Good luck with your VHF attic antenna project, barbie845. Indoor VHF is a challenge, as I found out while looking at this posting from the Hartford, CT forum thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16851954#post16851954

By the way, you can put a preamp in your attic even if there are no electrical outlets. Preamps have two-piece design with separate amp module and power supply. The power supply piece is in a separate unit, which you can put downstairs where an electrical outlet is available.

Thank You, I did not know that. That will be helpful if I have to go the preamp route.

I'm located in the Albany DMA, but have only lived here for the last 4 years. I was watching the Yankees game last night on 51-1 (My4) and it occurred to me that the channel naming for My4 is odd.

Why be 51-1 and then have a moniker of My4? And it appears they still have a low-power on RF15. Were they ever on VHF4? Were they ever RF51?

Perhaps they think we all are dyslectic and have it covered with the 15 <-> 51 channels? :D

Anyone know the history and how they got to be what they are?

I believe they are on channel 4 on cable.

- Trip

You are right Trip.

Here is a wikipedia page on WNYA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNYA) in case anyone else was curious about their history.

Amusing fact, though. At one time, they had petitioned the FCC to operate digitally on channel 4. Though it was ultimately approved after a long proceeding, it never made it to the air, as channel elections soon followed and they instead got 13.

- Trip

Anyone else not receiving program info for wcwn 45?
This has been for the past two days.

Anyone else not receiving program info for wcwn 45?
This has been for the past two days.After reading your message yesterday I checked them with TSReader Lite, and they were not sending EIT/ETT (program guide) info. Today they are, so you should have your guide back.

I'm located in the Albany DMA, but have only lived here for the last 4 years. I was watching the Yankees game last night on 51-1 (My4) and it occurred to me that the channel naming for My4 is odd.

Why be 51-1 and then have a moniker of My4? And it appears they still have a low-power on RF15. Were they ever on VHF4? Were they ever RF51?

Perhaps they think we all are dyslectic and have it covered with the 15 <-> 51 channels? :D

Anyone know the history and how they got to be what they are?

While on analog, WNYA 51 was broadcast from Pittsfield, Ma. and WNYA 15 was (and still is in analog) on the Helderberg tower. When digital began, they moved the 51 transmitter also to the Helderberg's on rf 13 after WNYT dropped there analog signal. And yes, I believe the "4" was cable channel 4 in Albany. I AM curious why they would leave the LP analog channel 15 up, tho. From coverage maps, it seems the digital channel has much better coverage with identical programming, from the same tower...I would think they'd drop the analog and save some money on power costs. Oh well, they must have a reason....I can still get 15, but now I'm spoiled with the awesome digital video and sound on 51.1

I was real nervous when CBS went to VHF 6, but I got lucky with this small antenna from Channel Master ($40).
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_6593010/Channel-Master-3010.html?tp=3261

I'm 23 miles from the WRGB tower, so you should be good in Latham. Let me add one important piece of information - I also have a Square Shooter - which stopped receiving WRGB after the change over.

Thanks SimpleTheater, I have narrowed my choice down to this Steathtenna (less intrusive) however I was hoping that I could get more success affirmation from others in the Albany area that are also using this antenna with success receiving channel 6. Anyone else?

I'm using the Channel Master Stealthtenna 3010:

http://www.channelmaster.com/product-overview.php?proID=39&catID=33

And I get ch 6 with it with no problems, and I'm 40 some miles from the tower.

Of course, I had just as good a signal using a $5 FM dipole from Radio Shack......

LD

Since I see several comments from Poughkeepsie viewers, I'll jump in with my signal report.

I'm east of Poughkeepsie, in Lagrange, on the hill west of Baird Park and the Taconic Parkway.

With an old medium-range VHF/UHF antenna, and an antenna-mounted preamp in my attic (not even a very good preamp, from some reviews I've read since getting it), I'm able to get all the Albany stations, most pretty well.

I can get WRGB 6; before the transition and also after the transition when they moved to VHF-Low (post-transition, only after moving my antenna away from noise-generating equipment inside my house, equipment that didn't interfere with any other channel but 6 on Low-VHF). 6 is still one of my weaker channels, but reception is good enough most of the time (signal strength shows around 50, sometimes better, sometimes worse).

I also get 10, 13, 17, 23, 45, and sometimes 51, all from Albany (nothing from NYC). 10 and 17 are best, with signal strength usually 90 or better. I'm sure a lot of this is due to my location near the top of a hill, at this distance you might not do as well at a lower elevation. antennaweb.org and tvfool.com both predict I should get these stations, and I do. If they predict you should at your address, you probably can if you have a good enough antenna.

My 6 reception was better when they were on 39 pre-transition, I still think their move back to 6 was a mistake. VHF-Low was predicted to have noise susceptibility problems, and in my case this proved to be true. I get them now, but my signal is not as good as the UHF stations from Albany, and I have to keep using a big honkin' antenna to get them. 6 has increased power once and plans a second increase sometime between now and September 1, maybe this will improve our reception.

I'm using the Channel Master Stealthtenna 3010:

http://www.channelmaster.com/product-overview.php?proID=39&catID=33

And I get ch 6 with it with no problems, and I'm 40 some miles from the tower.

Of course, I had just as good a signal using a $5 FM dipole from Radio Shack......

LD

Thanks L_G_D Yep, think that's the one I'm going with, any problems you notice with any of the other channels? I know 40 plus miles could be a factor but it should provide a pretty good gauge for me at 14 miles.

I got my VHF antenna today. Hooked it up and half-ass pointed out of my attic window, north towards Albany.. Nothing, so I may need a preamp.

But it was soooo hot in my attic I really didn't play with it much, or move it around, etc. There's no rush so I'll probably wait for a cool day to really give it a try. But I think in the mean time I am going to order a preamp, whether I keep the antenna in the attic, or even if I put it on my roof, I think I'm going to need a preamp anyway,

. . . I am going to order a preamp, whether I keep the antenna in the attic, or even if I put it on my roof, I think I'm going to need a preamp anyway,Get a good one. This is not the place to pinch pennies (or dollars). It'll probably cost more than your antenna. Don't worry too much about gain; most any preamp will have enough. Noise figure (how much noise the preamp's own electronics introduces) is much more important. Lower is better. 2-3 dB is about the best you can do for a reasonable price. Stick with Channel Master or Winegard. Many love the CM7777, but there are other models differing primarily in input impedance and type (75 ohm coax or 300 ohm screw terminals) and whether there are separate inputs for VHF and UHF.

Try to get a receiver up in the attic so you can see what you're doing without having to run up and down. If you don't have a portable digital TV, you can use an analog one with a converter.

I'm also in Poughkeepsie, also with an attic mounted antenna, and only get half as many stations without my antenna-mounted preamplifier. Getting one should definitely help. There's a nice listing with noise figures and gains here: http://www.solidsignal.com/antennas/preamplifiers.asp (make sure it's good on both UHF and VHF, paying more attention to whichever you have more problems with).

OK, thanks guys. Yeah like I said earlier I get all the UHF Albany channels with no problems. They all come in clear and strong. But it looks like VHF is going to be a problem so that's where I'm going to mostly need the preamp.

BTW 1 more thing about the preamps. I mentioned earlier I have NO AC power in my attic. Cat mentioned that the AC power supply on the preamp is separate from the module. How does that work? Is the AC power going through the antenna cable to the module?

I'm just wondering how that works?

Ok, sometimes we fall in you know what and come out smelling like a rose.

This morning after I wrote the above posts I thought since it's cool let me go to the attic and play around. Yesterday I noticed that when I use the UHF/VHF splitter/coupler I got nothing on the VHF but also the signal on my UHF was cut almost in half. Channel 10-1 for example went from almost 100% to about 50-60%..So I took the splitter off, took the UHF antenna out of the window, put the VHF antenna in its place, and connected the antenna cable directly to the VHF antenna, no splitter. I wanted to see if I could get any signal at all on any VHF channel..

Oh yeah I got all of the VHF channels( kind of, more on that later), and I still get all of the UHF channels. The UHF signal is down a little, but still good and strong. So I'm just using the VHF antenna hooked directly to the DirecTV box, and I'm getting every thing except Channel 6.

Now Channel 6..When I 1st hooked up the VHF antenna I got 6 too, along with all the other VHF and UHF channels. So I went back to the attic and to make the antenna more permanent and secure I had to point the antenna just a little higher into the sky.. Maybe 5 degrees. So I set it all up, make it more secure which took me 15-20 mins. I go back downstairs to check the channels again and ALL of the other channels got even a stronger signal BUT Channel 6 went from 48% to zero.

I can't imagine 5 degrees meant that much difference, so I'm thinking maybe 6 cut it's power. Again I'm very happy with getting all the UHF plus now 13 and 23. That's good enough, but losing 6 puzzles me..

Anyway thx to all of you for your help. I appreciate it.

edit: BTW when I do a scan for channels for the Albany Stations a 34-20 and 34-21 show up, AND the signal meter shows about 80% but nothing shows up on either. Just a blank black screen. Anyone know what they are? On page 1 of this thread I don't see a Channel 34 either. Thx

It's WMHT. They're most likely related to the UpdateTV service which is a datacasting service. You can safely remove them from your lineup and ignore them.

- Trip

Thx trip.. I'll take them out.

All morning I have been checking and re-checking the OTA channels and signal meter. And I realizes now why that now that I'm retired in no way do I want to go back into fixing things and electronics. I did that all my life, but now? I had enough... LOL

Anyway Channel 6 is back, at 50-54%..Good enough.. 10 and 17, the 2 UHF channels that I got 100% before with the old $100 Channel Master UHF antenna are now at 96% with a freakin $16 VHF antenna Tower Guy recommended. 13 and 23 are at 90%..And remember I am 65 miles from Albany. There is no rhyme or reason for any of this!! :)

Oh and BTW, Channel 45, a channel I got analog, then after the change over I got a 70% signal with the UHF antenna, now I don't get at all. Since I am getting the other UHF channels good and strong one would think 45 would still come in, but nope, nothing.

Anyway I am more then happy with these results. Again everyone, thx for all the help.

A couple of things on the preamp...

Yes, that's exactly how they work (you have to have them connected via coax (round, 75 ohm), not old flat twinlead which isn't hardly even available anymore). There's a power injector that goes in the house (mine is in the basement, you can also put it behind the TV). You wire from TV to the power injector, then up to the antenna where you mount the actual preamp, then to the antenna. The power injector sends DC power up through the same cable the TV signals come down on.

If you have separate VHF and UHF antennas now, and lost channel 45 by switching to just the VHF one, you may be able to use both antennas. You can use a combiner (like a splitter, but in reverse; most splitters can actually be used as combiners), but with a preamp, there's a better way. When you look for preamps, look for one with separate VHF and UHF inputs. You can connect both antennas to the same preamp, and it will combine the VHF with the UHF and send both to the TV. Note there may be some chance this doesn't work out well, if your VHF antenna is picking up too much of the UHF signals, combining this with more UHF from the other antenna might cause interference. If this doesn't work well, you might need to use just one antenna. Note also if you get a preamp with separate VHF and UHF inputs, there may be a switch, possibly hidden inside, that selects whether one or both inputs are used.

Note that the preamp that everyone seems to say is best, the Channel Master CM7777, does have inputs for separate VHF and UHF antennas. This, and other preamps with separate VHF and UHF inputs, are in the second section of preamps listed here: http://www.solidsignal.com/antennas/preamplifiers.asp

Thx trip.. I'll take them out.

All morning I have been checking and re-checking the OTA channels and signal meter. And I realizes now why that now that I'm retired in no way do I want to go back into fixing things and electronics. I did that all my life, but now? I had enough... LOL

Anyway Channel 6 is back, at 50-54%..Good enough.. 10 and 17, the 2 UHF channels that I got 100% before with the old $100 Channel Master UHF antenna are now at 96% with a freakin $16 VHF antenna Tower Guy recommended. 13 and 23 are at 90%..And remember I am 65 miles from Albany. There is no rhyme or reason for any of this!! :)

Oh and BTW, Channel 45, a channel I got analog, then after the change over I got a 70% signal with the UHF antenna, now I don't get at all. Since I am getting the other UHF channels good and strong one would think 45 would still come in, but nope, nothing.

Anyway I am more then happy with these results. Again everyone, thx for all the help.

I'm jealous that you're getting all of the VHF channels so well. I probably need a better VHF antenna, since I barely get WRGB-6 and WNYT-12, and I can't get WXXA-7 (23.1) at all. (I suspect I'm getting interference between WXXA-7 and WABC-7 from NYC.)

As for your troubles with Channel 45, I'll bet it's an adjacent channel interference issue with W42AE (note that 45.1 is on Real channel 43). You're within 4 miles of the W42AE transmitter, so the signal's probably pretty strong. Unfortunately, if this is the case, a pre-amp may not help much, since it would amplify both signals.

I think I have the same issue. I actually have two receivers, one of them tunes in 45.1 at ~60%, while the other doesn't even detect it due to the interference issue. For you I would recommend trying out another tuner with better adjacent channel rejection. You might also be able to aim the antenna so as to minimize the Channel 42 signal, although that's probably not ideal for the other stations.

I think there may also be a filter you can purchase to remove the Channel 42 signal, but I'm not sure where you would find that.

Not getting Channel 45 isn't bothering me. I'm getting all the channels I wanted. I notice Channel 6 is iffy at certain times, I'm going to keep an eye on it and see if the weather and/or time of day is the problem. But sometimes the signal is dropping to the mid 40's and the picture pixelates. But besides 6, the other channels, 10, 13, 17, 23, 48( Kingston) are coming in fine..

I do not know why I get such a good signal being this far from Albany. Like I said before, maybe the signals come straight down the Hudson river with no obstructions. I am pleasantly surprised with my results.

Thanks L_G_D Yep, think that's the one I'm going with, any problems you notice with any of the other channels? I know 40 plus miles could be a factor but it should provide a pretty good gauge for me at 14 miles.

I didn't see any difference when I combined my two antennas except that maybe ch10 actually decreased in quality a bit, and ch17 improved a bit, but that could have just been that day, since then, both of them vary in strength from day to day. Probably the leaves on the trees and the weather is the biggest factor. Once the leaves fall off, I bet they both come in good and I might even get 45 back, which was never very good and went away entirely once the leaves came out.

LD

A couple of more things.

I don't know what to make of Channel 6.. 3/4's of the time it's fine, with a signal strength of 51-54%.. But sometimes, mostly at night, it gets 0 signal. And now this morning the signal is about 61%.. All my other channels seem to be holding close to the same signal strength all the time, only Channel 6 seems to be changing, and changing A LOT.. I don't know if it's a problem on my end, or theirs. Maybe they are cutting their signal strength at night? I know weather, atmospheric conditions, etc. affect the signal. But not from 0 to 60%..

Also I forgot to mention 6-3, the DOPPLER Radar channel shows up on the guide, and shows up with a signal ( when there is one), but I never get a picture or sound. Just a black screen. Any ideas?

That's intersesting 6-3 hasn't been on OTA for quite some time now.
Usually reception is better at night too.

That's intersesting 6-3 hasn't been on OTA for quite some time now.
Usually reception is better at night too.

Strange that 6-3 still shows up on my guide, and still shows a signal strength. Well, since it's not OTA anymore I'll remove it, thx..

And yeah reception is better at night, like AM radio. But not with Channel 6. That's why I'm wondering if they are cutting their signal strength at night. I'll keep an eye on the signal over the next few days.

I don't know what to make of Channel 6.. 3/4's of the time it's fine, with a signal strength of 51-54%.. But sometimes, mostly at night, it gets 0 signal. And now this morning the signal is about 61%.. All my other channels seem to be holding close to the same signal strength all the time, only Channel 6 seems to be changing, and changing A LOT.. I don't know if it's a problem on my end, or theirs. Maybe they are cutting their signal strength at night? I know weather, atmospheric conditions, etc. affect the signal. But not from 0 to 60%..I'm getting a similar reading, not from time-of-day variations but between different locations where I can and can't get WRGB. At home (8 miles from the tower) I get a solid signal at all times, reading about 28 dB SNR using an OnAir GT with a homemade twinlead folded dipole cut to their frequency. But at work (11 miles), where I can get all of the other stations with the GT using fully extended, horizontal rabbit ears and a loop, I can't get ch. 6 and the SNR meter reads 0 dB. On WYPX (50), which I can't lock to, I at least get a reading of 3-6 dB. I just did a test with the GT looking for a digital signal on ch. 15, where I still get WNYA analog fairly well, to verify that the meter won't register signal strength if the signal isn't digital.

I suspect that the culprit is WRGB's FM signal at 87.9 MHz, the top edge of ch. 6's allocation. The only time I got WRGB digital on rabbit ears after they switched to 6 was a week after the switch when they briefly dropped the FM carrier.

WRGB: I know it's too much to hope that you will revert to UHF, but please, please, PLEASE drop your misguided idea that combining FM with digital TV can work well. It just makes it harder for everyone to receive either. If you think an FM audio version of your station is worthwhile, then do it right: get a license for the FM band.

I'm getting a similar reading, not from time-of-day variations but between different locations where I can and can't get WRGB. At home (8 miles from the tower) I get a solid signal at all times, reading about 28 dB SNR using an OnAir GT with a homemade twinlead folded dipole cut to their frequency. But at work (11 miles), where I can get all of the other stations with the GT using fully extended, horizontal rabbit ears and a loop, I can't get ch. 6 and the SNR meter reads 0 dB. On WYPX (50), which I can't lock to, I at least get a reading of 3-6 dB. I just did a test with the GT looking for a digital signal on ch. 15, where I still get WNYA analog fairly well, to verify that the meter won't register signal strength if the signal isn't digital.

I suspect that the culprit is WRGB's FM signal at 87.9 MHz, the top edge of ch. 6's allocation. The only time I got WRGB digital on rabbit ears after they switched to 6 was a week after the switch when they briefly dropped the FM carrier.

WRGB: I know it's too much to hope that you will revert to UHF, but please, please, PLEASE drop your misguided idea that combining FM with digital TV can work well. It just makes it harder for everyone to receive either. If you think an FM audio version of your station is worthwhile, then do it right: get a license for the FM band.

