Community Forums

TXiceman · 01-13-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocat54:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TXiceman:
I say, go ahead and do it at this point. Another thing this country needs to do is ditch the Inch-Pound system and go metric like the rest of the world.

Ken

Ken, why do you think we should go to the metric system? It sure caused alot of problems when they talked about it before (Mixed size nuts and bolts-sure was a PITA until you figured out which models and years used what where.)

John </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

we were living in Canada when they made the conversion to metric (1975 or 1976). Lots of griping and fussing, but once it was done, everything smoothed out.

I work in engineering and deal with both systems of measurement and metric is much easier to work with. All overseas work is metric.

We have two sets of wrenches for the cars since our senators and congressmen did not have the foresite to set a conversion date and stick with it. We would have to keep the old Englis set of tools for a while to work on the older equipment unit it was phased out. The rest of the world is metric; the USA needs to follow suite.

Ken

Ray,IN · 01-13-2009, 09:41 AM

Your antenna is not an issue. No antenna change is needed. The receiver/tuner in the television is the only component affected by this change.DTV FAQ page

Ray,IN · 01-13-2009, 09:46 AM

Off topic I know;

Ken, the change to the metric system in the U.S.A. has been shelved indefinitly by congress. Shoot, I didn't even have a issue with the English whitworth system, still have some of those wrenches. I have a conversion chart taped in the lid of my toolchest to make selecting the correct wrench easy.

shooterdad · 01-13-2009, 09:50 AM

Thanks guys for the clarification . I thought i was on the right track ,i just wanted to be sure. Unlike some other forums , it is nice to be able to ask a question and get an simple honest reply, no sarcasm or retoric. Thanks again ..Scott

Retired and Happy · 01-13-2009, 10:27 AM

Scott,

You can get some sarcasm here when they get to know you better. Most if us try to not offend anyone, but we do our friends occasionally

I agree we should be on the metric system too, but our glorious leaders are too chicken to cinch up their suspenders and make the switch. We may wind up in the same boat on TV conversion too.

FlyingDiver · 01-13-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hamguy:
FlyingDriver,

I thought the channel/frequency allocations for digital are the same as analog, just narrower. What frequency is channel 3 e.g., on now?

Same as before, not even narrower. The "extra" bandwidth is used for high data rates (high def video) and/or subchannels.

But you have to be careful about the actual frequency assignment (channel), and the station's channel branding. For instance, the San Jose NBC station is Channel 11. That's the channel (frequency) it was broadcasting it's analog signal on. It's digital signal was being broadcast on channel 12. And that's just a coincidence it was the adjacent channel Could just as well have been 35 or 47 or 52. The program info that's in the ATSC (digital) broadcast identifies it as channel 11.1 or 11.2 or whatever, so that's where the TV assigns it in your channel map.

joe

FlyingDiver · 01-13-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hamguy:
HI again, Joe,

Is 'emitter' a term used for digital transmission antennas only? The scenarios you posit seem speculative and not necessary. I suspect many/most TV stations can accomodate an additional antenna system, especially considering the analog antenna will be freed up after February. Then they can easily switch to that antenna.

I am not sure but I suspect the FCC will not require different signal patterns when switched to digital.

I was using the term emitter to refer to the specific antenna component on the tower used for that particular transmission (specific feed for specific frequency). I am not a radio system engineer (but I do have a degree in aviation electronics). I picked most of this up reading about the various issues affecting the analog to digital transition in the Bay area. It's more complicated than many because of the high density of transmitters (lots of local stations) with very few suitable antenna sites. Basically just two for the central urban area - Sutro and San Bruno). Most of those stations have been simulcasting since 2005 or 2006, so something that didn't work for both analog and digital transmissions concurrently for an extended period of time wasn't going to fly.

joe

Ray,IN · 01-13-2009, 02:25 PM

DTVTransition.orgis a very good educational website for everyone.

SeaBreeze06 · 01-13-2009, 03:42 PM

There are some good questions being asked and some knowledgeable people answering.
Since I might just give up on waiting for the coupon that I have ordered twice but not yet recived are there boxes that I should stay away from or best to look for?

rjf7g · 01-13-2009, 05:32 PM

I have an Insignia and a Magnavox. I like the Magnavox better.

NeilV · 01-14-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hamguy:
"Many stations have multiple towers and are running both a digital and analog tower along with their repeaters. When transition occurs those stations will decomission the analog towers. They may in some of the larger market install additional synchronized repeaters to regain a 2% loss of viewers due to the lack of fringe area reception that was available with the analog but not with digital."

Why would you need or even want a separate tower? Both signals depend on, essentially, line-of-sight transmission and I would think you would want the same coverage with the digital mode as w/analog. There is no techinical reason I can think of why you would need separate facilities.

My ham station can transmit both, in fact, both simultaneously.

Also, I have not heard that the digital signal has lesser coverage at all, actually I understand the contrary. In fact, the batwing ant on my RV gets FAR more signals on my digital TV than by analog alone and from much farther away. E.g., I get 3 solid signals from Tucson on digital but only 1 weak, snowy one on analog.

What am I missing?

I don't know all the technical details of the hardware only the software that tracks its use and the stages of the transition. The reports show digital towers being implemented, analog towers being shut down and lesser coverage by a factor of around 2% requireing the installation of synchronized repeaters to regain potential viewers. In your area they may have already started activating the repeaters or the digital towers may have a cleaner line of sight to your location.

I believe there was an article in the NY Times this past week that covered in part the 2% loss that is anticipated.

They don't let us out in the field very often so I have not personally seen how the implementation is being done.

SeaBreeze06 · 01-14-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rjf7g:
I have an Insignia and a Magnavox. I like the Magnavox better.

Can you tell what makes it better?

Retired and Happy · 01-14-2009, 05:20 PM

Yesterday I apparently wrote in haste. I wrote that I lost about half the stations when I installed my first converter. Today they are all there. I can't explain it. Is it likely some stations are on reduced power or tweaking their systems until the D-Day?

I also installed one in my M/H with no problems except I found a bad cable from the video switch box to the front TV. I got all the local channels I expected and several of the .X's on 3-4 channels.

If Kenya's acts well tomorrow and I can use the one in the M/H in Mobile this weekend, I will be very satisfied. By the way, these are Magnavox from WalMart.

Ray,IN · 01-14-2009, 06:22 PM

Your assesment of DTV broadcast is correct. TV stations are tweeking and varying power, trying to get things right. Some in my area even switch it off/on at times in this ongoing process.