HDTV is OK if you have money to get the best equipment...however for us little people who cannot afford SAT or Cable the reception is not as good as analog, the sound drops out, pixelation is very annoying, out of sync audio video is unwatchable.

Furthermore we now have to buy mutilple antennas to get the channels I used to get with just one....eg. PBS and WRAL tv transmitters are in totally different locations...

I'm lucky that I could just about afford an HDTV receiver that I hooked up to my regular Magnavox 36" TV 4:3 style. I was excited that I would be getting high quality reception however I often switch back to analog to get a "better picture".

When I do get a steady signal there's no doubt that the picture is fantastic, but it does not hold steady enough to fully enjoy the programme.

Not sure what the rest of the population is going to do when the TV stations go fully digital...HDTV Sux for the common man

This message was edited by srj1957 on 08/31/05 13:57 ET.

Unfortunately, that really depends on your house. At my house, every station in town is 11 miles away and the towers are within a few hundred feet of each other. I get excellent reception of both digital and analog stations on a $27 antenna that is vaguely pointed in the right direction. (ok, $45 with pole and shipping) Occasional problems with one station, see next paragraph. I probably need to point it a little tighter.

Sounds like your antennas aren't working for you, or possibly it is the station's fault. Here we have one station that is a major headache for many people. Bad reception (pixelation), etc. They claim to be doing the same as every other station, but facts are facts and the facts are....channel 5.1 sucks. (channel 50, really)

Another fact is that, for most cities, OTA HDTV is better quality than cable and certainly better than sat right now. It just depends on how much antenna work you need to do at specific houses. Maybe you can find someone who could figure out your antenna situation.

Thanks Spiky for stating "....Unfortunately, that really depends on your house. At my house, every station in town is 11 miles away and the towers are within a few hundred feet of each other...."

Exactly my point...until the "they" i.e. broadcasters,techincal guys and who ever else is responsible for this, get their act together there are going to be alot of unhappy people out here.

I do agree that OTA HDTV, when it works, is absolutely fanatsic, DVD quality in fact.

I should be able to replace my analog antenna with a HDTV antenna, add an HDTV receiver and get the same channels but in digital quality. Except 'they' have screwed it all up.

I've been reading these posts and I'd be very surprized if the average Joe would be able to understand about booster, amplifier, preamps and the like.

I cannot be going up the roof every time I need to change channels...I don't have to do it now so why should I have to do it for OTA HDTV ...can some one explain or offer a solution..not a rotator.

These are the digital stations I should get according to antennaweb..., however the orientation of the towers is like a peg board...
* yellow - uhf WTVD-DT 11.1 ABC DURHAM NC 84° 17.1 52
* yellow - uhf WRAZ-DT 50.1 FOX RALEIGH NC 83° 17.5 49
* yellow - uhf WRAL-DT 5.1 CBS RALEIGH NC 83° 17.5 53
* green - uhf WRDC-DT 28.1 UPN DURHAM NC 83° 17.5 27
* red - uhf WUNC-DT 4.1 PBS CHAPEL HILL NC 322° 26.1 59
* red - uhf WLFL-DT 22.1 WB RALEIGH NC 83° 17.5 57

PBS give the best picture but a/v is out of sync,
NBC av is a slightly better, I get better viewing the analog channel
CBS and FOX breaks up all the time
UPN good on a fine day and re-position antenna
WB hit and miss

I can only hope they iron out all the problems before they 'go digital'

I have to say, it werx for me!


Totally. In Los Angeles, some 19 stations can be received with one antenna orientation.

We have reverted to the situation that we had before cable. There is no fault to be assigned here; geography and economics determine the whole thing.


As there were before cable.


Much better.


My favorite analog antenna became a digital antenna on the day that they started printing the word "digital" on the side of the box and changed its model number from CS (Color Series) to HD (HD). While there are antennas that excel at digital reception, they would also have excelled at analog reception. Again, we are in the land before cable, and antenna technology is what we have to deal with.


How?


Just as in the fifties and sixties, except back then the amps were TUBE amps -- can you imagine how difficult it would be for tubes to deal with UHF frequencies?


why not? What is so different about where the stations are for digital?


Pay the broadcasters to move all their stations to one location. Again, economics. Could be the guys in Chapel Hill want to serve someone over there, so if they moved next to your guys at 83 and 84 degrees, they would lose market and profit.

It has the best picture because it is the ONE broadcasting in HD. The others are not, or you would be equally impressed.


They have already gone digital. The problems are the same ones that my grandfather* had to have fixed in southern California by calling an antenna guy and putting up a UHF antenna. These problems are slightly different from what we had before because almost all of the digital stations are on UHF frequencies.

*speaking of "little guy" : he was a retired machinist who farmed a city lot, maybe a quarter acre, about five miles from where Disneyland eventually was built. He worked part time as a milkman. Yes, he called an antenna installer.

Thank you for your positive input. You are one of the lucky ones.

Gents,

This is no different than the early days of Analog! Stations weren't fully equipped for the power levels needed to get the signal out. It takes time playing with antenna arrays and power levels to cover the intended audience.