Yeah, it is disappointing. One of the reasons I bought that nice ChannelMaster UHF antenna years ago was because back then everything I read about Digital TV said when all the stations go to DTV they will all be UHF.

So now they are gone to DTV, but the case of the Albany Stations it seems to be about 1/2 VHF, 1/2 UHF. I'm having good luck with this VHF antenna, honestly better luck then I ever imagined. For $16 it's worked quite well. But I had everything all set-up with that UHF antenna and the UHF signal seems to have been more consistent.

Anyway it's 7:30pm and Channel 6 is gone again. 0% on the signal meter. All other channels are ok. The last time I checked 6, a few hours ago, the signal was 61%..

I don't know. I'm not going to worry about it much. I'll just keep watching the meter and see if it constantly drops at night. If it does then I know it's not a problem on my end..

I'm in Poughkeepsie too, and get 6 at night as well as during the day, with the same signal level. I don't think they're reducing power at night (or any other times).

I'll guess the problem is at your end (or near your end), one weakness of VHF for DTV is it's more susceptible to interference, and with what the TV shows you, you can't tell if you have no signal or a signal with interference. Both show up as no signal. If your signal suddenly disappears my guess is somebody turned on something that's causing interference.

You or a neighbor could have a computer on in the evening, compact fluorescents, or any number of things that emit RF. I actually had this exact problem, I had zero signal on 6 until I disconnected some other equipment in my house then the signal reappeared. I got rid of this interference by moving my antenna to the other side of the house, away from the equipment that was causing it.

I'm in Poughkeepsie too, and get 6 at night as well as during the day, with the same signal level. I don't think they're reducing power at night (or any other times).

I'll guess the problem is at your end (or near your end), one weakness of VHF for DTV is it's more susceptible to interference, and with what the TV shows you, you can't tell if you have no signal or a signal with interference. Both show up as no signal.

You or a neighbor could have a computer on in the evening, compact fluorescents, or any number of things that emit RF. I actually had this exact problem, I had zero signal on 6 until I disconnected some other equipment in my house then the signal reappeared. I got rid of this interference by moving my antenna to the other side of the house, away from the equipment that was causing it.

Damn, now you got me thinking. This antenna is way up in the attic, far from any equipment, but we do have a lot of electronic toys, and a lot of kids too. LOL..Maybe they are running something in their room(s), etc..

I don't think it could be from a neighbor interference. The nearest neighbor is across the street.

The other 2 VHF channels, 13 and 23 are fine. But they are on the higher end of the VHF band..

OK, I'll be more observant to whats being used around here at night.

Thx

BTW I just checked it again, 2 1/2 hrs later.. Still nothing on 6..

6 is on low VHF, which is more prone to interference than high VHF (7 to 13). UHF is most resistant to interference, but is blocked more easily by hills. In my case I found 4 things that degraded or eliminated my signal: Worst was my home theater (even when turned off!, I had to unplug it), my desktop computer, my wireless router, and my flat screen TV. My antenna is also in the attic, it was originally right above some of this equipment, I moved it to be over the bedroom end of the house instead where it's also pointing in the opposite direction of this equipment.

I'm watching Letterman on 6 right now.

I'll just keep my eyes open to what's being used around here at night. It's going to be tough though. At 6:30am as I'm sitting here I am sure everything that was on last night when I lost the signal, the TV, router, air conditioner, is on again now, yet the signal and Channel 6 is back.

I can't think of anything that's different here. But maybe it's something outside.

Thx for the tip, I'll keep my eyes open.

There was a guy in the antenna forum, his nieghbor's truck killed his reception.
He said he could here it coming up the street as his signal went to snow, predigital.
The worst was that his nieghbor's crappy truck required a long warm up time before it would move.
He said they would let it run in the driveway for half an hour before they would leave each day.

Thx trip.. I'll take them out.

All morning I have been checking and re-checking the OTA channels and signal meter. And I realizes now why that now that I'm retired in no way do I want to go back into fixing things and electronics. I did that all my life, but now? I had enough... LOL

Anyway Channel 6 is back, at 50-54%..Good enough.. 10 and 17, the 2 UHF channels that I got 100% before with the old $100 Channel Master UHF antenna are now at 96% with a freakin $16 VHF antenna Tower Guy recommended. 13 and 23 are at 90%..And remember I am 65 miles from Albany. There is no rhyme or reason for any of this!! :)

Oh and BTW, Channel 45, a channel I got analog, then after the change over I got a 70% signal with the UHF antenna, now I don't get at all. Since I am getting the other UHF channels good and strong one would think 45 would still come in, but nope, nothing.

Anyway I am more then happy with these results. Again everyone, thx for all the help.

What you are probably experiencing on chan 6 is tropospheric ducting, it is a weather phenominon during warm, humid, clear early mornings in the summer...the weather system actually forces the radio waves to travel farther then normal giving the receiver (TV or converter box) a strong signal....for a while....the duct usually falls apart mid-morning as the sun rises. If chan 6 is 50-60% early, then goes away later in the morning, that was a duct. You may also notice Albany channels 23, 13 and 51 will exhibit the same large jump in signal strength early mornings, then return to the normal SS as the day goes on.

Here's more info about tropospheric ducting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_propagation

KB..

I'm getting a signal in the morning, before sunrise. BUT it stays good all day, then for the last 2 days anyway the signal goes to 0% around 7pm.

I've only had the antenna up for a few days so I can't swear about any 'pattern' yet with the signal. I have to watch it for a few more days before I can be sure.

But right now, after a couple of days of watching the signal strength for Channel 6 it seems like .....Early mornings, about 6-7am or so the signal is around 48 to 51%...Mid day it's about 60%... Then at 7pm or so it's 0..

It's 7:30am now and the signal is the same as it was at 6:30 am...51%..

This is interesting, but frustrating too.

Thx for all the help and replies to my dilemma. A lot of good help and ideas here. Thx again guys.

Damn, now you got me thinking. This antenna is way up in the attic, far from any equipment, but we do have a lot of electronic toys, and a lot of kids too. LOL..Maybe they are running something in their room(s), etc..

I don't think it could be from a neighbor interference. The nearest neighbor is across the street.

..

across the street isn't very far - i have a 1958 ferguson tractor and the sparkplugs kill reception from 800 feet away - i haven't experimented but my wife tells me that whenever i am using the tractor, even at my brothers house 800 ft. down the hill it kills the TV - the electric carving knife kills it too, any other motor with brushes could kill reception (even turning the lights in the house on or off kills it for a second, so any thing that sparks can kill it too)...

KB..

I'm getting a signal in the morning, before sunrise. BUT it stays good all day, then for the last 2 days anyway the signal goes to 0% around 7pm.

I've only had the antenna up for a few days so I can't swear about any 'pattern' yet with the signal. I have to watch it for a few more days before I can be sure.

But right now, after a couple of days of watching the signal strength for Channel 6 it seems like .....Early mornings, about 6-7am or so the signal is around 48 to 51%...Mid day it's about 60%... Then at 7pm or so it's 0..

It's 7:30am now and the signal is the same as it was at 6:30 am...51%..

This is interesting, but frustrating too.

Thx for all the help and replies to my dilemma. A lot of good help and ideas here. Thx again guys.

OK, Barbie...now "in theory", the duct "should" come back up as the sun sets, but you are experencing a dead signal nearing darkness, which would tell me you have an interference problem. The VHF-LO channels are VERY sensative to all kinds of electronic noise...when my toaster pops up, it drops channel 6 for a second...my old laptop shuts 6 right down, even tho the antennas are some 15 feet up in the air (new laptop is much cleaner, thank goodness, if it's on, or off, the signal doesn't change) Many desk top computers are VERY dirty.
Here's a test, it may be a PITA to keep watching the signal meter but it may help...
Does your signal strength gradually drop towards 7 pm, or does it go from 51% to 0% as if someone threw a light switch??? If it's up, then immediately down....it's interference. You may have something coming on automatically at your house, porch light, dvr recording a favorite show, hot water heater coming on, florecent lights coming on to do the dinner dishes...it could be anything...or anything even across the street...the problem is the actual frequency channel 6 is transmitting on...it was a bad idea to put DTV on the VHF-LO bands because of the interference problems, that is why of the roughly 1800 full power TV stations across the U.S., only 9 are transmitting on channel 6. Unlike analog that was, well...just there, HDTV's and converter boxes must decode the digital signal before the picture appears. Your signal strength meter is actually indicating how well the digital stream is being decoded by the device. Any interuption of the digital stream will show a 0% signal...electronic interference will do just that. The interference will "mask" the digital stream and the TV says..."WHAT?"...and no picture. :)
You'll have to eyeball everything that happens in your home and may even have to see if lights come on across the street just as your dead signal happens..
Good Luck!!!!!

Yep. it now obvious I have an interference problem. Last night when I checked at 9pm, and 10:30pm I had a signal, the last 2 nights I had NO signal.

BUT as KB just mentioned the signal constantly jumped from 0 to 51%, or as KB said like someone was turning a light switch on and off.

Now this morning I have 51%, but it's steady.

So I'll keep my eyes open to what's running, and/or when it cools off maybe go back up in the attic and move the antenna around a little to see it that helps.

Channel 6 isn't high on my list so I don't want to move the antenna too much which might jeopardize me picking up 10 and 23. But when I get a cool day I will move it around a little to see it that helps..

It seems like Channel 6's decision to go low band VHF was an unbelievable dumb decision. I understand I live 65 miles away so I shouldn't be picking up 6, or any of the Albany stations anyway. But from reading this thread even people who live near Albany are having problems picking up Channel 6..

Thx again guys..

Yep. it now obvious I have an interference problem. Last night when I checked at 9pm, and 10:30pm I had a signal, the last 2 nights I had NO signal.

BUT as KB just mentioned the signal constantly jumped from 0 to 51%, or as KB said like someone was turning a light switch on and off.

Now this morning I have 51%, but it's steady.

So I'll keep my eyes open to what's running, and/or when it cools off maybe go back up in the attic and move the antenna around a little to see it that helps.

Channel 6 isn't high on my list so I don't want to move the antenna too much which might jeopardize me picking up 10 and 23. But when I get a cool day I will move it around a little to see it that helps..

It seems like Channel 6's decision to go low band VHF was an unbelievable dumb decision. I understand I live 65 miles away so I shouldn't be picking up 6, or any of the Albany stations anyway. But from reading this thread even people who live near Albany are having problems picking up Channel 6..

Thx again guys..

Well, I'm 53 miles away and I'm pretty good with all the channels, obviously chan 6 is my "sometime good, sometimes broken" channel...
I'd say before you go way out of your way, maybe wait until chan 6 bumps the power to 30.2 kilowatts if 6 isn't a priority, it may be night and day for you...
I, on the other hand, have had just about enough of the sometimes on, sometimes off reception on channel 6, the waiting for who knows when that power boost will happen...I bought the parts yesterday to build a beam antenna that will receive channel 6 specifically, a high gain yagi antenna.
Then they can take all the time they want to "try and fix" their obvious mistake...
I'll catch ya here, Barbie...have a great day!

Yeah, I'm in no rush so I'll wait until they boast their power. And since this antenna peaks through a couple of the neighbors trees across the street, I'm sure when the leaves disappear I'll probably get a boast then too.

BTW any idea of when they plan on boasting their power? Any date?

Thx, and you have a good day too.

The station hasn't announced a specific date for their power boost, but from what I've heard it could happen sometime in August, or maybe September 1. The biggest unknown seems to be when the FCC approves the increase.

Thx..

But waiting on the FCC might take years.. :)

It's even more than the FCC actually; there's an analog Ch 6 in Canada that's still on the air that *might* be shutting down August 31. WRGB might interfere with that if power is boosted, so we might need to wait for the Canadian station to stop broadcasting first. This is where I get the September 1 date as a possible date for the power increase, but this is guesswork on my part.

It's even more than the FCC actually; there's an analog Ch 6 in Canada that's still on the air that *might* be shutting down August 31. WRGB might interfere with that if power is boosted, so we might need to wait for the Canadian station to stop broadcasting first. This is where I get the September 1 date as a possible date for the power increase, but this is guesswork on my part.

Well, he's been dancing around this FCC/Canada thing for better then a week now, Gary...with the prestege that WRGB must carry, you'd think both entities would be in daily communication with CBS6...but if you read the discussions, it's like they're totally in the dark, which I don't believe.
My bet is no power before Sept.1, they're not saying for sure fearing a riot....but then there is Barbie's comment about the FCC....he's right you know....
I worked on my Yagi yesterday, the driven element is installed, a few more holes and element cuts and it should be up soon...I have Monday/Tuesday off next week and will finish. After that they can take all the time they want.
Oh, and my confidence is high that the boost will ever happen...a lot of "MIGHTS" up there....

but then there is Barbie's comment about the FCC....he's right you know....

I'm basing my comment on how long it took the FCC to rule on the XM/Sirius merger. It took forever. It took them so long to make a ruling one would have thought IBM and Microsoft wanted merge instead of 2 broke, never made a dime in profit, dying on the vine satellite radio companies.. LOL

But anyway if anyone hears news on Channel 6's boost in power please post it. It will be appreciated.

Thx

Well, he's been dancing around this FCC/Canada thing for better then a week now, ...

I worked on my Yagi yesterday, ...

Well, this change is bigger than your ham license change of address, but doesn't have the same legal considerations as Sirius/XM, but the FCC does have to make sure one station's power increase doesn't interfere with other stations (there's the Canada one, plus Philadelphia, plus I think New Haven which was off the air for quite a while, plus about 5 low-power stations in New York State. It seems the FCC has to make rulings over nonsense like this station using TV channel 6 only to make use of the audio channel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNYZ-LP.

I would also assume we're not told every detail of what's going on, I think because of the large number of problems the station and FCC are working as fast as they can (which may mean an answer in weeks or months instead of years).

I guess Fred got tired of complaints about the signal with you using just a dipole, so I hope your yagi helps out. I am still not sure how much the power boost is going to help, if there's interference problems as expected, it may be that even 30kW won't be enough to overpower it. It seems the station has decided rather than cut their losses on 6, they're going to double down on their bet with a new more powerful transmitter.

Just adding more fuel to the discussion fire here - I was able to watch 6 for a few weeks just after the transition as if they had boosted power for a short time but then rescinded that... as of now, after countless rescanning, I am unable to even get a broken up picture. It's rather sad! I highly enjoy watching CBS Sunday Morning and haven't been able to. At least I can listen to it on the radio! I certainly hope the FCC grants them the full power increase as I'm confident I'll be capable of receiving it reliably afterward.

Here's an idea - if the equipment leftover from UHF 39 didn't go toward 43, maybe set it up on Bald Mountain or some other TX site as a "translator" so the rest of us can see CBS and thisTV...

I think there was a plan to move the 39 transmitter over to 45 (RF 43), but I don't know if that was ever done. I did suggest to the station recently that they add a 3rd channel to 45 (45-3) as a translator with a 2nd copy of CBS (the same as 6-1) for those who can't get 6. They don't currently have an extra encoder to do that, but it could be possible. I would think adding a channel to a transmitter that's already on-air would be easier than installing a whole new transmitter. They seem to want to fix 6 though and not resort to things like this. Can you get 45?

You didn't say where you are (Capital District, or someplace out on the fringes) but I haven't heard of anyone else who had 6 post-transition then lost it.

Just adding more fuel to the discussion fire here - I was able to watch 6 for a few weeks just after the transition as if they had boosted power for a short time but then rescinded that... as of now, after countless rescanning, I am unable to even get a broken up picture. It's rather sad! I highly enjoy watching CBS Sunday Morning and haven't been able to. At least I can listen to it on the radio! I certainly hope the FCC grants them the full power increase as I'm confident I'll be capable of receiving it reliably afterward.

Here's an idea - if the equipment leftover from UHF 39 didn't go toward 43, maybe set it up on Bald Mountain or some other TX site as a "translator" so the rest of us can see CBS and thisTV...

What a wonderful idea! You mean WRGB should do as WNYT is doing by putting a translator in Troy (Bald Mt.) on WNYT rf channel 18 and one in Glens Falls (West Mt.) on WNYT rf channel 45??? Yes, that would be a marvalous idea, but when I mentioned your same idea on the WRGB forum, it fell on deaf ears.
And you answered your own question, they didn't rescind the power on the DTV side, they added power on the FM radio side which is causing iterference to the DTV side. Yup, you CAN listen to them now, huh?
And here's one I haven't heard mentioned yet....you raise the power on the DTV side, you can raise the power on the FM side...but interference is interference, either 4.64, 11.5 or 30.2 kw
As they proudly announce the 30.2 power boost on the DTV side, they quietly plan a major power boost on the FM side...I hope we don't end up with a DTV signal that is the same as it is now....poor....only at 30.2 kw.
As I've said before, they had it made in the shade...a powerful DTV station on rf 39, allowing a powerful FM station on 87.9, neither of which would have interfered with each other...but no, they had to switch the DTV side to rf channel 6...I just don't understand.....

Moving their digital from 6 to 39 would take the 87.9FM from "questionable legality" to "definitely illegal."

- Trip

Gary in Pok - I live on the hill in Troy near Frear Park and RPI. 6 has been very, very strange for me. Initially after the switch from 39 to 6 I got an unstable and unreliable signal, I adjusted my antenna and got it fairly alright after the small boost in power unless a plane flew over, or the wind was blowing, or we were using the toaster - you get the idea. Then suddenly it was gone - a scan adds it to my list but I get a "low signal" or "no program" error message. I'd like to say it was after the FM signon but the FM had been on for a good two weeks before my visual end vanished.

I wish they would purchase another encoder and put CBS on 43.3 - and maybe swap the US Network for thisTV while they are at it.

Not to keep complaining about about reception but what did happen to RF 43? Pre-transition I received it nearly the strongest - now it's my 2nd worse behind 6... I don't understand why DTV sucks so much and in as much as I cannot afford it I suppose I may invest in cable again :( Maybe instead of investing in a new transmitter, WRGB could foot the cable bill for those of us that want to enjoy their programing... I'd say a years worth would be fair, no?

Moving their digital from 6 to 39 would take the 87.9FM from "questionable legality" (?) to "definitely illegal."

