital TV tuner

bill
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:00:20 PM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> I also realize that if people stop buying the analog-only models, the
|> retailers may be even slower getting the digital models to the shelves.
|> But whoever realizes its time to dump the analog stock and bring out
|> the digitals will be the first to pick up the new sales.
|
|
| cable quality is here now and free
|
| you only need a *decent* digital TV tuner

But the tuner is not free.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 9:09:49 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500, willbill
<trek@worldwide.net> posted:

>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

>> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
>> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
>> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
>> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
>> the big football game.
>
>
>maybe
>
>my bet is maybe not

All of the ATSC tuners/receivers built or announced process
all 18 video formats (actually 36, the 18 are repeated with
a 0.1% offset in the field/frame rate).

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:53:53 AM

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 05:09:49 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
| On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500, willbill
| <trek@worldwide.net> posted:
|
|>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|>> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
|>> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
|>> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
|>> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
|>> the big football game.
|>
|>
|>maybe
|>
|>my bet is maybe not
|
| All of the ATSC tuners/receivers built or announced process
| all 18 video formats (actually 36, the 18 are repeated with
| a 0.1% offset in the field/frame rate).

Ah, OK. I though the 18 included those already. That makes for a wider
choice. Thanks for the info.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:53:54 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 05:09:49 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:

> | On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:38:41 -0500, willbill posted:

> |>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> |>> I think it should require that all 18 ATSC recognized formats be able
> |>> to be displayed it at least some reasonable fashion. Just because you
> |>> have a small TV doesn't mean you should face a blank screen when the
> |>> local affiliate switches to 720p or 1080i for network primetime or for
> |>> the big football game.

> |>maybe
> |>
> |>my bet is maybe not
> |
> | All of the ATSC tuners/receivers built or announced process
> | all 18 video formats (actually 36, the 18 are repeated with
> | a 0.1% offset in the field/frame rate).
>
> Ah, OK. I though the 18 included those already. That makes for a wider
> choice. Thanks for the info.

odds are that small TV sets (with digital tuners)
will cost more, at least initially

i mean, what is the current cost differential?

KB posted on a RCA 27" HDTV (in this thread) at $300,
which i saw at a local Wal-Mart at $298 or $299

the "picture" (on this) will become more clear
in the next 3-to-9 months

the issue is whether or not there will be an
increased price for small sets with digital tuners?

and how much it might be (initially)

bill
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:09:27 AM

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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:39:50 -0500, willbill
<trek@worldwide.net> posted:

>the issue is whether or not there will be an
>increased price for small sets with digital tuners?
>
>and how much it might be (initially)

<http://www.media-visions.com/itv-usdtv.html&gt;

According to this link, in 2004, the $200 Wal-Mart USDTV
ATSC DTV/HDTV STB cost $150 to build.

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:06:49 PM

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

K. B. wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:39:50 -0500, willbill
> <trek@worldwide.net> posted:

>>the issue is whether or not there will be an
>>increased price for small sets with digital tuners?
>>
>>and how much it might be (initially)
>
>
> <http://www.media-visions.com/itv-usdtv.html&gt;
>
> According to this link, in 2004, the $200 Wal-Mart USDTV
> ATSC DTV/HDTV STB cost $150 to build.


sorry, i wasn't very clear

you posted (in this thread) about a $300 CRT 27" RCA
TV that has HDTV capability, but only an analog tuner

what is the cheapest CRT 27" HDTV (comparable screen quality)
that has a built in digital tuner? and does it also have
a built in analog tuner too?

cheapest i've seen (on newegg.com this last month) is a $600
Toshiba, but i'm guessing that it has higher screen quality
(than the RCA)

same questions will apply when digital tuners finally
show up in small TV sets (22" and smaller)

bill
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:07:08 PM

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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:39:50 -0500 willbill <trek@worldwide.net> wrote:

| odds are that small TV sets (with digital tuners)
| will cost more, at least initially
|
| i mean, what is the current cost differential?
|
| KB posted on a RCA 27" HDTV (in this thread) at $300,
| which i saw at a local Wal-Mart at $298 or $299
|
| the "picture" (on this) will become more clear
| in the next 3-to-9 months
|
| the issue is whether or not there will be an
| increased price for small sets with digital tuners?
|
| and how much it might be (initially)

No doubt a digital tuner with format conversion will cost more than the
same size without. But that difference should be dropping now as there
is increasing production of the parts needed to do this for any set.
My worry is the low end market for the small screen will also push lower
quality tuners and converters, too.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:20:22 PM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:09:27 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:

| On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:39:50 -0500, willbill
| <trek@worldwide.net> posted:
|
|>the issue is whether or not there will be an
|>increased price for small sets with digital tuners?
|>
|>and how much it might be (initially)
|
| <http://www.media-visions.com/itv-usdtv.html&gt;
|
| According to this link, in 2004, the $200 Wal-Mart USDTV
| ATSC DTV/HDTV STB cost $150 to build.