Right now many of the digital stations are running at reduced power levels. And if you've got stations in multiple directions, well... people have been dealing with that for years with Analog, it's called a Rotor!

I much prefer the OTA HDTV signal to what I get over DirecTV! It's not compressed and looks much better than the satellite version.

But to get the performance took a little effort. I bought a good antenna, I probably over bought, but that just means those days where conditions are poor, I still get good signal. I also mounted it outside, while my HOA was telling me I couldn't! I had to point them at the FCC website, and told them if they tore it down without due process, that I'd put it right back up ASAP, and charge them for the install. They were totally upset, I don't care, I've got a great signal!

Man, your comments about it being as good as DVD....I don't think you are watching HDTV. Or maybe that isn't an HDTV. Does Magnavox have a square HD set? According to their website they only have a 27" in HD. Having an HD tuner doesn't mean your analog TV turns into an HDTV.

Have you tried an omnidirectional antenna? They usually look like a disc on top of a pole.

And everyone else is correct. HDTV is still basically bleeding edge. Hasn't quite made it to "leading edge", IMO. Since there just isn't enough HD shows out there. The bleeding edge is seldom fun for the common man. It really pisses off the enthusiast without enough money to pay for it!

Yeah, well people like Barbra Streisand have the same problem you have, only worse, because NO antenna signal exists in Malibu!

And the entire Hollywood Hills, with all its execs, voiceover artists, and hairdressers (all my clients) have to depend on cable. These hills are more or less in a straight line pointing at Mt. Wilson, where the signals come from, so everbody gets no signal or lots of multipath. One amateur installer got himself into trouble by promising HD to one of these guys, and had to run 500 feet of cable up a hill to an old post near a hiking path, and that didn't always work.

And all of these people did not have TV before cable...and don't have HD now except for what they can get on cable or DirecTV.

Ernie, how do you record without a microphone?

Perhaps you've heard of silent movies?

If you're paying for cable or satellite you have every right to complain about poor quality or service. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're receiving your OTA HDTV for FREE. There are very few occasions in life when you get something for nothing so I'd suggest that you enjoy what you're getting and be glad that you're getting anything at all. You're better off than a lot of people out there!!

In a nutshell, never look a gift horse in the mouth!!!

This message was edited by Eric Snow on 09/03/05 12:43 ET.

An engineer I once knew said that it is not really such a miracle that digital works. It is a fleeking miracle that ANALOG works!

To record, in them old days of analog and substances that got pushed or cut out of the way to make a line analagous (analog) to the sound, what you had to do was push a needle back and forth. Or, if you are Edison or Pathe, up and down (which is why those 5/16" thick Edison records with the white paper labels or embossed shiny black on black are so hard to play...another discussion there).

Remember the tin can and the string? You get two tin cans, put a hole in the bottom of each tin can, tie a string from hole to hole, pull the string tight, and yell like hell into the can. Your voice can be heard at the other end. Very distorted, mostly by the resonance(s) of the tin can bottom.

Now, let's go back to 1924 and before. Paul Whiteman's Orchestra, Sousa's actual orchestra, or Enrico Caruso and the orchestra behind him, arrange themselves around the mouths of horns as much as seven feet in diameter. Usually one horn was used; I was surprised to see a photo recently showing two horns.

This is the opposite of a compression tweeter. The person plays into the horn and the sound pressure becomes increased as it travels down into the horn.

At the end of the horn, you put a diaphragm. Get your mind out of the gutter. This diaphragm is metal, somewhat flexible, and moves...a cutting stylus.

There is more involved; the mechanics of starting the recording, moving the stylus toward the center of the record, volume levels, and, for instance, you couldn't have a bass fiddle or a bass drum because they would ruin the recording.

But that, basically, is how you record without a microphone. The resonances of the horn are apparent.

For an example that is probably out there somewhere, look for Riverboat Shuffle by a group with Bix Beiderbecke. I have found it online a few times. This was done with a horn, no microphones.

And you know those guys who took recording equipment out into the bayou to catch those blues singers? They used weights tossed out of windows to drive the lathes, and they used horns to gather the sound, because like today and the next few months, there is/was no electricity out there.

Also, this process was used to record ALL the Bessie Smith recordings, and all the Louis Armstrong before they started "Electrical Process" which Victor (RCA had not bought them yet) call "Orthophonic" recording. That explains why the red-label RCA LPs, mostly classical, of the fifites and sixties were called "New Orthophonic."

But I could go on and on....

Yes, you should......



Actually, by the numbers you've given you shouldn't need a rotator, you should just need the correct antenna. If you're using that old UHF/VHF antenna, that's your problem. The VHF segment is way too small. Get a good ChannelMaster 4218, or 4228 and you should be good to go.


I'm guessing you're somewhere down south of the Raleigh area? How far? Smithfield or beyond?

Ernie,
Have you ever actually seen someone using THAT kind of diaphragm in a gutter? I'll never understand that phrase.

Thanks for all the input...very interesting reading guys.

I think I didn't make my self clear about what telly I have...no it's not and HDTV.