- Trip

Trip,
I looked in the FCC FM query, and you are correct, there are no licenses issued or applied for (that I can find) for 87.9 FM in New York. How CAN they legally transmit without a license??? With analog, it just happened that the audio was at 87.7 FM, part of the transmission and was covered under the TV license. Digital is different, obviously. If they were licensed for 87.9 FM, they could re-transmit a decoded digital to analog FM audio signal from any TV channel, but without a ticket, it should not be possible on any FM transmitter without an FM license...can you explain to me how they are currently doing this (legally)??? There is no raw FM audio being transmitted anymore....

87.9 is not part of the FM band, it's part of the assigned channel 6 spectrum. The argument is that since it's spectrum already assigned to them, it's an "ancillary service" or that's what WNYZ-LD in New York argued.

WRGB claims they have experimental authority from the FCC but I can't find any evidence of it. That it doesn't show up doesn't mean anything, mind you, since plenty of FCC authorizations don't show up in the database.

On channel 39, they would have no claim to 87.9 at all, and the operation would be illegal on its face.

- Trip

bwb518, if you suspect FM interference (which is very possible at your location), you could try using a horizontally polarized antenna (if you are using rabbit ears, extend them horizontally; or use some other kind of "flat" antenna). WRGB had the idea they could transmit TV with horizontal polarization (which is common), and FM with vertical polarization (which is sometimes done), and they would not interfere. But, this will only be true if viewer/listener antennas have matching polarization. Unfortunately rabbit ears in the usual "V" configuraition will also pick up the vertically polarized FM broadcast.

My reason for suggesting 45-3 for a 2nd copy of CBS is because it should be comparatively easy, faster and cheaper to do (the transmitter is already permitted and on the air). Actually, if they do this, it may be better to put CBS on 45-2, and move the current 45-2 up to 45-3 (or swap with 6-2). This because it seems some people don't know how to rescan, and they are more likely to have 45-2 already in their lineup.

45 (RF 43) was also worse for me after the transition (I couldn't get it at all for a while), although it has gotten better again. I think they may have been making some adjustments to their broacast pattern. 43 is not on the main UHF antenna, it's on a side-mount antenna (side of the tower), and coverage is not as uniform in all directions.

87.9 does fall within the 82-88 MHz TV channel. At first they started with their "experimental" FM on 87.7 which is even worse, they moved it up to 87.9 which might not interfere as much, but still seems a bit risky. I don't think the DTV signal is very tolerant of noise anywhere within its 6 MHz spectrum. Old analog NTSC was less bothered by interference at the high end of their spectrum, because more of the signal was concentrated at the low end of the spectrum, and also was clustered around harmonics of the horizontal freq., so other signals could be slipped in between the harmonics (done for color, and I believe also for the FM audio). But, DTV utilizes the entire 6 MHz and doesn't have gaps to slip in other signals at the high end. There's sample spectrum analyzer comparisons here: http://www.tvantenna.tv/papers/paper96-1.asp, the "HDTV" line is what we have now (and are trying to fit FM into); the "NTSC" line is the old analog format. NTSC has a broad peak at the low end, this is the "luminance" (the original black and white signal"), there's a 2nd smaller broad peak further up, this is the "chrominance", or the color signal added when color was added to the original black and white broadcast format (every color signal has color on top of a black and white base signal), and the last sharp peak to the right is audio, which was transmitted in FM on analog stations. WRGB is trying to add this last peak (FM) back, first at 87.7 which is in my opinion too close to the DTV signal, 87.9 is a little farther away and might work if receivers have a sharp enough cutoff.

In fact, this paper may also contain clues as to why RF 43 isn't as good either, I know they're using a side-mount antenna, and this paper says:

"Several sources may cause multipath distortion at the transmission facility. For example, it occurs when the transmitting antenna is near the support tower (side-mounted) or is part of an antenna farm. Figure 3 shows what happens to a perfectly omnidirectional Channel 38 antenna once it is installed next to (8-foot separation) a typical tower with a 10-foot face. The antenna pattern is distorted, and in each azimuthal angle, the distortion varies with frequency."

OK, I'll bite..

Why is WRGB so dead set on broadcasting it's audio on FM 87.9?

What am I missing? Why is that so important to them?

WRGB had the idea they could transmit TV with horizontal polarization (which is common), and FM with vertical polarization (which is sometimes done), and they would not interfere. But, this will only be true if viewer/listener antennas have matching polarization. Unfortunately rabbit ears in the usual "V" configuraition will also pick up the vertically polarized FM broadcast.Separating signals by polarization works well for satellite, where multipath isn't an issue, but not so well for terrestrial reception because bouncing a signal off an object changes its polarization. I fed the output of a pair of rabbit ears into a spectrum analyzer looking at ch. 6, set the arms at 180° fully extended and waved them around to see if I could clean up and maximize the digital signal (I could) and reduce or eliminate the FM spike (I couldn't, at least not significantly). At least I found a new spot to mount the rabbit ears so I can once again get WRGB, 11 miles from the transmitter. Still the weakest local station by several dB, but usable.

You're right about reflections changing polarization, I left that out to try to keep my post short :) Interesting observation that you couldn't orient your antenna to eliminate the FM (many FM stations are circularly polarized so you can't tilt your rabbit ears to eliminate them, but WRGB is using vertical for 87.9). If only everyone had a spectrum analyzer we might be able to resolve these problems.

With so many Albany, Schenectady, Troy, etc. viewers unable to get 6, I think interference (noise, multipath, FM, etc.) is a pretty big problem . I can't believe all these viewers don't have enough signal strength (some have other problems too such as UHF antennas or problems rescanning). Some experts predicted low-VHF should not be used for DTV due to inteference, but WRGB is still determined to make it work (even with their own FM interference!). I expect some nearby viewers will still have problems even after they boost to 30kW. If multipath is the problem, the multipath will grow along with the main signal and still interfere.

OK, I'll bite..

Why is WRGB so dead set on broadcasting it's audio on FM 87.9?

What am I missing? Why is that so important to them?

I think they're trying to please everyone, and only making things worse.

A few people like to listen to TV audio in their cars, so they're trying to accomodate this but may be losing more TV viewers in the process due to interfering with their TV signal.

Also, one reason they moved to 6 was because they had 300 viewer reports from people who couldn't get 39. Shortly after the switch back to 6, they had 2000 complaints that people couldn't get their new signal (probably even more by now, but it's unclear how many of these 2000 have their signal back). In trying to accomodate 300 distant viewers, they lost even more local ones.

87.9 is not part of the FM band, it's part of the assigned channel 6 spectrum. The argument is that since it's spectrum already assigned to them, it's an "ancillary service" or that's what WNYZ-LD in New York argued.

WRGB claims they have experimental authority from the FCC but I can't find any evidence of it. That it doesn't show up doesn't mean anything, mind you, since plenty of FCC authorizations don't show up in the database.

On channel 39, they would have no claim to 87.9 at all, and the operation would be illegal on its face.

- Trip

Well, I thought about the "ancillary service" of their licensed spectrum after I wrote the post, but I still think they're talking apples and oranges.
There are licensed FM stations in California, Nevada and Texas on 87.9, be it they are very low power, but licensed just the same. I still think WRGB is sweeping into a whirlpool, sinking deeper and deeper as they try desperately to squeeze an FM signal into a digital TV frequency span. More power may fix the video problems, but will coincidently interupt the FM signal, up the FM power and they're right back to where they are now. It's a vicious cycle that won't stop until they move one signal or the other away from each other...this boils down to licensing an FM transmitter that won't interfere with the DTV signal to rebroadcast audio, and make clean, max power on the DTV signal. The RF 39/87.9 FM combo would have been perfect. Granted, they would have had to officially license the 87.9 transmitter (or for that matter, license a transmitter that is officially in the FM band, people don't care where the audio is as long as they can tune it in), and that would have fixed it all, except for those 300 unhappy folks....now being 2000+++ unhappy folks on RF 6...you can't please all the people, all the time. Cut your loses and help those few 300 folks get the DTV signal.
It's simple RF theory, you just can't drop an 87.9 FM signal on top of an 83.25 (easily compromised) digital signal stream and have both sides flawlessly clean...it won't happen, regardless of polarity...never.

Also, one reason they moved to 6 was because they had 300 viewer reports from people who couldn't get 39. Shortly after the switch back to 6, they had 2000 complaints that people couldn't get their new signal (probably even more by now, but it's unclear how many of these 2000 have their signal back). In trying to accomodate 300 distant viewers, they lost even more local ones.That's an apples to oranges comparison. It was reported there were an estimated 2000 calls after June 12, but many of those involved people who had not done a rescan and their converters were still looking for 6 on 39.

I think they're trying to please everyone, and only making things worse.

A few people like to listen to TV audio in their cars, so they're trying to accomodate this but may be losing more TV viewers in the process due to interfering with their TV signal.

Also, one reason they moved to 6 was because they had 300 viewer reports from people who couldn't get 39. Shortly after the switch back to 6, they had 2000 complaints that people couldn't get their new signal (probably even more by now, but it's unclear how many of these 2000 have their signal back). In trying to accomodate 300 distant viewers, they lost even more local ones.

Thx for the info.

So WRGB is making some of their decisions based on what the polls say?

Are they being run by politicians? :D

Craziness.

Well, I thought about the "ancillary service" of their licensed spectrum after I wrote the post, but I still think they're talking apples and oranges.

That's the argument they're making. I never claimed it made sense. ;)

There are licensed FM stations in California, Nevada and Texas on 87.9, be it they are very low power, but licensed just the same.

The FCC has only allowed one or two stations to be licensed on 87.9 and those are only in cases where there's absolutely nowhere else for displaced Class D stations, which are no longer being licensed, and the one in Texas appears to actually operate under experimental authority. I'm not exactly sure how the Nevada translator ended up there, anyway. None of them is operating with more than 28 watts ERP.

I still think WRGB is sweeping into a whirlpool, sinking deeper and deeper as they try desperately to squeeze an FM signal into a digital TV frequency span. More power may fix the video problems, but will coincidently interupt the FM signal, up the FM power and they're right back to where they are now. It's a vicious cycle that won't stop until they move one signal or the other away from each other...this boils down to licensing an FM transmitter that won't interfere with the DTV signal to rebroadcast audio, and make clean, max power on the DTV signal.

Agreed.

The RF 39/87.9 FM combo would have been perfect.

But illegal.

Granted, they would have had to officially license the 87.9 transmitter

The FCC won't do it.

(or for that matter, license a transmitter that is officially in the FM band, people don't care where the audio is as long as they can tune it in)

If they put up a separate audio signal, then they have to go back to CBS and whoever owns the copyrights of their syndicated shows and pay for audio rights on the radio in addition to the rights they have to air the shows on TV.

A number of former channel 6 stations are airing their newscasts on AM radio stations in their markets, because they don't want to pay for the additional rights required to do a full simulcast.

- Trip

That's an apples to oranges comparison. It was reported there were an estimated 2000 calls after June 12, but many of those involved people who had not done a rescan and their converters were still looking for 6 on 39.

Yes I know some of them got their signal back by rescanning or other changes, that's why I added the line "it's unclear how many of those got their signal back". Some got it back by a simple rescan, some got it back by the "double rescan" (where their box had difficulty removing 39), some got it back by replacing their UHF "HDTV" antenna with another one, and some still haven't got it back, or still have a signal that drops out a lot. The station might have a better idea how many fall in which category, I don't.

I think they're trying to please everyone, and only making things worse.

A few people like to listen to TV audio in their cars, so they're trying to accomodate this but may be losing more TV viewers in the process due to interfering with their TV signal.

Also, one reason they moved to 6 was because they had 300 viewer reports from people who couldn't get 39. Shortly after the switch back to 6, they had 2000 complaints that people couldn't get their new signal (probably even more by now, but it's unclear how many of these 2000 have their signal back). In trying to accomodate 300 distant viewers, they lost even more local ones.

But keep in mind that the distant viewers have most likely exhausted the state of the antenna art and are still unable to get RF 39 reliably. The close up people having trouble are most likely those that either can't or won't put up a large outside antenna. Most of us distants still can't get 45 on RF 43 and 17 and 10 are a crap shoot depending on the weather and wind. 6, 13 & 23 on VHF are now my most reliable channels. I understand distants with line of sight don't have the same trouble as those of us in the hills.

That's the argument they're making. I never claimed it made sense. ;)



The FCC has only allowed one or two stations to be licensed on 87.9 and those are only in cases where there's absolutely nowhere else for displaced Class D stations, which are no longer being licensed, and the one in Texas appears to actually operate under experimental authority. I'm not exactly sure how the Nevada translator ended up there, anyway. None of them is operating with more than 28 watts ERP.



Agreed.



But illegal.



The FCC won't do it.



If they put up a separate audio signal, then they have to go back to CBS and whoever owns the copyrights of their syndicated shows and pay for audio rights on the radio in addition to the rights they have to air the shows on TV.

A number of former channel 6 stations are airing their newscasts on AM radio stations in their markets, because they don't want to pay for the additional rights required to do a full simulcast.

- Trip

Welll.....that about explains it all...I have no other suggestions...I guess I'll just sit here with my thumb.....and just wait like all the rest....
Thanks, Trip

But keep in mind that the distant viewers have most likely exhausted the state of the antenna art and are still unable to get RF 39 reliably. The close up people having trouble are most likely those that either can't or won't put up a large outside antenna. Most of us distants still can't get 45 on RF 43 and 17 and 10 are a crap shoot depending on the weather and wind. 6, 13 & 23 on VHF are now my most reliable channels. I understand distants with line of sight don't have the same trouble as those of us in the hills.

Same with me - I have no trouble getting 6 on rf6 with just an FM dipole attached to my CM4228. Added a CM 3010 just for the outside chance that it might also improve 10, 17 & 45 but no go on those, but it does pull in 6 very well. Ch45 for me is useless, except during ducting times in the morning, and then it's hit-n-miss at best. Usually, it's just blank. Ch17 is decent most of the time, bad weather will make the signal drop considerably though. Ch10 is the best of the three but not as good as the rest of the channels. Ch51 is fine, same goes for the others on the VHF spectrum, 13 & 23. Ch55 from Amsterdam is fine as well. Not to mention ch2 from Utica over 80 miles away, perfect. Go figure.

But keep in mind that the distant viewers have most likely exhausted the state of the antenna art and are still unable to get RF 39 reliably. The close up people having trouble are most likely those that either can't or won't put up a large outside antenna. Most of us distants still can't get 45 on RF 43 and 17 and 10 are a crap shoot depending on the weather and wind. 6, 13 & 23 on VHF are now my most reliable channels. I understand distants with line of sight don't have the same trouble as those of us in the hills.

I am one of those distants with nearly LOS (hilltop near Poughkeepsie, 66 miles away); I wasn't saying returning to 6 was a bad idea because of my own situation (at least not mainly); I was getting 39, and now also get 6, although 39 was a little better. I also get 10, 13, 17, 23, 45, and sometimes 51. My UHF stations (except for 51) are my best stations (45 disappeared for a while after the transition, but is now back and pretty solid).

6 supposedly has greater interference problems than UHF or even high VHF (which seems pretty well confirmed), which may be a big issue in cities where there are many sources that can't be escaped or eliminated. I in fact found I had 4 noise sources inside my own house that caused me to not get 6 at all immediately after the transition, until I isolated the cause and moved my antenna away from them (since at my distance the signal is weaker, minor interference becomes a bigger problem). This interference didn't bother any other stations, including the high VHF ones.

I'll grant you that many nearby viewers could probably do much better with better antennas (for some reason everybody wants to use sleek-looking small antennas rather than real full-size antennas of the right size for VHF, they think these big antennas are "old-fashioned"; some live where they can't put up these big antennas). Other issues include using UHF antennas that may not be clearly marked as UHF antennas, virtual channel numbers making it difficult for people to even know what kind of antenna they need, problems rescanning (it seems some equipment makes it difficult to remove 39 to allow the new VHF signal to be associated with 6-1 and 6-2), etc. These are "viewer problems", but they still created a lot of headaches due to the move.

Provided most issues are related to inadequate antennas or rescanning, the station may be right in trying to get people to resolve them and stay on 6.

However, the problems with noise sources on 6 (which may be FM stations, noise-generating appliances and lights, multi-path distortion for viewers in strong signal areas) might not be easily eliminated and some nearby viewers may never get a good signal. I don't know how many of these will be left after the easy antenna and rescan problems are solved.

It's a tradeoff between some far-away viewers in valleys getting 6 vs. how many viewers will never have a good signal due to issues like interference that may be beyond their control. One argument in your favor is the distant viewers may not even have cable as an option (I know this is true in the Adirondacks, for example).

Stepping back and looking at the whole DTV transition, for the uninitiated, it indeed must be confusing. As Gary in Pok mentions, there are virtual and rf channel assignments. To do a scan either on a tv or converter box, what may pop up as channel 10, unbeknownst to the average Joe Schmo, is that virtual channel 10 can be indeed on rf 10 or as we know, on rf 26. As years go by, I'm curious if channels may revert to their rf channel as their ID. On second thought, probably not.

As far as the WRGB dilemma, it appears to me that soon after the transition date of June 12th, and rumors of WRGB increasing power up to 11kw, reception was more frequent here. Does anybody know if they indeed are still at the 11 kw level or did they have to revert back to the 4.6 kw as they await FCC approval. I'm hoping the proposed 30 kw will be sufficient for reliable reception here 65 miles NW of the transmitter location.

Stepping back and looking at the whole DTV transition, for the uninitiated, it indeed must be confusing. As Gary in Pok mentions, there are virtual and rf channel assignments. To do a scan either on a tv or converter box, what may pop up as channel 10, unbeknownst to the average Joe Schmo, is that virtual channel 10 can be indeed on rf 10 or as we know, on rf 26. As years go by, I'm curious if channels may revert to their rf channel as their ID. On second thought, probably not.

As far as the WRGB dilemma, it appears to me that soon after the transition date of June 12th, and rumors of WRGB increasing power up to 11kw, reception was more frequent here. Does anybody know if they indeed are still at the 11 kw level or did they have to revert back to the 4.6 kw as they await FCC approval. I'm hoping the proposed 30 kw will be sufficient for reliable reception here 65 miles NW of the transmitter location.