This is an OTA subscription service a few markets (one to start based on
what the article says). But will this box also be able to receive OTA
that is transmitted in the clear in any market?

Anyone ever heard of this manufacturer, Hisense? Their web site seems
to be broken (or maybe is Microsoft specific).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:07:03 PM

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

>| According to this link, in 2004, the $200 Wal-Mart USDTV
>| ATSC DTV/HDTV STB cost $150 to build.
>
>This is an OTA subscription service a few markets (one to start based on
>what the article says). But will this box also be able to receive OTA
>that is transmitted in the clear in any market?

I have one (paid a lot less than $200, though), and yes, it can
receive digital OTA fine, although a couple of the channels are a
bit weak and break up badly in bad weather. (Well, the analog
stations are also weak, but degrade more gracefully). The subscription
service as far as I can tell is useless to me as it's not available
in my area (Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas), at least not yet.

Gordon L. Burditt
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:40:30 AM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:06:49 -0500, willbill
<trek@worldwide.net> posted:

>you posted (in this thread) about a $300 CRT 27" RCA
>TV that has HDTV capability, but only an analog tuner

That RCA TV has an ATSC tuner and an NTSC tuner, but all
18(36) ATSC video formats (includes HDTV, EDTV, SDTV) are
(down)converted for standard resolution display on a 4:3
screen.

>what is the cheapest CRT 27" HDTV (comparable screen quality)
>that has a built in digital tuner? and does it also have
>a built in analog tuner too?

I think the RCA 27" DTV we are discussing is alone in the
marketplace for now (several years ago, Zenith announced a
similar DTV, but I don't know if it was ever on the market).

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:37:15 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:53:52 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:

| On 22 Aug 2005 14:20:22 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| posted:
|
|>Anyone ever heard of this manufacturer, Hisense? Their web site seems
|>to be broken (or maybe is Microsoft specific).
|
| <http://www.hisense.com/en/products/tv_detail.jsp?pcat_i...;

Thanks, that got a good page.

One drawback on this unit is no support for a universal remote control.
Is that typical for STBs?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:41:55 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:40:30 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
| On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:06:49 -0500, willbill
| <trek@worldwide.net> posted:
|
|>you posted (in this thread) about a $300 CRT 27" RCA
|>TV that has HDTV capability, but only an analog tuner
|
| That RCA TV has an ATSC tuner and an NTSC tuner, but all
| 18(36) ATSC video formats (includes HDTV, EDTV, SDTV) are
| (down)converted for standard resolution display on a 4:3
| screen.

I would say that practice is only acceptable on displays of size 13 inch
or smaller. Above that it would be reasonable to expect better resolution
whether at 4:3 or 16:9. But if it costs signficantly less to do this on
larger screens, then I suppose there is a market for it (people who don't
really care about HD, but do want all the OTA channels).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 3:06:24 AM

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

On 23 Aug 2005 14:41:55 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
posted:

>I would say that practice is only acceptable on displays of size 13 inch
>or smaller. Above that it would be reasonable to expect better resolution
>whether at 4:3 or 16:9.

I think many TV set makers will take the cheap way out and
downconvert HDTV and EDTV to standard resolution for display
on a 4:3 screen (letterboxed for 16:9 broadcasts).

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 8:56:18 PM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:06:24 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
| On 23 Aug 2005 14:41:55 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| posted:
|
|>I would say that practice is only acceptable on displays of size 13 inch
|>or smaller. Above that it would be reasonable to expect better resolution
|>whether at 4:3 or 16:9.
|
| I think many TV set makers will take the cheap way out and
| downconvert HDTV and EDTV to standard resolution for display
| on a 4:3 screen (letterboxed for 16:9 broadcasts).

Which would be fine for the small portable TV I am currently in the
market for, but so far cannot find. I just need it to be able to
receive both NTSC and ATSC on US channeling, select all virtual
channels under ATSC, and show the picture regardless of format, and get
the audio out at the correct sample rate (mono is OK). An STB is NOT
an option. Viewable screen size between 7 inch and 13 inch diagonal.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:02:26 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> willbill (trek@worldwide.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>
>>i'm interested in finding a low noise preamplifier
>>for my TV antenna
>
>
> ChannelMaster CM7777 if you need both UHF and VHF. Other models in the 777x
> line have the same internals but only amplify one or the other. They aren't
> very popular, though, so the prices aren't much cheaper.


i got a CM7777 and it's made a POSITIVE difference! :) 

thank you!!

one thing i do NOT understand is why does ChannelMaster
offer the lower gain/noisier CM7778?

fwiw, a local high end video/audio dealer (tweeter) only
offers the CM7778

specifically, the db gain/noise specs are:
CM7777 CM7778
VHF UHF VHF UHF
23/2.8 26/2.0 16/3.0 23/2.2


bill
!