Every indication is that they are still at 11.5 kw, and will go to 30.2 kw on 9-1-09 after Canadian CJOH-TV-6 shuts down there analog signal.
BUT...that has yet to be completely confirmed by the chief engineer.

Sort of surprising there would be an issue with the Canadian CJOH on ch. 6, since it's analog while WRGB is digital. If both were analog, I could understand the co-channel interference problem. If one is watching an analog signal, just a little bit of another analog signal from a distant transmitter on the same channel will be noticable in the picture. I wouldn't think that's the case however when one station is analog and the other digital - not really sure though.

kb2fzq, did you ever build the ch. 6 yagi that I believe you mentioned in an earlier post?

de KQ2N

I happened to be in Albany yesterday, tuning to WRGB's 87.9 FM signal on the car radio, I couldn't believe the fading happening. Everywhere from the thruway, 87 and Central Ave in the Colonie area. I know, up this way (Utica area) the fading is normal, but really surprised to have experienced it there.

I too experienced severe FM fading the couple of times I tried it. It's not really avoidable in a moving vehicle, which is about the only place most people would want to listen without watching. Unlike with a normal FM station, the radio is trying to separate the signal from a high noise source on the same frequency (the digital TV transmission). The only way to separate them is by polarity, but that keeps changing unpredictably as the car passes objects that reflect the signal.

Sort of surprising there would be an issue with the Canadian CJOH on ch. 6, since it's analog while WRGB is digital. If both were analog, I could understand the co-channel interference problem. If one is watching an analog signal, just a little bit of another analog signal from a distant transmitter on the same channel will be noticable in the picture. I wouldn't think that's the case however when one station is analog and the other digital - not really sure though.

kb2fzq, did you ever build the ch. 6 yagi that I believe you mentioned in an earlier post?

de KQ2N

Well, CJOH 6 is what WRGB is saying the hold up is, as well as the FCC.."it takes time for the FCC to make sure we don't interfere with the other 2 channel 6's near us"...so the wait continues....
I went to the CJOH (CTV) website and found that the general manager will not be renewng the analog CJOH-TV-6 license after 8-31-09, so that verifies some of CBS6's claims.
As far as the fading, I think it's only because of the pee-wee power they are using on 87.9....if they can't produce a strong, clear signal, how long do they think people wll continue to listen...it's gotta be annoying.
But that's there choice...I think a partial plan is to raise the DTV power, only so they can also raise the FM power, my fear being they will have a very powerful version of the problems they have now on DTV, which will solve nothing. The drone on the FM side will only be worst, and we still won't get the DTV signal. But gee, what do I know....
The yagi? It has come down to a 2 element deal, driven and reflector, I'll finish and test this morning...I have also bowed to frustration and purchased a commercially made 3 element, loop driven chan 2-6 antenna, it'll arrive Monday...it appears that will have a ton of aluminum up in the air, which I was trying to avoid, but, ahhh, what the heck....

I remember when WRGB was NBC, right? And I think they were affiliated with GE.. Or am I thinking of WGY? Anyway my point is WRGB has been around for a long time, so one would think they should know better then to screw everything up so they can broadcast on the FM band. And besides them knowing better add in all the things people can listen to in their cars now a days. Ipods, satellite radio, Mp3 players, CD's, etc...So WRGB is broadcasting on FM for a few hundred people? I mean I can't imagine too many people 'listening' to a TV station in their cars.

All this seems crazy to me.

I got WRGB last night - barely!

Every station except 51, 17, and 6 was off the air last night for what I'm assuming was tower work. 17 was at low power, 51 was full (different tower) and I actually got 6 in!

If it takes everyone else being off the air to get 6, I don't like that solution.

I purchased the Channel Master 3010 Outdoor Rooftop UHF/VHF/FM HDTV Antenna that Fred Lass recommended so I could get channel 6 here in Troy. Well, it gets 6 but now I can't get 55 (ION).:mad:

Anyone know what I can do to improve the UHF reception to get 55? (I bought the channel master online so it's not the easiest thing to return.) Any simple antenna found at the electronics store gets 55 out my way (as long as it's put in the right place.)

LouieM:
From Troy it looks like WYPX is nearly 90° away from the Albany stations. The CM 3010 may be too directional to get both without rotating it. If your previous antenna got all of the UHF stations OK including that one, maybe you could use it for UHF and the 3010 strictly for VHF, combining them with a UHF/VHF coupler.

LouieM:
From Troy it looks like WYPX is nearly 90° away from the Albany stations. The CM 3010 may be too directional to get both without rotating it. If your previous antenna got all of the UHF stations OK including that one, maybe you could use it for UHF and the 3010 strictly for VHF, combining them with a UHF/VHF coupler.

Or maybe you could split the difference, and point 45* off of the Albany towers and get both at a slightly lower signal strength...you'll have to test by moving the antenna direction around.

Or maybe you could split the difference, and point 45* off of the Albany towers and get both at a slightly lower signal strength...you'll have to test by moving the antenna direction around.

It's never a good idea to intentionally mis-aim a DTV antenna. Mis-aimed antennas are prone to multipath. You need a clean signal for decoding DTV, not just adequate signal strength.

Anyone else not receiving program info for wcwn 45?
This has been for the past two days.


I have not received 43 since the transition. I used to get it on a ricochet off Bousquet mountain to the south

Actually the CM 3010 doesn't get 55 (ION) in at all no matter what direction I put it. I'm thinking I may need 2 antennas. The CM 3010 was relatively inexpensive. Another UHF inexpensive antenna might do the trick? (I have an $80 one from radio shack but I'd really like to return it and find something else that would do the trick.)

It's a shame because a cheap Philips set of rabbit ears works just fine in the bedroom. (They didn't work in the living room or our attic for the 2nd TV.)

Every station except 51, 17, and 6 was off the air last night for what I'm assuming was tower work. 17 was at low power, 51 was full (different tower) and I actually got 6 in!
This happened both Friday and Saturday night.
All but 51 drop when it happens but, then 17 and 6 come back.
Anyone know what is going on with this?
It's not VHF, UHF related, ie 17 and 6 come back on.

Dumb question here: Now that all of the Albany/Schenectady stations are digital, do any of their signals reach into far northwestern Connecticut, such as Salisbury? I'm guessing that WCDC-DT's old analog channel 19 signal probably did. I live in southern Hartford County. Although there were nights were we had enhancement from providence, Boston or New York City/Long Island, I never seem to recall getting your direction with analog...ever.

Do any of their signals reach into far northwestern Connecticut, such as Salisbury?

Try www.tvfool.com for your exact address. This is the generic Salisbury signal strength report.

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d23c599b6416b1c

WCDC is line of sight. WRGB is the next strongest station, but you may get interference from WEDY.

This happened both Friday and Saturday night.
All but 51 drop when it happens but, then 17 and 6 come back.
Anyone know what is going on with this?
It's not VHF, UHF related, ie 17 and 6 come back on.

According to an article on the WTEN website, they were painting the "transmitter" - I think they meant antenna. That would make sense that everyone signs off the air for a tower crew up there. 51 is on a different tower so they could stay on. I'm assuming 6 and 17 were on from a back up transmitter of some sort, maybe transmitting from an aux antenna on their analog towers. 17 was a much lower signal strength - I can't imagine they were on low power while the others were off...

I came up from Long Island to my house in Middleburgh last weekend. Just to recap, 2 months ago when I was here, my TV was hooked up to my Radio Shack VU-190 antenna with twin lead with no amp and got everything except 45 and 51. Well I replaced the twin lead with RG-6 quad shield and the results were much improved. Here is what the signal strength meter says on my TV:


6 @ 92%
10 @ 67%
13 @ 82%
17 @ 87%
23 @ 72%
45 @ 61%

2 @ 50% With antenna rotated NE

However I still cannot get CH 51.

mikepier:
I presume you've looked for 51 (WNYA) on its real channel, 13. On HDTVPrimer's antenna comparison page (http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html) the Radio Shack VU-190 appears to have a notch at channel 13. Also, WNYA's antenna is about 100' lower than the others near it and there are significant hills in the way.

A low noise all-channel preamp like the CM 7777 might help but there are no guarantees.

mikepier:
I presume you've looked for 51 (WNYA) on its real channel, 13. On HDTVPrimer's antenna comparison page (http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html) the Radio Shack VU-190 appears to have a notch at channel 13. Also, WNYA's antenna is about 100' lower than the others near it and there are significant hills in the way.

A low noise all-channel preamp like the CM 7777 might help but there are no guarantees.

I did re-scan after running new cable, but could not pick up 51.
Interesting chart you show about the notch at Ch13. I might get the pre-amp anyway because I want to add a second TV and want to boost the signal to compensate for splitter loss.
I never really watch CH 51 anyway, just thought the new cable would have helped.

Here's some pics of my Radio Shack VU-190XR with rotor.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_bsGp7iJrCTc/SoxqEiCxviI/AAAAAAAAAkY/STrXvcnMV4g/s640/016.JPG
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bsGp7iJrCTc/SoxpIrfwC2I/AAAAAAAAAj8/HnQDp5XoaMk/s640/017.JPG

After 14 years and minus a few elements, its still good. I had to secure the rest of the elements with tie-wraps because the plastic tabs that holds the elements broke.

I However I still cannot get CH 51.
you didn't mention 55 - - i am in west middleburgh with old DTVs - my TVs can't get 55 but if i hook up a zenith or dtv pal c.e.c.b. i can get it, but only if i face the antenna south (i don't know where in middlweburgh you are , i am in west middleburgh, if you are right in the village you should be able to aim right uo the schoharie valley towards amsterdam for 55) - the mountains are in the way for amsterdam anywhere else in the town of middleburghg (mountains are to the north) so i have to get the reflection from the mountains to the south - i use a DB4 for 55 (a DB4 is only 2-3db less gainthan the DB8 and 1/2 the price) - by the way, channel 55 is really on 50...

you didn't mention 55 - - i am in west middleburgh with old DTVs - my TVs can't get 55 but if i hook up a zenith or dtv pal c.e.c.b. i can get it, but only if i face the antenna south (i don't know where in middlweburgh you are , i am in west middleburgh, if you are right in the village you should be able to aim right uo the schoharie valley towards amsterdam for 55) - the mountains are in the way for amsterdam anywhere else in the town of middleburgh (mountains are to the north) so i have to get the reflection from the mountains to the south - i use a DB4 for 55 (a DB4 is only 2-3db less gainthan the DB8 and 1/2 the price) - by the way, channel 55 is really on 50...

Channel 55.1 is ION,right?
I am west of Rt 145, just west of Livingstonville. I did point the antenna North and did a scan, but I could not pick up 55.1. I did not try to point south. The next time I go up I'll give it a shot.
I get ION in the city and theres really nothing on anyway, so its not really a loss for me.

I recently helped my uncle in Ballston Spa reinstall his Directv OTA Antenna a few days ago. It hadn't been up since before the digital transition.

His antenna is a Wineggard, I'm not sure of it's model number but it is basically just a 2-3 foot long horizontal wing connected to a metal pipe using a U bolt.

He attached the support to his roof and we started aiming. I could see his TV showing the signal strength through the window and would yell the signal % up to him as he fine tuned. We got 13 to about 85%, 10 at 100%, 6 is about 60%, same with 51 and we don't receive 55. All of the stations are solid without any distortions, pixelating, etc. while being watched.

He and I don't care about 55 but it is going to be tough for someone in a similar situation to pick up because it is so far in the other direction compared to the tower all of the other stations are on.

It is interesting that Channel 10 is pegged in at 100% while 6 is close to 60% and they are on the same tower. It is amazing how different technologies yield different results.

It is interesting that Channel 10 is pegged in at 100% while 6 is close to 60% and they are on the same tower. It is amazing how different technologies yield different results.

How did you do with Ch's 17,23 & 45?

I was amazed I was able to pick up WKTV-DT Ch2 @ 50% strength 53 miles away. Of course I have to rotate the antenna to get it. But since I get Ch 13 there's no need for me to watch Ch2.

I can't remember the exact numbers for 17, 23 and 45 but they were definitely over 60% and the channels had perfect picture and sound when I was watching them to test.

As for Channel 2, I didn't try, Directv has you choose which market you are in, so Channel 2 doesn't show up under the Albany market.

Regarding CBS 6 radio simulcast on 87.9 FM
Comments 1 | Recommend 0
August 24, 2009 1:31 PM
CBS 6 News

OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING 87.9 FM ON THE RADIO

Effective immediately, we have turned off our analog signal which we were simulcasting on the radio at 87.9 FM.

We do not have FCC authorization to transmit an analog signal. We only have authorization for a digital signal at this time.

We are reviewing our options and I apologize for any inconvenience to our audience.

Thank you again to all of our viewers for their patience as we work through our digital issues.

Good riddance. I wonder if reception's gotten any easier now that it's gone.

- Trip

I'm a little far off distance wise to probably have the 87.9 FM signal make much difference, but out here at 65 miles to the NW, currently Ch. 13 (rf 12) sits at 60%, Channel 6 at 0%.

KQ2N

Nothing has changed here for me in Poughkeepsie.. Channel 6 is still hit and miss, mostly miss. But 10, 13, 23 etc. are still coming in strong..

I must be getting some sort of interference with Channel 6 BUT I am going to hold off on doing anything until after Sept. 1st. I want to see if 6 boasts their signal after the 1st if that makes a difference. And like I mentioned earlier it's way to hot in my attic right now to do anything anyway.

So I'm going to wait until Sept. and see if anything changes.

Channel 55.1 is ION,right?
I am west of Rt 145, just west of Livingstonville. I did point the antenna North and did a scan, but I could not pick up 55.1. I did not try to point south. The next time I go up I'll give it a shot.
I get ION in the city and theres really nothing on anyway, so its not really a loss for me.then i went past your place this afternoon on my way back to the city - - - yep, ion, you are right (4 channels of nothing) - i never watched it in the city (but up here you need something to do on a rainy day) - - - - when i got up there this friday night, my box picked up "my4" (channel 13) for the first time - i was able to watch it all night friday, but the next 3 days nothing (maybe they are lower power than the rest?).

Regarding CBS 6 radio simulcast on 87.9 FM
Comments 1 | Recommend 0
August 24, 2009 1:31 PM
CBS 6 News

OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING 87.9 FM ON THE RADIO

Effective immediately, we have turned off our analog signal which we were simulcasting on the radio at 87.9 FM.

We do not have FCC authorization to transmit an analog signal. We only have authorization for a digital signal at this time.

We are reviewing our options and I apologize for any inconvenience to our audience.

Thank you again to all of our viewers for their patience as we work through our digital issues.

I'm curious where you found this?

Yup...here it is:
http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/radio-1265823-span-11pt.html

WRGB signing off 87.9 has had ZERO effect on my reception. My signal strength was at 10% before they signed it off and there it remains. (In Troy near RPI). Unless they start transmitting on both the horizontal and vertical I doubt that meter will move at all.

I personally enjoyed the 87.9 simulcast - when bad weather is happening you cannot depend on radio for information at all. They are all automated and giving ZERO information on the weather if it is severe. Sure, there is CN9 on AM 900 but if it's storming that signal is plagued by startling noises.

I'm sure one of the nosebag-busybody-know-it-all's from radio-info.com turned them in - someone on that board was threatening to do so.

You have to give them credit for trying to serve the public, something most of the FM band has no idea how to do nor cares to try.

I'm sure one of the nosebag-busybody-know-it-all's from radio-info.com turned them in - someone on that board was threatening to do so.

I doubt it. Rumor I heard is that some of the non-commercial stations on the lower end of the FM band complained. I would too in their position.

You have to give them credit for trying to serve the public, something most of the FM band has no idea how to do nor cares to try.

They were only breaking federal law to do it.

- Trip

1) "They" complained on the lower band? The likely candidate is WVCR and who are they to complain? They are running full fledged commercials. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It certainly wasn't WMHT - I have friends there.

2) I don't think they were breaking federal law - the spectrum is theirs. The FCC hasn't clarified either way until now. 87.7 and 87.9 are part of Channel 6 - I can see where they think they were in the right, and I agree with them. Nobody can use either frequency because it's part of their corner of the broadcast spectrum. FM stations can use their subcarriers for additional unauthorized / unlicensed services.

You've been very against them broadcasting on the FM haven't you?

1) "They" complained on the lower band? The likely candidate is WVCR and who are they to complain? They are running full fledged commercials. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It certainly wasn't WMHT - I have friends there.

Probably all the applicants who filed for new frequencies in the last non-commercial filing window that WRGB complained to the FCC would interfere with their operation, when it is in fact WRGB's analog audio that would likely interfere with them.

2) I don't think they were breaking federal law - the spectrum is theirs. The FCC hasn't clarified either way until now. 87.7 and 87.9 are part of Channel 6 - I can see where they think they were in the right, and I agree with them. Nobody can use either frequency because it's part of their corner of the broadcast spectrum. FM stations can use their subcarriers for additional unauthorized / unlicensed services.

Federal law said that all full-powered analog television transmissions had to end by 11:59:59 PM on June 12. WRGB's channel 6 audio was an analog television transmission, albeit audio only, and they were using a full-powered license as justification.

They are licensed to carry an ATSC digital signal in the channel 6 spectrum. Anything they want to include in that, including datacasting services and other things, they're welcome to it. Similarly, an FM station can piggyback services on their existing signal.

Transmitting a second, unlicensed signal is a violation of their license.

You've been very against them broadcasting on the FM haven't you?

Yes. I have no problem with stations putting newscasts on AM or FM stations, and I agree with you that most FM stations don't do a very good job with news and weather, but this was not the way to do it.

- Trip

It's an interesting debate - and we both can go back and forth because it's obvious we both interpret the law differently. I agree with in you in a sense that they could have obtained an experimental license to cover their bases. It just seems odd that they'd spend so much money on an FM antenna, a special vertically polarized one at that, an FM transmitter, and the transmission line up the tower as well to the antenna. It's a big expense and I'm assuming their thought was that it is their spectrum - and also look at 87.7 in NYC operating as a radio station on an LP 6 - that is digital as well.

You do make a good point that it could be an applicant that WRGB objected to - but let's be honest - are any of them going to provide the information and community service that Channel 6 audio on the FM would have? Chances are slim they would - most of them are agenda based whether it's religious, "college", or "community"...

And for the record channel 6 is NOT my favorite nor first choice for news. Especially since I can't see the station anymore BUT I really valued the audio on the radio and I know many others who drive 30-45 min home from work in Albany who enjoyed it as well. It's a shame that it's gone and I hope they convince the FCC to let them try it again.

It's an interesting debate - and we both can go back and forth because it's obvious we both interpret the law differently. I agree with in you in a sense that they could have obtained an experimental license to cover their bases. It just seems odd that they'd spend so much money on an FM antenna, a special vertically polarized one at that, an FM transmitter, and the transmission line up the tower as well to the antenna. It's a big expense and I'm assuming their thought was that it is their spectrum - and also look at 87.7 in NYC operating as a radio station on an LP 6 - that is digital as well.

WNYZ-LD had experimental authorization to run the FM audio. To the best of my knowledge, they have since given up the experiment and are once again operating analog only, though I could be wrong.

I've seen no such authorization for WRGB.

You do make a good point that it could be an applicant that WRGB objected to - but let's be honest - are any of them going to provide the information and community service that Channel 6 audio on the FM would have? Chances are slim they would - most of them are agenda based whether it's religious, "college", or "community"...

I'm not disagreeing with that, but just because WRGB would do a better job doesn't make their actions any more legal.

And for the record channel 6 is NOT my favorite nor first choice for news. Especially since I can't see the station anymore BUT I really valued the audio on the radio and I know many others who drive 30-45 min home from work in Albany who enjoyed it as well. It's a shame that it's gone and I hope they convince the FCC to let them try it again.

As someone who has never lived in a "Channel 6" market, I guess I just don't know what I'm missing. I never got used to having TV audio on FM.

- Trip

Bottom line, good idea or not, the FCC said shut down and they did. They run the show. Debate is moot.

On the note of FCC matters - since WNYT was approved for a translator on 18, any word as to when that'll be on the air? Will it remap to 13? The coverage map for the translator is nearly the same as 12 - and is pretty close in power to the main station. How does that work exactly if you receive both signals equally strong if they remap to 13? Interesting that digital translators are identified by the same call letters as their parent station.

Last weekend when WNYA was not remapping it showed up as 13-1.
So I had two 13-1's.
I imagine it would be the same.
Just delete one from the channel manager.

I expect WNYT is swapping encoders around in preparation for the power up of the translators rf 18 in Troy and the rf 45 in Glens Falls....sometimes I get 13-1, 13-2, and 13-3...sometimes 13-1, 13-3, and 13-4....yesterday, I got 13-2, 13-3, 13-4. Manually punching in 13-1 yesterday switched me to 51-1.
I am curious what happens when rf 12, 18 and 45 are all powered up. TVFool shows rf 12 down the reception list after the applications are aproved...maybe they will be dropping power on rf 12 when all is finished and up and running.

Interesting thought that they'll map them differently. Does anyone live near the Bald Mtn site? I wonder if they have the new antenna up yet. The FCC database has a schematic and it appears they are side mounting it at the top of the tower. The application also has the 18 translator at higher power than the main station!!! I didn't take the height into account but I think it could be equal to the main station... If my memory is correct the ERP is higher on 18. I don't remember anything about 45.

I get 13 reliably and I'm sure may in the area to be shared by 12 & 18 do as well so yes it'll be interesting to see how they engineer it.

I sent an email to WNYT asking when they thought 18 and 45 would be up and running...here's the answer.....

"Hi Bill,

We are actively looking at various manufacturers equipment at this stage, and hope to be able to begin construction toward the end of the year. It is my hope we can do this before Winter sets in, but we are also still following up with research on our coverage area to both verify need and make sure that these translators would address the areas were coverage was lost."

Not anytime soon, I guess..

As I recall, all three transmitters are rated for 15 KW, granted, one is VHF and the other two are UHF, which should/would effect actual coverage area.
I am surprised that this isn't a red lights and siren thing to get these translators on air, as I'm sure many far north of me here in Hudson Falls very likely lost the new DTV signal after the analog signal went down....

Call Channel | Service Status City State Country File Number Docket FacilityID ERP HAAT Licensee/Permittee
WNYT-DR 12 DR GRANT ALBANY NY US BPRM-20000413AAC - 123166 - kW - m -
WNYT 12 DT LIC ALBANY NY US BLCDT-20031022ABL - 73363 9.1 kW 436. m WNYT-TV, LLC
WNYT 12 DT APP ALBANY NY US BPCDT-20080620ADA - 73363 15. kW 435. m WNYT-TV, LLC
WNYT 12 DS APP ALBANY NY US BDSTA-20090702ACI - 73363 15. kW 435. m WNYT-TV, LLC
WNYT 18 LD CP FORT TROY NY US BDRTCDT-20090629ACV - 73363 15. kW 0. m WNYT-TV, LLC
WNYT 45 LD CP GLENS FALLS NY US BDRTCDT-20090629ACX - 73363 15. kW 0. m WNYT-TV, LLC

Is WNYT applying to boost their main signal from 9.1 kW to 15 kW?

Yes.

- Trip

Is WNYT applying to boost their main signal from 9.1 kW to 15 kW?

I'm gonna say, being it's a special authority and the signal strength increase I got up here a while back, they've already gone to 15 kw.

I'd have to agree - pretty soon after the transition I ceased having all the problems I was having in a steady signal.

So are we taking bets on whether Channel 6 is going to boast their power tonight?

Sept 1st was the date..Yes?

I don't know what WNYT rf 12 is using for power, but they're the strongest signal from Albany here at my location just east of Utica.

So are we taking bets on whether Channel 6 is going to boast their power tonight?

Sept 1st was the date..Yes?

Wellllllll.....nobody has really stepped up to the plate and actually cut it in granite....I for one will be watching to see if it happens..

7am Sept 1st..

Channel 6 I usually get 0% on my signal meter, but once in awhile I will get 51%.. Now this morning I am getting 54-58%, best I've ever seen for Channel 6... I don't know if the increase is because they boasted their power or because it is a nice, clear, beautiful Sept. morning.

I'll keep an eye on it during the day.

WNYT rf 12 this morning at 5 AM - 67 to 70 %
WRGB rf 6 this morning at 5 AM - 0 %
(65 miles NW of the transmitter site)

Where did the September 1st date come from anyhow? Did Fred Lass email someone that information or was it someone's assumption? Maybe they took 87.9 off the air to placate the FCC while they await the approval for the full 30kw... and they aren't signing on the new high power transmitter until they have it in writing...

Where did the September 1st date come from anyhow? Did Fred Lass email someone that information or was it someone's assumption? Maybe they took 87.9 off the air to placate the FCC while they await the approval for the full 30kw... and they aren't signing on the new high power transmitter until they have it in writing...I think it was a rough guesstimate by followers of WRGB's Digital Television Switchover (http://www.cbs6albany.com/share/forums/?plckForumPage=Forum&plckForumId=Cat%3a956f56b5-71a2-4dfe-b14a-069902858962Forum%3ab6afd8cf-3c20-4e52-9d58-7b633a4e87ff) forum, interpreting Fred's reports of the status of preparations for the increase (transmitter purchased, being installed, etc.). Of course they can't raise their power without FCC authorization, and as of 9/1 Fred said, "The FCC has said nothing new to us about a power increase."

Anyone seeing a signal on channel 42? WNGX-LD applied for a license on that channel, which would imply that it should be on the air...

- Trip

WNGN is a joke - as are all their FM and TV incarnations. They are liars and claim to be Christian broadcasters. Their stations are off the air more often than on and some are off for years - and they lie to the FCC about it constantly. Brian Larson is a nut (to put it nicely). He's has about a dozen FM translators that are "licensed" with the FCC that aren't even built! He's applied for 8 or 9 new FM's when he can't afford to build the translators! The guy is always quoted in The Business Review making wild claims - like a few years ago he claimed that his Troy TV station was granted a power increase that would make it the strongest TV station in the market - far from the truth.

What I'm getting at is that neither 42 nor 38 (in Troy) are even likely on the air in analog, letalone digital. I've driven with my laptop and HD USB stick near their Bald MTN site more than once and got zip, zero, nothing. For the past two years might I add...

I get Channel 42 quite nicely, but it is Analog W42AE (rebroadcast of WMHT) out of Poughkeepsie. Does anyone know if there are any plans to convert this station to digital? I believe this channel is causing adjacent channel interference issues with WCWN, since one of my tuners can't detect WCWN(43) at all, while the other gets it pretty well (~50%), but at a diminished level relative to the other Albany UHF channels (~70%).

Did WRGB finally boost their signal? I'm getting it great just now at ~40% with no dropouts, compared to an unwatchable 5-10% earlier this evening. On the other hand, WNYT is showing up even stronger and WXXA, which I haven't been able to receive since the transition, is almost watchable at ~25%. So, perhaps it's just favorable atmospheric conditions.

I would be more inclined to blame the directional pattern that WCWN employs:

http://www.rabbitears.info/oddsandends.php?request=ant_pat&ant_id=67289&rotation=0&erp=676

In all honesty, I wouldn't expect it to make much of a difference, but if it's side-mounted on the north side of the tower, the tower structure itself could be blocking you.

- Trip

You could be right that the directional pattern of WCWN is causing the reduced signal on the one tuner, but I'm pretty sure it is adjacent channel interference causing the problems with the other tuner. The reason is that this second tuner can tune in the much weaker (20-30% based on the signal meter of the 1st tuner) signals of WPIX, WNET, WFUT, and WNYE, but can't detect WCWN at all. I assume that the 2nd tuner, which was quite cheap, doesn't do a very good job of adjacent channel rejection and is thus susceptible to this type of problem.

There were enhanced conditions last evening and carrying into early this morning. On the way to work from 4 to 5 today, the FM dial was filled with Albany and Rochester stations booming in that aren't normally receivable or much weaker. Also last evening, WNYT was way up in level, yet WRGB barely 10%.

7am Sept 1st..

Channel 6 I usually get 0% on my signal meter, but once in awhile I will get 51%.. Now this morning I am getting 54-58%, best I've ever seen for Channel 6... I don't know if the increase is because they boasted their power or because it is a nice, clear, beautiful Sept. morning.

I'll keep an eye on it during the day.

No, that was just mother nature giving you a helping hand...as ebo mentioned, the boost is a bust for September 1st....after a long post to Fred yesterday, his short answer says it all...the FCC has not authorized the power boost. And as you asked, anyone want to bet when/if it will happen anytime soon? Not very soon I would guess. Fred's "body language" with that short response was loud and clear....he seems frustrated that he couldn't give me at least some good news.
Until it is formally announced on the WRGB forum by Fred and/or on the broadcast news itself, it is now only what ebo called it...a guesstimate.

Thx for the info..

And yeah, another nice clear Sept. morning and the signal for all my OTA stations, including 6, was up about 10%.. But I noticed yesterday that during the day the signal decreased, and Channel 6 went back to 0%..

Yup, that's how a tropospheric duct works, as the sun rises, the strong signal goes away. I have not had any problems with 6 since the beam went up, it stays at 60% or goes up slightly in a duct...but, I am loosing 51 for several hours early afternoon, not that I'm a courtroom show fan, I just want a solid signal for all channels, all the time. I built a 4 element yagi for RF 13 yesterday that should show around 6.5 dbd of gain, I'm hoping it will pull 51 for a solid signal without effecting the other channels. The rf 6 antenna somehow effects rf 13 (chan 51), don't understand why. I've visited this problem early in my array build....very strange.
It's becoming a cluster up on the mast.
If no major improvement, I'll leave the new antenna off and just deal with what I have now. Fall is coming, with the leaves gone, everyone will see an improvement overall, they just don't know it yet.

Yeah, between the cooler, less humid weather, the soon to be bare trees, and Channel 6's boast in power( but if they have to wait on the FCC's OK that might be awhile), I don't think I'm going to need to do anything more with my antenna. I'm already getting the all Channels I really wanted to pick up OTA, and Channel 6 is a bonus that I'm betting I'll be picking up all the time with a good steady signal by the middle/late of September..

Yeah, between the cooler, less humid weather, the soon to be bare trees, and Channel 6's boast in power( but if they have to wait on the FCC's OK that might be awhile), I don't think I'm going to need to do anything more with my antenna. I'm already getting the all Channels I really wanted to pick up OTA, and Channel 6 is a bonus that I'm betting I'll be picking up all the time with a good steady signal by the middle/late of September..

Check thiis out...

http://www.dxinfocentre.com/tropo.html

It's a tropospheric duct forcaster...it should show when channel 6 will zoom into your area...remember to subtract 4 hours from the UTC time to get local time.

Fred's "body language" with that short response was loud and clear....he seems frustrated that he couldn't give me at least some good news.

I would guess Fred would be frustrated, if he's spent a lot of time, money and effort installing a new transmitter that he can't switch on, and more on an FM transmitter that he had to switch off...

Since I'm still seeing some dropouts, and there's no power boost date, I've ordered a new preamp for my existing antenna, I'm hoping that may be the easiest way to get some improvement (my current preamp was rated "terrible, very noisy" by one reviewer so maybe a better one will help). If this doesn't help I'll try other changes.

Well, I'm getting something like 45% right now at night on 6-1 but don't actually see anything and I'm getting sick of having 87.9 interfere with my low-power transmitters in my car for the iPod and satellite. Seriously, how is there any demand for an FM broadcast of TV audio? I'm just glad I've got a backup for OTA as football season gets going.

Well, I'm getting something like 45% right now at night on 6-1 but don't actually see anything and I'm getting sick of having 87.9 interfere with my low-power transmitters in my car for the iPod and satellite. Seriously, how is there any demand for an FM broadcast of TV audio? I'm just glad I've got a backup for OTA as football season gets going.


It's been signed of the air since late last month. Chances are 88.3 WVCR is interfering with your FM modulator which takes a secondary seat to full power licensed operations. Even if the 87.9 might be viewed as unlicensed by some, it is still part of the channel 6 spectrum.

It's been signed of the air since late last month. Chances are 88.3 WVCR is interfering with your FM modulator which takes a secondary seat to full power licensed operations. Even if the 87.9 might be viewed as unlicensed by some, it is still part of the channel 6 spectrum.

Yes, it IS part of the DIGITAL transmission chan 6 spectrum. Had chan 6 been transmitting a digital only FM signal on 87.9, I doubt the FCC would have spoken....unfortunately it was an analog signal. Obviously, that guy in the 1984 Buick wouldn't be able to pick up a digital only FM signal, although many new cars might have. Their plan was to cover everyone and that couldn't happen on analog on 87.9 after June 12. Chan 6 could always license a transmitter in the regular analog FM radio spectrum, but that discussion has already come and gone.

As much as they talk about having their radio signal for people in their cars, I don't think they wanted to go digital because of any possible emergencies.

For example, if we were to have an ice storm in a few months that knocks out power all over, anyone could have found a battery operated radio and listened to 87.7 (provided their radio dial went down that far) and hear the info they need.

If they go to all digital, it kind of defeats that purpose.

Personally, I don't care either way.

Interesting thought that they'll map them differently. Does anyone live near the Bald Mtn site? I wonder if they have the new antenna up yet. The FCC database has a schematic and it appears they are side mounting it at the top of the tower. The application also has the 18 translator at higher power than the main station!!! I didn't take the height into account but I think it could be equal to the main station... If my memory is correct the ERP is higher on 18. I don't remember anything about 45.

I get 13 reliably and I'm sure may in the area to be shared by 12 & 18 do as well so yes it'll be interesting to see how they engineer it.

Different receivers differ in terms of how they handle it. My dish receiver, puts 12-1 on 13-1 and then takes the subchannels from 28. So 28-2 shows up as 13-2, 28-3 as 13-3. My Matsubishi TV repeats then and treats wyna as 13-1, so I have 3 13-1's.

Does anyone know what is going on with WTEN's RTN - their published schedule is differen from what is airing - sheriff lobo in the quide and Amen on the air.

Personally I miss the audio on 87.7 / 87.9 and it was very useful during not only the ice storm but was often the only audio in my car when there was severe summer weather... no other stations bother with it. Eff the FCC.

I hope they can restore the service and upgrade to 30kw... Fred works hard and is a genius. We're lucky to have him here in Albany!

As for RTV - they tend to change their on-air schedule about a week before the guide reflects it. Sheriff Lobo was pretty bad but AMEN is go much worse.

As a second thought - aside from RTV changing the schedule and not updating the guide for at least a week, they also from time to time end up with the default network programing on in Albany instead of the custom stream. Right now that seems to be the case. Some affiliates such as WGRZ in western NY carry the national feed... why it ends up wrong (Frequently) I do not know but they seem to have far more technical issues than they should. Chances are it's because that hot air bag cow "Gary Lee Robins" aka Neal Ardman is in charge at RTV... ugh...

national fee schedule:
http://www.myretrotv.com/prog_schedules/RTV-National.pdf

As much as they talk about having their radio signal for people in their cars, I don't think they wanted to go digital because of any possible emergencies.

For example, if we were to have an ice storm in a few months that knocks out power all over, anyone could have found a battery operated radio and listened to 87.7 (provided their radio dial went down that far) and hear the info they need.

If they go to all digital, it kind of defeats that purpose.

Personally, I don't care either way.

Oh, I'm sure they have no intention of putting up a digital FM transmitter, they want everybody to hear the audio. I was using that as an example as part of an analog signal in a licensed digital spectrum.
And I agree, in an emergency, it would be very handy, it's just not possible on 87.9 after June 12th....they need to license a regular FM transmitter, and rebroadcast chan 6 audio there...will it happen?? It's anybodies guess....
Also, I looked in the FCC FM Query and there is no application for an FM license for WRGB that I can find.

Pete Putman has a final update on receiving Albany area stations in Southern Vermont:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_c/OutToTheFringe.html

What happened to WXXA? Saturday night they suddenly seemed to go off the air, or at the very least dropped to virtually next to no power. Today (Sunday) I get a few broken boxes of the channel and then nothing. I'm assuming something went on the transmitter?

On the note of that - their digital sub-channel (which is awful and on par with public access) doesn't remap on either of my converter boxes - both of them it comes up as 7.8... does anyone else experience this?

What happened to WXXA? Saturday night they suddenly seemed to go off the air, or at the very least dropped to virtually next to no power. Today (Sunday) I get a few broken boxes of the channel and then nothing. I'm assuming something went on the transmitter?

On the note of that - their digital sub-channel (which is awful and on par with public access) doesn't remap on either of my converter boxes - both of them it comes up as 7.8... does anyone else experience this?

I noticed the same thing on that channel Saturday, but their subchannel was fine so I figured it was the programming source.

I noticed the same thing on that channel Saturday, but their subchannel was fine so I figured it was the programming source.

There was some mention somewhere of a final night of painting on the tower...could that be it?

Their subchannel eventually joined them at "no power"... it was strange.

I thought too that it may be tower painting but they generally do that in the middle of the night and everyone would have been off or at reduced power. If they were just painting the VHF antenna 13 (RF 12) would have been off too and all the UHF plus LoVHF would have been at reduced power or off entirely.

Unfortunately I think it is a case of nobody minding the shop - they are still "on the air" via cable systems so the OTA viewers are not a priority to some stations.

Their subchannel eventually joined them at "no power"... it was strange.

I thought too that it may be tower painting but they generally do that in the middle of the night and everyone would have been off or at reduced power. If they were just painting the VHF antenna 13 (RF 12) would have been off too and all the UHF plus LoVHF would have been at reduced power or off entirely.

Unfortunately I think it is a case of nobody minding the shop - they are still "on the air" via cable systems so the OTA viewers are not a priority to some stations.

I didn't look last nite...are they still "off the air" via OTA???
I sent an e-mail (question) to the WXXA chief engineer yesterday about an issue I'm having with WPTZ, and he didn't e-mail back yesterday, which he usually does right away....maybe there are some major issues.

WXXA was back up and on air Monday morning as was the sub-channel.

You sure you weren't getting another VHF 7 in? There has been some pretty strong tropospheric ducting the last couple of nights.

It's possible another 7 was getting into your receiver, causing it to unlock.

You sure you weren't getting another VHF 7 in? There has been some pretty strong tropospheric ducting the last couple of nights.

It's possible another 7 was getting into your receiver, causing it to unlock.

There ya GO! I was having the same issues with WNYA 51 and WVNY 22, both on rf 13 (I live almost right between both)...it was a battle to the finish, all weekend, sometimes 22, sometimes 51. Never equated that to rf 7.
But yeah, another 7 riding a duct at 175 mhz? Very likely, especially if it was a slow death of the signal, not a light switch off of the signal.

EDIT:
For Albany viewers, WBNG, Binghamton, NY, RF 7 was likely the culprit.

EDIT:
For Albany viewers, WBNG, Binghamton, NY, RF 7 was likely the culprit.

On Sunday the Bills game dropped out several times for me. I'm line of sight to the Helderbergs with an antenna aimed at New York City, (WABC on 7).

WWNY in Watertown is also on 7 as is WHDH in Boston.

For me, the terrain is most favorable toward Watertown, I did see WWNY once when they were on channel 35. But the historical tropospheric map for Sunday/Monday shows better conditions toward NYC.

Due to tropo conditions this morning, on the way to work I picked up the analog audio of CJOH Ch. 6 analog located west of Kingston, ON on 87.7 FM. I thought I heard somewhere that it was due to that station that prohibits WRGB from increasing power. It supposedly went digital (and I believe to another RF channel) a few weeks back.

Was anybody else having a ton of dropouts and issues with WXXA over TWC on 1808 during Bones on 9/24/09?

I had that happen OTA - thought our friend tropo was back but the sub-channel was airing some sort of meat cooking infomercial. Better then what is usually on Untamed Sports.

Due to tropo conditions this morning, on the way to work I picked up the analog audio of CJOH Ch. 6 analog located west of Kingston, ON on 87.7 FM. I thought I heard somewhere that it was due to that station that prohibits WRGB from increasing power. It supposedly went digital (and I believe to another RF channel) a few weeks back.

I read on the CJOH website (back in late June) that the general manager was not renewing the analog license after it expired on August 31, the chan 6 station and a bunch of other analog stations associated with CJOH...could the Canadian version of our FCC allow them to leave there audio up on 87.7, such as what WRGB was intending to do?
WRGB's forum DID indicate (months ago now) that Canadian authority involving CJOH and FCC authority was what they were waiting for to increase power...the last comment only involved waiting for FCC authority....weither both of the above are actually still involved, that has not been made clear on the forum.
Fred Lass' last words dated 9/1/09 on 30.2 KW:
"The FCC has said nothing new to us about a power increase."

Was anybody else having a ton of dropouts and issues with WXXA over TWC on 1808 during Bones on 9/24/09?

It was bad on Time Warner Cable 1808. At one point it switched to 4X3 SD, which had the same problem.

It was bad here on DISH satellite and OTA. We kept switching back and forth, but it didn't really help. They broke in and said they were having technical difficulties at one point. Don't know if it was a WXXA problem or a Fox problem.

All I can say, is that I'm tired of Timewarners crap. Their internet drops out on me pretty often, and although it connects right back up, it's a bother when i'm playing Xbox Live. And as far as these issues with FOX, this means that I'm having issues watching football, Family Guy, Simpsons, Hell's Kitchen, or any other show I like to watch on FOX.

We had lots of problems on Giants football Sunday. Noticed that it was same on Satellite as OTA. Was happening on both sat receivers in the house so it was definitely a Fox or WXXA problem. Seems like they've been having problems a lot lately. Anyone know what's going on over there?

We had lots of problems on Giants football Sunday. Noticed that it was same on Satellite as OTA. Was happening on both sat receivers in the house so it was definitely a Fox or WXXA problem. Seems like they've been having problems a lot lately. Anyone know what's going on over there?

While watching the Giants vs. Bucs game Sunday at 1PM on my TiVo, I experienced video freezes and audio dropouts.

I switched to OTA and experienced the same thing.

Apparently, this is NOT a Sci-Atl cable box issue.

I contacted WXXA's Chief Engineer this morning. Here's his response:
Fox has been having issues getting a solid feed to us.....they were here Sat, but It doesn't look as if they fixed the problem. It has been a very bad week here for us.

FOX is in the process of "upgrading" the HD equipment in all their affiliates. It's a slow station by station process. I don't know for sure if FOX upgraded WXXA yet or not, but it sure sounds like that it couldve happened and there are problems with it.

I switched over to WXXA yesterday afternoon (Judge Judy???) and it came up in a full screen as if it was HDTV, but the picture was blurred and the peoples heads were wide, as if I had switched my TV to cinema mode.
Fox News Channel has a new thing recently, wide mode, I think they call it....in standard def the picture is a smaller full screen version of a full screen. If you switch the TV to wide mode, the smaller picture fits in to the TV screen, filling the entire screen, so everything is seen, no chopped heads, kind of like HD, but not HD.
Maybe the local FOX stations are toying with this "wide mode"

First post in this thread changed (finally) to include TWC's most recent HD Lineup changes.

I turned on my set this morning and my OTA DVR placed a message on screen saying that we had a new station on 04503. It's CBS6 in SD. I went to a lot of trouble to get CBS6 in HD on 00601 so I wont change but this could be what others needed who just could not get a good low VHF signal.:)

I turned on my set this morning and my OTA DVR placed a message on screen saying that we had a new station on 04503. It's CBS6 in SD. I went to a lot of trouble to get CBS6 in HD on 00601 so I wont change but this could be what others needed who just could not get a good low VHF signal.:)

This is a good move on WRGB's part while they work towards a long-term solution. Thanks Guys! Now I can at least view the programming in my office. Small suggestion: 16x9 Anamorphic if possible.

Small suggestion: 16x9 Anamorphic if possible.And I would urge against that. Some receivers and/or displays can't deal with anamorphic, and even if they can their users can't. I think 14x9 is a good compromise.

And I would urge against that. Some receivers and/or displays can't deal with anamorphic, and even if they can their users can't. I think 14x9 is a good compromise.

Ebo, I consider you a respected and valued user on this forum, but I think that's a ridiculous notion.

Specifically, what receiver/display combo cannot stretch a 4:3 image? If you are talking about people with Digital OTA using a 4:3 TV, hey, it's late 2009, it's time to get a new TV. If you've figured out digital OTA reception and initial setup of a digital tv, I think you will be smart enough to fix the aspect.

I have learned that WRGB would also prefer to deliver an anamorphic feed, but is not providing one on 45-3 due to a technical/financial limitation.

MasterFX1:
Most of the contributors to this and similar forums have a better-than-average understanding of how to make digital television components do what we want them to. It comes so naturally to us that we tend to forget that it isn't obvious to everyone. They're not stupid (OK, maybe some are); their minds just work differently. They are not going to tweak menu options each time they switch to or from a channel. They just want the darn thing to work. And they're right; it should just work.

I know that a subchannel can be flagged as anamorphic and that some receivers can act on that flag to correct the aspect ratio. Others allow manual correction, and some can save the user settings on a per-channel basis. But that's not something most buyers would think to look for. My LG DVR (my first digital tuner, 2004) can do it manually but I'm pretty sure it won't do it automatically, and the setting applies to all SD channels. My MyHD tuner switches in and out of anamorphic mode according to the flags on most DVDs but neither of my DVD players does. My projector can do the necessary horizontal stretch but neither of the widescreen LCD panels I use can. And of course hardly any 4:3 CRT sets can. I don't know if the digital converters many people bought for them can do it or not, or how much work it is to get them to do it.

You said it's time for everyone to replace their old TVs with new ones. I rarely see digital TVs for under $200; most are in the $500-$1000 range and some are much more. That's a big investment, especially to replace all the analog TVs in a typical house.

I have an elderly friend who had a cable STB feeding her CRT TV (so old it didn't know about cable channels) on ch. 3. I regularly had to go over to fix her TV because she'd changed channels on the TV rather than the STB. Do you think she could deal with anamorphic mode? You'd be surprised how many people are like her in that regard, and they're not all elderly either.

I know that WRGB-SD's 14:9 isn't perfect. It crops the sides a bit, and if you zoom it to fill a 16:9 screen that will crop the top and bottom. But the whole idea is to give a usable picture to the most viewers, and I think this accomplishes that. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Let them eat cake.

Woke up this morning to no Guide data on all 3 of my cable boxes. Anyone else having trouble? My signal strength is fine, as confirmed by the admin panel on all 3 boxes (or whatever you call it), but every channel shows up as "No Data Available"

Apparently TW has been having issues with their guide data being missing. What sucks the most is my DVR isn't recording my shows because there is no schedule data. Major suckage... I'm sure TW will make everyone reboot and go through all that BS to further inconvenience their customers.

At least TW was aware of the problem.

Just to waste time, I called them and the recorded message said that they knew about it and apologized for the problem.

When I saw it yesterday, I looked at the next day's data and it still was there.

Of course, yesterday's guide data was there on Monday when I scheduled shows to record for yesterday.

My tivo box still had the guide data, but that makes sense since the tivo gets it's guide data from a different source.

The guide data was back on the SA8300HD today when I looked at it around noon.

Have any TWC subscribers swapped out their HD STBs for TWs newest gear (4240HDC & 8240HDC)?

What are your impressions?

I have their new HD DVR box and it works. That's about all I can say.

Richard

I haven't been able to find much discussion on OTA indoor antennas in this thread yet. Can someone pointer me or just recommend a good relatively cheap one (or two)? I live in a brownstone in downtown Albany.

I haven't been able to find much discussion on OTA indoor antennas in this thread yet. Can someone pointer me or just recommend a good relatively cheap one (or two)? I live in a brownstone in downtown Albany.

Plain old un-amplified rabbit ears.

Plain old un-amplified rabbit ears.

Hmm... that's what I'm using now and I'm getting about half the stations on a good day. Is there really nothing better without getting into poor price/performance territory?

Hmm... that's what I'm using now and I'm getting about half the stations on a good day. Is there really nothing better without getting into poor price/performance territory?

OK, try a Channel Master 3010. Put it in a window that faces the Heldebergs.

The other option is to install a rooftop antenna on the back of the brownstone where you can't see it from the street. I did that for my son on Lancaster. He has a Winegard HD7010. It gets everything except WYPX.

It really depends where in Albany you live too.
Go to TVFOOL.COM and type in your address, see what they say.
Questions come on back.

spectator:
Your rabbit ears would probably do poorly on UHF unless it also has a loop.

The 3010 that others recommended is probably a good choice; over on WRGB's DTV Forum (http://www.cbs6albany.com/share/forums/?plckForumPage=Forum&plckForumId=Cat%3a956f56b5-71a2-4dfe-b14a-069902858962Forum%3ab6afd8cf-3c20-4e52-9d58-7b633a4e87ff) their Chief Engineer also recommends it for local reception.

At my location (8 miles) I had been using a 4-bay bowtie in my attic. Although intended just for UHF it did well enough for all of the high VHF channels but was useless for WRGB when they moved to ch. 6. So I made a folded dipole out of twin lead from plans here (http://www.wfu.edu/%7Ematthews/misc/dipole.html), cut to ch. 6. Hung it on an attic wall facing the tower and connected it and the bowtie through a VHF/UHF coupler. That combo works very well for all of the stations in the Helderbergs. I don't try for WYPX.

Many people like a 4-bay or even 8-bay bowtie for indoor use because they don't take up much room; the same is true of the twin lead antenna without added elements.

The Silver Sensor marketed by Zenith and Philips is probably the best of the tiny desktop antennas for UHF and it even did surprisingly well for me on the high VHF in tests at 11 miles

Tower Guy is right about avoiding amplified antennas for most indoor use. Even the best amplifier is helpful only in certain circumstances and in your case is likely to make things worse. A cheap amp is guaranteed to make things worse. Rule of thumb: no amplifier can improve on the signal it gets from the antenna; it can only preserve that signal against further degradation on the way to the TV. That's not an issue over a few feet of coax.

Plain old un-amplified rabbit ears.

I agree, plain old un-amplified rabbit ears, with a loop for UHF. You can set the rabbit ears to receive VHF-hi, the loop will take care of UHF, and you can watch WRGB on 45-3, that way avoid changing the rabbit ears to get VHF-lo.
I feel inside amped antennas just amplify the noise that is very likely in your home, this just causing more problems.

Thank you, all! I will try some of these ideas.

My current antenna does have a UHF loop, but the whole kit is not very confidence-making.

I don't think an outdoor antenna is an option for me.

I'll check out TVFOOL.

Tower Guy is right about avoiding amplified antennas for most indoor use. Even the best amplifier is helpful only in certain circumstances and in your case is likely to make things worse. A cheap amp is guaranteed to make things worse. Rule of thumb: no amplifier can improve on the signal it gets from the antenna; it can only preserve that signal against further degradation on the way to the TV. That's not an issue over a few feet of coax.

Just a little nit-pick here. The one instance where an amplifier can help, even with minimal line losses, is if the Noise Factor of the Amplifier is lower than the noise factor of the first amplifier in the Tuner. Basically, this means that if you have a cheap amplifier feeding an expensive TV (usually the case with amplified indoor antennas), the amplifier will probably make things worse. On the other hand if you have an expensive, high-quality amplifier feeding a cheap TV, you may see a dramatic improvement.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that a lot of people seem to forget about the internal losses of the tuner, which can be significant, when discussing the benefits of an amplifier.

Thank you, all! I will try some of these ideas.

My current antenna does have a UHF loop, but the whole kit is not very confidence-making.

I don't think an outdoor antenna is an option for me.

I'll check out TVFOOL.

The best way I have seen here and on other forums, to get good signals on an inside antenna, is to get the antenna away from the TV, computers, home theaters, etc., anything creating noise. Even table lamps that you touch to turn on emit a horrendous noise. Digital TV is quite different then when we watched TV in analog.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c30/kb2fzq/old-tv-set.jpg
A NO-NO THESE DAYS

Buying a 25' extension cable and putting the antenna in another room at a window, away from the TV helped one guy as I remember.
To find noisy devices, use a portable AM radio tuned to the low end of the dial where the are no stations (just static) and pass the antenna of the radio over devices. If they are emitting noise, you will hear a buzz or clicking or a drone. If the TV antenna is near these devices, they could be blocking your reception of the TV signals.
TVFool is actually designed to give info for an outdoor antenna system, but it should give you a rough idea where you stand.

I've noticed the last few days that WRGB Ch. 6 went from no signal here to now between 10 and 20%. I'm curious if anybody else has seen a signal increase. Is it possible they got the go ahead to up the power?

I've noticed the last few days that WRGB Ch. 6 went from no signal here to now between 10 and 20%. I'm curious if anybody else has seen a signal increase. Is it possible they got the go ahead to up the power?I didn't find anything about it in the FCC database, but my search did turn up this interesting application (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&appid=1334620) made a few days ago. Looks like ch. 39 might be resurrected, if just for the north country.

Nothing new about a ch. 6 power increase on WRGB's DTV forum (http://www.cbs6albany.com/share/forums/?plckForumPage=Forum&plckForumId=Cat%3a956f56b5-71a2-4dfe-b14a-069902858962Forum%3ab6afd8cf-3c20-4e52-9d58-7b633a4e87ff) either. Their CE Fred Lass (chieffred) is pretty good about keeping us updated, although if he did raise power he might wait a few days to see if anyone notices. I'll check ch. 6 on a spectrum analyzer at work and compare it with an earlier scan.

Edit: I did a spectrum analyzer scan of ch. 6 and conpared it with a scan from 9/10. No difference.

I didn't find anything about it in the FCC database, but my search did turn up this interesting application (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&appid=1334620) made a few days ago. Looks like ch. 39 might be resurrected, if just for the north country.


You're sharp, Ebo....I've been watching that FCC page almost daily, and yup, they appear to be following WNYT's lead and putting a translator up here in my area on rf 39....that is very interesting....we'll see if they get it on air before the snow blocks the trail to the tower.
As far as channel 6 and a possible power boost, I've seen the signal strength come up to 72% from the norm 67% now and then only going back to 67% the next day...I expect if they go full power, it should peg my
meter...I'd say it was just a little Mother Nature with a helping hand, KQ2N.

I've noticed the last few days that WRGB Ch. 6 went from no signal here to now between 10 and 20%. I'm curious if anybody else has seen a signal increase. Is it possible they got the go ahead to up the power?

Down here in Poughkeepsie, I've noticed just the opposite. The signals on both Ch. 6 and Ch. 43 have dropped from a barely watchable 30-40% to about half of that. I wonder if they have re-oriented their antenna's a bit to better target the the north country. As a result, I am giving up completely on Ch6 and re-orienting my VHF antenna to pick up 11 and 13 from NYC. I still get the other UHF stations (WTEN and WMHT) from Albany just fine. I've never been able to reliably receive any of the other Albany VHF stations (7, 12, 13), anyway.

SemiChemE's comment I wonder if they have re-oriented their antenna's a bit to better target the the north country might have some merit. Ch 6 was 0 here all summer and now I get the 10 to 20% signal on a daily basis. I'm just northeast of Utica.

As a fyi, WNYT Ch. 13 (rf 12) still the best channel here with a usual 50%, sometimes peaking up to 70% during enhanced conditions. Also interesting, WXXA Ch. 23 (rf 7) is 0% here. I don't get anything at all. Interesting since they're broadcasting both on VHF high and assumably from the same hilltop?

WNYT Ch. 13 (rf 12) still the best channel here with a usual 50%, sometimes peaking up to 70% during enhanced conditions. Also interesting, WXXA Ch. 23 (rf 7) is 0% here. I don't get anything at all. Interesting since they're broadcasting both on VHF high and assumably from the same hilltop?

That may be an indication of FM interference to channel 7.

I don't think they did any reorientation on their antenna but your increase in signal is most likely due to the leaves falling from the tress. As silly as that sounds it can make a world of difference in reception!

As for FM interference to channel 7 - it seems more likely to have interference due to FM on channel 6 as channel 7 is a lot farther away (very far away) from the FM band on the spectrum... the channel 7 interference is unlikely from FM...

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF

I don't think they did any reorientation on their antenna but your increase in signal is most likely due to the leaves falling from the tress. As silly as that sounds it can make a world of difference in reception!

As for FM interference to channel 7 - it seems more likely to have interference due to FM on channel 6 as channel 7 is a lot farther away (very far away) from the FM band on the spectrum... the channel 7 interference is unlikely from FM...

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDFSecond harmonic interference: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/65-130.pdf

Forgot all about that!!!

Second harmonic interference: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/65-130.pdfInteresting article. Channel 7 (174-180 MHz) covers the second harmonics of 87-90 MHz (88-90 for the FM band). It's unlikely that a properly-operating FM station is putting out much second harmonic. Receiver or preamp overload is a better bet.

kq2n:
You reported no reception of WXXA (7) but fair reception of WNYT (12). Both are on the same tower (despite some references that put WXXA's location where their analog transmitter was). They're at nearly the same height and power; WXXA is 10 kW ERP, WNYT is 9.1 but they have applied to go to 15 kW.

What kind of antenna are you using? Outdoor or in? What amplifier, if any? Do you have any strong FM stations in the range of 88-90 MHz? If so, you might want to try adding an FM trap before the first amplifier (preamp or TV). BTW, do you get anything from WNYA (13)? They're running 12.7 kW but about 133 meters lower on a different tower on the same hill.

If I read this right, it appears that WRGB's application for a ch. 39 repeater in Glens Falls has just been granted. See here (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_list.pl?Facility_id=73942), click "Get Data" and look for application 20091021AAK, currently the most recent one.

Yes, both of the WNYT applications and the single WRGB application have been granted.

If I read this right, it appears that WRGB's application for a ch. 39 repeater in Glens Falls has just been granted. See here (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_list.pl?Facility_id=73942), click "Get Data" and look for application 20091021AAK, currently the most recent one.



yes, that's right...here it is....

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=1334620

In answer to ebo's questions:
"What kind of antenna are you using?"
I'm using either a Winegard or Channel Master 23 element VHF Hi/Lo Yagi mounted 25 feet up on the chimney. It's on a rotor. I have an 8 bay UHF. Some close spacing however, only about 3 feet seperate the VHF and UHF antenna. That could be an issue.

"What amplifier, if any?"
I've got the Winegard AP 2870 I believe.

"Do you have any strong FM stations in the range of 88-90 MHz?"
I have a 10 watter on 88.1 Mhz and a 6 kw station on 89.5 MHz 4 miles west of me. They'd be off the backside of the antenna as the antenna is pointed east.

"If so, you might want to try adding an FM trap before the first amplifier"
I do have a selectable FM trap on my Winegard pre-amp, but felt it would attenuate Ch. 6, so haven't turned it on. I'll give it a try to see if it helps rf Ch. 7.

"BTW, do you get anything from WNYA (13)? They're running 12.7 kW but about 133 meters lower on a different tower on the same hill."
No, nothing from WNYA.

I'm using either a Winegard or Channel Master 23 element VHF Hi/Lo Yagi mounted 25 feet up on the chimney.The closest I could find is the discontinued Winegard HD4053P 24-element VHF-only antenna. Very directional, with tiny side lobes. VHF-only TV antennas are getting to be a rare breed.

I've got the Winegard AP 2870 I believe.2.9 dB noise figure. You can't do much better than that.

"Do you have any strong FM stations in the range of 88-90 MHz?"
I have a 10 watter on 88.1 Mhz and a 6 kw station on 89.5 MHz 4 miles west of me. They'd be off the backside of the antenna as the antenna is pointed east.You might be getting a reflection from some nearby object to the east, particularly from that 6kw station. Or maybe even directly, since it's so close. Definitely try the FM trap.

I see another possible source of interference: WBNG (7) from Binghamton. You said in an earlier post that you're northeast of Utica. Using a Utica zip code (13502), TVFool shows WXXA at 69 miles and WBNG at 85. But WBNG is putting out 20 kW to WXXA's 10 kW. Still, WBNG should be a lot weaker and at nearly a right angle. Neither station is line-of-sight unless you're pretty high up.

The only other thing I can think of is to check all your connections, especially if they haven't been touched in years. I've seen degraded connections cause loss of individual or a narrow range of channels.

I've had the VHF yagi for perhaps 15 years or so. I moved so it was down for a few years, it's in excellent condition. I put the antennas up last Spring (2008), all new cables, combiner, pre-amp.

My location is 65 miles from the Helderberg antenna farm. Rotating the antenna towards Binghamton I get nothing, large hills on the south side of the Mohawk Valley block that direction from me. The same with looking northward. Ch. 7 in Watertown for example is impossible at my location. As a fyi, I used to get rf 26 WTEN, but when local WFXV on rf 27 moved 4 miles west of me this past summer, and with a higher power to boot, that was the end of WTEN.

Using TVFool for my precise location, here are the results:
RF Ch. 6 WRGB; 9.0 dB
RF Ch. 7 WXXA; -6.9 dB
RF Ch. 12 WNYT; -7.9 dB
RF Ch. 13 WNYA; -23.5 dB

I get no UHF DT signals from Albany although I used to receive the analogs on 17, 25 and 45, albeit a bit snowy.

Even with these predicted results, WNYT is 50 to 70% and always reliable, never any pixelation, yet WXXA - no signal, and it's supposed to be stronger than WNYT. By TVFool's statement, I'm not supposed to be able to receive anything less than 0 dB, yet WNYT at -7.9% is always there.

If we get a break in the weather, I'll bump up the VHF yagi up a few feet. I'll also try the FM trap. I'm going to take the UHF 8 bay bowtie and mount it in a fixed position off the main mast as I don't need to rotate it. That'll get it away from the VHF yagi which may help. I get all the UHF channels from Syracuse with ease at my location. My interest in Albany channels stems from my significant other being from that area and wanting to watch the local news from there.

Thanks for your analysis, ebo.

I don't think they did any reorientation on their antenna but your increase in signal is most likely due to the leaves falling from the tress. As silly as that sounds it can make a world of difference in reception!


This happens to me every year around this time ... as soon as the leaves are down, my reception of WTEN drops below threshold and begins to cut in and out. Then around mid-May, the signal gets stronger again. WMHT is the only station I can get year round reliably with my outdoor UHF antenna here in Poughkeepsie.

This happens to me every year around this time ... as soon as the leaves are down, my reception of WTEN drops below threshold and begins to cut in and out. Then around mid-May, the signal gets stronger again. WMHT is the only station I can get year round reliably with my outdoor UHF antenna here in Poughkeepsie.

You "California Dreamin' ", NervousCat? :D
That's kinda weird, up here, when the leaves go away my signals come UP!!!
Only thing I can imagine, the leaves in the summer cause a defraction of the signals allowing better reception, but that's only conjecture on my part. I've also noticed this summer, during heavy rain, the signals came up....I would have thought just the opposite. (The satellite signal sure blinks in a severe thunderstorm, that's for sure)
My only suggestion, try turning the antenna and search for a better signal in the fall.

I have a similar situation to Nervous Cat...

In the late spring/summer/early fall months Channel 45 comes in better for me. With the leaves going/gone now it's currently unwatchable despite rotating the antenna to try and compensate -maybe better later tonight. The weird part is that in order to get 45 to come in well during those months I'm probably 15 to 25+ degrees clockwise from where all the channels except 45 come in optimally now. My signal on 45 is currently ranging from 15 to 36% AND BOUNCING AROUND(multipath?) -likely due to the antenna being mounted low and a lot of trees north of me probably providing varying pathways based on the current amount of foliage and possibly wind/motion.

I wish they'd get the signal strength up a bit on 45... I guess they're still radiating the same weird lobe pattern they were before? IIRC they were transmitting off the side of the 6 antenna or something like that?

I guess ultimately I need to get my antenna mounted higher. I used to have the same problems with Ch 6. before they went back to the actual channel 6 frequency. Now 6 is at 98% for a wide range of rotation on my end.

I have a similar situation to Nervous Cat...

I wish they'd get the signal strength up a bit on 45... I guess they're still radiating the same weird lobe pattern they were before? IIRC they were transmitting off the side of the 6 antenna or something like that?

I guess ultimately I need to get my antenna mounted higher.

Yes, as I remember the issue to the south with chan 45 was because of the side mounted antenna..(although I can't quite visualize that configuration in my head)
Channel 45 is running 676 kilowatts of power right now, and I doubt an increase is in the cards anytime soon.
Your antenna going higher would very likely be the best bet, with the addition of a mast mounted pre-amplifier, you will see an incredible increase in signal.
I use the Radio Shack (no longer available) equivilent of the Antennacraft 10G212, a 30 db gain amp available at solidsignal.com...$27 + shipping.
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=10G212&d=AntennaCraft-10G212-30-dB-High-Gain-TVFM-MastMountedSignal-Amplifier-(10G212)&sku=716079001809&mc=03
NervousCat might try the same.....

You "California Dreamin' ", NervousCat? :D
That's kinda weird, up here, when the leaves go away my signals come UP!!!
Only thing I can imagine, the leaves in the summer cause a defraction of the signals allowing better reception, but that's only conjecture on my part. I've also noticed this summer, during heavy rain, the signals came up....I would have thought just the opposite. (The satellite signal sure blinks in a severe thunderstorm, that's for sure)
My only suggestion, try turning the antenna and search for a better signal in the fall.

I always think of that song this time of the year. :-)

With the leaves already down here in Poughkeepsie, WTEN has fallen below the threshold and the picture has gone dark on my TV - signal meter is in the weak range (8% now, need 30% as the threshold to reach the "good" range on my tuner to get a signal lock). WMHT is at 70%. I always end up moving the antenna around with the rotor trying to find the new sweet spot for the winter - which works better for WMHT than WTEN. In the summer with the leaves on the trees, I can just aim in the general direction up the Hudson River and I get a solid signal lock with WTEN from Poughkeepsie. I miss my RetroTV already.

I use the Radio Shack (no longer available) equivilent of the Antennacraft 10G212, a 30 db gain amp available at solidsignal.com...$27 + shipping.
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=10G212&d=AntennaCraft-10G212-30-dB-High-Gain-TVFM-MastMountedSignal-Amplifier-(10G212)&sku=716079001809&mc=03
NervousCat might try the same.....

I use a Radio Shack antenna too, an "Archer" U-100 (the 100 standing for 100 mile range on UHF - yeah, right). I'm 67 miles away from Helderberg antenna farm, not line of sight, but 1Edge according to TVFool. The antenna was installed in 1979, and it is currently used in combination with a Channel Master VHF Crossfire on the same mast. The Archer UHF is on top with the ability to rotate, so I've got more height than VHF. Last year, I installed a CM-0264DSB Spartan 3 Mast-Mounted 2 Input pre-Amplifier for both antennas and ran new RG6 coax wire from the preamp to the power brick inside the house. My problem may have to do with the UHF antenna being 30 years old, and it probably was engineered for those high UHF channels like 52-83, which don't exist anymore, right?

By the way, next weekend on Ask This Old House, Kevin O'Connor is going to a house to troubleshoot a DTV signal problem (homeowner gets a NO SIGNAL reading on his digital tuner with an indoor antenna).

I use a Radio Shack antenna too, an "Archer" U-100 (the 100 standing for 100 mile range on UHF - yeah, right). I'm 67 miles away from Helderberg antenna farm, not line of sight, but 1Edge according to TVFool. The antenna was installed in 1979, and it is currently used in combination with a Channel Master VHF Crossfire on the same mast. The Archer UHF is on top with the ability to rotate, so I've got more height than VHF. Last year, I installed a CM-0264DSB Spartan 3 Mast-Mounted 2 Input pre-Amplifier for both antennas and ran new RG6 coax wire from the preamp to the power brick inside the house. My problem may have to do with the UHF antenna being 30 years old, and it probably was engineered for those high UHF channels like 52-83, which don't exist anymore, right?

By the way, next weekend on Ask This Old House, Kevin O'Connor is going to a house to troubleshoot a DTV signal problem (homeowner gets a NO SIGNAL reading on his digital tuner with an indoor antenna).

Let me get a guy from your area over here....he's worked
on reception problems for a while now from down there...he's garyinpok...hang loose for a bit....

EDIT: I left Gary a note on the WRGB forum...he's pretty good on following up...he should be able to help...he's good.
You might want to post your coordinates also, so we know exactly where you are...that will help...

This happens to me every year around this time ... as soon as the leaves are down, my reception of WTEN drops below threshold and begins to cut in and out. Then around mid-May, the signal gets stronger again. WMHT is the only station I can get year round reliably with my outdoor UHF antenna here in Poughkeepsie.


I'm in Poughkeepsie too... For me Channel 10 is still between 80-90%, according to the time of day..

Since the leaves are gone most of my channels seem to have stayed the same, maybe even a little improvement.. Channel 23 dropped below 50% on me over the weekend, that was strange because I don't remember it ever doing that before..But now it's back to about 70%...

With the leaves gone I was hoping to finally get Channel 6 more often, but that hasn't happened.. 6 is still my problem child..

KB2FZQ - can you give me the link to the WRGB forum? Thanks!

de KQ2N

kq2n:
Go to http://www.cbs6albany.com/share/forums/ then select "The Digital Television Switchover"

It's by far the most popular forum there. After sampling some of the others I can see why.

You might want to post your coordinates also, so we know exactly where you are...that will help...

Here you go:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dbc2740615366eb

Again, they're very old antennas... UHF 30 years old (top of mast), VHF 26 years old (mounted about four or five feet below UHF), with an eve mounted mast on side of house. There is 300 ohm twin lead from antennas to preamp, RG6 coax from preamp to inside house, 2 way splitter after that. You know, I have a Terk HDTVa indoor antenna aimed through the north facing brick wall toward Albany and I generally get better UHF reception on that than I do with the outdoor UHF on the roof! By the way, I can't get WRGB 6 for a different reason. The VHF antenna is strong enough but aimed in wrong direction (installed for receiving NYC analog VHF stations years ago), and it cannot be redirected since mast mounting hardware is totally rusted frozen. Pete Putman from hdtvexpert.com suggested I just replace all the antennas. He thinks any further tweaking of the existing antennas would be futile.

Here you go:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dbc2740615366eb



My suggestion would be the Winegard HD7082P with an AP8700 preamp.

I checked out the WRGB DTV forum site, great site! Fred,the WRGB engineer seems like a pretty decent guy keeping people informed. Thanks for the link. Got some atmospheric enhancement going on tonight, I'm even getting WXXA 23-2 here, I like the Untamed Sports they air. Too bad I can't get it all the time.

Here you go:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dbc2740615366eb

Again, they're very old antennas... UHF 30 years old (top of mast), VHF 26 years old (mounted about four or five feet below UHF), with an eve mounted mast on side of house. There is 300 ohm twin lead from antennas to preamp, RG6 coax from preamp to inside house, 2 way splitter after that. You know, I have a Terk HDTVa indoor antenna aimed through the north facing brick wall toward Albany and I generally get better UHF reception on that than I do with the outdoor UHF on the roof! By the way, I can't get WRGB 6 for a different reason. The VHF antenna is strong enough but aimed in wrong direction (installed for receiving NYC analog VHF stations years ago), and it cannot be redirected since mast mounting hardware is totally rusted frozen. Pete Putman from hdtvexpert.com suggested I just replace all the antennas. He thinks any further tweaking of the existing antennas would be futile.

kb2fzq is overselling my abilities I think.

For comparison, this is my tvfool result:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dbc27d4c46832bd

It seems you're at least a few miles from me (you're closer to WRNN/WTBY by a couple of miles, but further from WTEN by a mile or so). But, I think I'm in a better location. Both of us show "2 edge" for WRGB, but "1 edge" for the other Albany stations that are actually on the same tower. Looking closer though, your NM (noise margin) and Power (dBm) numbers are not as good as mine. The FAQ page explains these. http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57#how_to_read You want high noise margin and low (smaller negative) dBm.

Your WTEN noise margin is 18.1, mine is 23.4. This says I should have a better signal. Why? Probably location. I'm not really in Poughkeepsie, I'm on the hilltop west of Baird Park, at a good elevation and with a pretty good (through trees) view to the north. Tvfool says WRNN/WTBY are about 15 miles away. I can look out my window and see the strobe lights on the transmitter tower at night (better in winter, since I have to look through some trees). The transmitter is on Illinois mountain between New Paltz and Poughkeepsie. Tvfool says my signal for these is LOS (line of sight), and it is. I'll guess since your numbers are lower you're not in as good a location as me.

I'm actually also using a Radio Shack antenna from the late 1970s (somewhere between 1975-1980). It's not even the U-100 model. I don't remember the model number, but I think it may be only a "65 mile" or so model. I got it when I lived much closer to Albany, and moved it from an attic there to my attic here. I also have an antenna mounted preamp. I've tried 2 different ones with pretty much identical results.

If your antenna has been outside since the 1980s, corrosion of the metal parts and dirt (espiecially if there's any soot from a nearby chimney) on the insulators could be costing you some signal. Any joints may not be making as good a connection after years of exposure to the weather. Even my antenna may be a bit corroded after years of baking in the attic on hot summer days. But, mine still looks pretty close to like new. If an indoor antenna works better I would guess this could be the case. I'm sure my antenna is also tuned for a wider range of UHF channels like yours. A new antenna might not be a bad idea, although it's hard to say for sure. Also, you if you get a new antenna (one that's not rusted solid to the mast) you should try different locations before you secure it in place. A different location (maybe even lower) might work better. Higher is often better, but not always. See here for why: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/siting.html (there's a lot of good info on this page, read the whole thing if you can understand it). Local objects can produce diffraction and ground reflection patterns that produce strong signal in some places and weak in others. If local obstacles are doing this in your location you might find a strong spot if you move your antenna around. This also suggests your old antenna could be "bad", or could just be in a bad location.

Also, one other thing on twinlead.. that's actually not bad stuff if you install it correctly, but it needs to be on standoffs to hold it away from the mast and any metal, and the plastic (or whatever) inserts that hold the twinlead should also be intact so the twindlead doesn't even touch the metal of the standoff. If you don't follow this the twinlead can lose signal to the surrounding metal. If you have a short piece of twinlead to the preamp, and it's away from the mast and other metal parts, you should be fine. I don't think it's even easy to find twinlead anymore because coax is more foolproof (you don't have these issues with keeping it away from metal). My preamp is connected with about 12 inches of twinlead.

I now have a pretty stable signal on about all the Albany stations, except 51 which is so/so (sometimes pretty good, sometimes no picture). TVfool says my noise margin is 9.1 for that. You might expect also to receive stations with noise margins over 10 or so, with a decent antenna. Your WTEN is rated 18.1, so you should probably get that OK (but not as good as my 23.4). Right now my WTEN signal strength is about 90, and it's pretty consistent there through about any weather and season (been using digital since last winter when it was still the same, even with snow on the roof and the antenna below, which I'm surprised about). 6 is usually pretty good now, but weakest out of all except 51.

Also for kb2fzq who can't picture a side-mount antenna, you can see one here (I guess the one to the right of the "antenna closeup" picture might be WCWN, though I have no inside info to be sure). http://www.fybush.com/sites/2009/site-090109.html It's called a side mount because well it's on the side of the tower. You know about antennas, directors, reflectors, and all that for building a directional receive antenna. And as a ham you should also know you can use these as directional transmit antennas. Usually, a TV station will want an omnidirectional antenna to cover the whole surrounding area. You get this by putting the antenna on top of the tower, with clear space (no metal) all around. Put the antenna on the side of the tower on standoffs, and the tower itself reflects and redirects signal. It's not tuned like your beam, so the pattern is not strongly directional, but it still produces lobes of stronger and weaker signals in different directions. It's not the best arrangement, but you can only stack so many antennas on top of one tower. WCWN seems to get the less desirable side mount location. You might want to read that whole fybush page, there's some other interesting info in there.

I wish they'd get the signal strength up a bit on 45... I guess they're still radiating the same weird lobe pattern they were before? IIRC they were transmitting off the side of the 6 antenna or something like that?

They have been radiating from the side of the DTV master tower up there.
They had a wide lobe which restricted the power towards co-channel WEDH-DT in Hartford, CT. The top mount antenna is non directional, so the power is signifigantly dropped when they move to eliminate the overlap. (It would be higher than 600kW but lower than 670kW)

Yes, as I remember the issue to the south with chan 45 was because of the side mounted antenna..(although I can't quite visualize that configuration in my head)

It's not hard to visualize it. Just look at the pictures of it. =)
http://www.necrat.us/albdtv.html These pictures
were taken before WRGB-DT's panel went up.

Channel 45 is running 676 kilowatts of power right now, and I doubt an increase is in the cards anytime soon.

Actually they have a construction permit to go to the top mount antenna non directional at 600kW. So it will be a minor power reduction. (as opposed to height / power adjustment , this is a power decrease)

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Yes, I am probably not as high up as Gary - 150 feet above sea level one mile east of the Hudson River. The ranch house also doesn't offer too much height unless I stick a tall mast in the center of the roof and secure with guy wires. As for the current setup, one standoff did pop off underneath the rotor (standoff was old and rusty like the mast and mounting brackets from 25+ years of winters). The loose standoff cannot be reached without taking the entire mast down. Everything will eventually have to come down anyway if a new antenna and mast goes up, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon with winter coming. The DTV transition was a rude awakening because I got decent analog signals with these antennas for years (been watching WXXA since it went on the air in 1982 with an excellent analog signal down here). Then suddenly I ended up with fewer digital channels than I had with the same analog stations, and I also had to worry about the cliff effect and S/N ratios. I expect a lot of folks lost some channels with their old existing outdoor antennas and had to put up new antennas after the DTV transition, especially if they live in fringe areas. By the way, WRNN is licensed for Kingston but has studios in Rye Brook, NY and the transmitter tower is on the top of Mt. Beacon (was previously on Overlook Mountain near Woodstock before it gave up its analog channel). WTBY (also on Mt. Beacon) was broadcasting from Illinois mountain when it was a booming 5 megawatt analog station.

They have been radiating from the side of the DTV master tower up there.
They had a wide lobe which restricted the power towards co-channel WEDH-DT in Hartford, CT. The top mount antenna is non directional, so the power is signifigantly dropped when they move to eliminate the overlap. (It would be higher than 600kW but lower than 670kW)



It's not hard to visualize it. Just look at the pictures of it. =)
http://www.necrat.us/albdtv.html These pictures
were taken before WRGB-DT's panel went up.



Actually they have a construction permit to go to the top mount antenna non directional at 600kW. So it will be a minor power reduction. (as opposed to height / power adjustment , this is a power decrease)

When is all of this supposed to happen? I'm tired of not being able to get 45 when I get all the other DTV's no problem.

kb2fzq is overselling my abilities I think.

Nope, nope....this is what I was hoping for from his fellow Pok neighbor...a very good diagnosis of what's happening in both your neighborhoods.
And trust me Gary, if I thought you were blowing smoke up skirts, I wouldn't have asked for your help...over the last couple of months, very good info has come from Garyinpok.

Now...as I read this last few flurries of posts, the twin lead kind of scares me, as well as very likely rusted contacts on all antennas due to age.
A complete take down of all antennas, cleaning contacts, addition of all 75 ohm coax (axe the twin lead), with new transformers at antennas (Radio Shack)...the use of proper UHF+VHF combiners (I have info where to get those), and the obvious pointing of all antennas right at the "Bergs", "should" give him at least some better reception...I'm not sure if he has one or two pre-amps, but testing to see if it/they are even still working would be absolutely necessary (my suggestion for a new one in previous post)....any or all conponents could very likely be degrading the signals....even down to the actual F-connectors on coax could be a culprit.
A new antenna and coax would be the sure way of settling issues, but a weekend on the roof doing a clean-up may be all that's needed. He may spend a few bucks replacing U-bolts and the like if they are rusted solid, but he shouldn't break the bank...basic tools should be needed and from what I'm reading....a hacksaw...After all, he says they used to work on analog, but the power was higher then and the digital signal is much more finicky then in the days of past.
That would be my suggestion for better TV for NervousCat....

Now...as I read this last few flurries of posts, the twin lead kind of scares me, as well as very likely rusted contacts on all antennas due to age.

One other thought on twinlead... if it's old and outdoors, water can sometimes wick inside the jacket, and over the years the copper can rot away from the inside. It's also worth checking on the condition of that or simply replacing it if it's very old. I guess it could be, since I don't even know who sells twinlead anymore (I actually have some old twinlead in my basement that I've never used).

Nope, nope....this is what I was hoping for from his fellow Pok neighbor...a very good diagnosis of what's happening in both your neighborhoods.
And trust me Gary, if I thought you were blowing smoke up skirts, I wouldn't have asked for your help...over the last couple of months, very good info has come from Garyinpok.

Now...as I read this last few flurries of posts, the twin lead kind of scares me, as well as very likely rusted contacts on all antennas due to age.
A complete take down of all antennas, cleaning contacts, addition of all 75 ohm coax (axe the twin lead), with new transformers at antennas (Radio Shack)...the use of proper UHF+VHF combiners (I have info where to get those), and the obvious pointing of all antennas right at the "Bergs", "should" give him at least some better reception...I'm not sure if he has one or two pre-amps, but testing to see if it/they are even still working would be absolutely necessary (my suggestion for a new one in previous post)....any or all conponents could very likely be degrading the signals....even down to the actual F-connectors on coax could be a culprit.
A new antenna and coax would be the sure way of settling issues, but a weekend on the roof doing a clean-up may be all that's needed. He may spend a few bucks replacing U-bolts and the like if they are rusted solid, but he shouldn't break the bank...basic tools should be needed and from what I'm reading....a hacksaw...After all, he says they used to work on analog, but the power was higher then and the digital signal is much more finicky then in the days of past.
That would be my suggestion for better TV for NervousCat....

I was just hoping for a blizzard with high winds to blow everything down this winter. :-) By the way the preamp is just over one year old (previously had twin lead from both antennas all the way inside the house into a UHF-VHF combiner that went into a distribution amp). Before the preamp, I had lousy DTV reception (just WTBY and WRNN - local line of sight stations in the Mid-Hudson Valley). Last year, the distribution amp in the cellar was replaced with a preamp on the mast and the existing twin lead was cut for a much shorter run to the preamp - 300 Ohm VHF and UHF inputs - 75 Ohm coax output. Then 50 feet of quad sheld RG6 was installed at the preamp (F-connector has a weather boot at preamp) - resulting in picking up WMHT and WTEN (WTEN is more iffy). If anything is the weak link it is probably the twin lead connections to the antennas, like you said. It might be easier to install a new antenna and mast on a different part of the roof rather than taking this old rusty mast down. The mast is mounted to side of the house under eave of roof, and those U-bolts are rusted and won't turn. Taking the rusty mast down would be difficult and possibly dangerous with the load bearing weight of two stacked antennas and rotor (I can just imagine sitting on the edge of the roof with a hacksaw cutting into the mast and shouting "Timber!"). Even going up the side of the house with a ladder and cutting the U-bolts off the eave mounting brackets sounds dangerous.

EDIT: Just for fun, I came across this oldie but goodie article in Popular Mechanics from 1979 about restoring old antennas ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=YM8DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA104&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q=&f=false

By the way, WRNN is licensed for Kingston but has studios in Rye Brook, NY and the transmitter tower is on the top of Mt. Beacon (was previously on Overlook Mountain before it gave up its analog channel). WTBY (also on Mt. Beacon) was broadcasting from Illinois mountain when it was a booming 5 megawatt analog station.

Hmm, I didn't even realize those had moved, but looking again at the headings from tvfool, it looks like you're right. I hadn't really paid that much attention to these, because I get them even with my antenna aimed north, and in any case, I don't watch either of these channels very often.

Yeah. Here's some pics...

http://www.scenichudson.org/oldsite/parks/shparks/mtbeacon/index.html

http://www.catskilltech.com/dir1/Catskills/Catskills02.php

And for you hams out there - here is a video at the top of Mt. Beacon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kje8b6AyL0Q

Hmm, I didn't even realize those had moved, but looking again at the headings from tvfool, it looks like you're right. I hadn't really paid that much attention to these, because I get them even with my antenna aimed north, and in any case, I don't watch either of these channels very often.

If you really want to have some fun - check out the Google Earth coverage maps on TVFool.

http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=41

Albany NY is #56 down the list. If you want to see WRNN and WTBY, download New York (#1 on the list). You might want both since you are in Poughkeepsie.

My little $0.02 here. To attest to the Mt Beacon height advantage, just look at the signal coverage of WSPK-FM on 104.7. @ 7.4 kW, it used to put a solid signal into Albany (before the sign on of 104.5 there) and into New York City (before the plethora of pirates signed on there). I know it doesn't add to the convo but thought I would add it for the techy geeky types.

Hey Gary,

Take a look at my Tvfool report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d8adf364e85e360

Any clue as to why I can pick up WPIX-11 and WNET-13 from NYC pretty consistently, but the Albany VHF's give me all kinds of problems? WRGB-6 barely comes in with lots of drop outs, while WNYT-12 and WXXA-7 rarely even register a signal. Meanwhile, TVfool tells me these Albany stations should be 35 to 45dB stronger! Am I in some kind of magic RF vortex?

The Albany UHF stations come in pretty well, while I can't get the NYC UHF's probably due to Mt Beacon.

If anything is the weak link it is probably the twin lead connections to the antennas, like you said. It might be easier to install a new antenna and mast on a different part of the roof rather than taking this old rusty mast down.

Yes...the twin lead...I would avoid 300 ohm cable ANYWHERE...good 75 ohm cable everywhere is the key...if you need to attach coax to the pre-amp that has twin lead connections, use a transformer.
If $$$ is not an issue, a whole new setup would be advised...some things as the rotor could be reused....the whole thing boils down to a short, clean 75 ohm run from antenna to TV, with a new VHF/hi and lo/UHF antenna with many elements (because of your distance...more gain).
Then tie a short rope to the old stack, the other end to the roof mount and hack it down...bring old antennas to metal recycler and get your 56 cents...add a buck, get a soda and stand and admire your new array...easy.

Hey Gary,

Take a look at my Tvfool report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d8adf364e85e360

The Albany UHF stations come in pretty well, while I can't get the NYC UHF's probably due to Mt Beacon.

Whoa! What a difference one mile makes! Your noise margins are much better than mine and it says you are LOS to the Helderberg antenna farm! I'm just directly south of you near the IBM plant and have to point my antennas through all those shopping centers on Rt. 9. I guess that's my 1Edge. :-)

As for Mt. Beacon, that's been a thorn in my side for years with UHF. Even in the days of analog TV, VHF signals could make it up the Hudson but UHF signals from NYC never did so great because of that giant rock in the way.

Yes...the twin lead...I would avoid 300 ohm cable ANYWHERE...good 75 ohm cable everywhere is the key...if you need to attach coax to the pre-amp that has twin lead connections, use a transformer.
If $$$ is not an issue, a whole new setup would be advised...some things as the rotor could be reused....the whole thing boils down to a short, clean 75 ohm run from antenna to TV, with a new VHF/hi and lo/UHF antenna with many elements (because of your distance...more gain).
Then tie a short rope to the old stack, the other end to the roof mount and hack it down...bring old antennas to metal recycler and get your 56 cents...add a buck, get a soda and stand and admire your new array...easy.

Thanks. One last question. If 75 ohm should be used everywhere why do some antenna manufacturers still use 300 ohm connections on new antennas? Some do supply the 300-to-75 ohm transformer, but they don't fit so well on square booms (like Antennacraft), and you have to tie it down to the boom with tape (Red Green always says duct tape is the handyman's secret weapon). Why even bother to manufacture with 300 ohm screw terminals in a antenna these days?

Hey Gary,

Take a look at my Tvfool report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d8adf364e85e360

Any clue as to why I can pick up WPIX-11 and WNET-13 from NYC pretty consistently, but the Albany VHF's give me all kinds of problems? WRGB-6 barely comes in with lots of drop outs, while WNYT-12 and WXXA-7 rarely even register a signal. Meanwhile, TVfool tells me these Albany stations should be 35 to 45dB stronger! Am I in some kind of magic RF vortex?

The Albany UHF stations come in pretty well, while I can't get the NYC UHF's probably due to Mt Beacon.

Wow, as someone else noticed already, you have LOS to the Helderbergs, I didn't think anybody in Poughkeepsie would have that (I don't, and I thought my location was pretty good). I don't get anything from NYC, so you're lucky about that too (I think just the right location looking directly down the river between Mt. Beacon and other mountains on the west side might be ok).

If you have problems with all the VHF stations, at least the Albany ones, I guess we should ask what kind of antenna you're using. There's been a lot of UHF-only, or UHF and VHF-Hi antennas sold as "HDTV" antennas, but Albany has more VHF stations than most cities, and even one on VHF-Low (these are pretty rare now, most stations opted not to try to use these anymore for DTV). I think this has been a common problem especially for channel 6, with people that bought these antennas. This doesn't explain why you get 2 NYC stations though.

If you have a good antenna, etc. I see no reason why you should not get the VHF stations. Also, are you using a preamp (I think this far away most people will need one), and if you are, does it have separate inputs or switches for VHF and UHF, and are these connected and set right?

VHF does have problems with electrical noise wiping out the signal (UHF is much more resistant), there's a possibility you're picking up noise from somewhere (including something in your house, I had this problem).

So, regarding my antenna setup, when I bought the house a couple of years back it came with two attic-mounted Taco Antenna's. One appears to be a 12-foot FM antenna that I have subsequently removed. The other, which I still use, is a VHF-only antenna. It is a very odd design, so I haven't been able to identify the model. The boom is ~8 ft long and it has 9-elements, most being ~6-7 ft long, although a couple of the elements are shorter. Some of the elements have wire loops either at their ends or in the middle of the element. Also, some of the elements are interconnected with what appears to be a coiled inductor. Prior to the DTV transition, I could receive all NYC VHF stations (2,4,5,7,9,11, and 13), albeit with some snow. Channels 2,5, and 9 were quite watchable, while the others tended to vary with conditions between moderate snow and audio only. I subsequently added a Clearstream4 UHF antenna and connected both antennas with a CM7777 pre-amp, which allowed me to receive WTEN-26, WRGB-39, WMHT-34 and WCWN-43 reasonably well.

I also recently purchased a YA-1713 antenna. My plan was to use the Taco for Albany VHF and the YA-1713 for the NYC stations. However, so far I have been unable to pick up any signal either from NYC or Albany on the YA-1713. As for the Taco, I can receive WRGB-6 at about 30%, which is usually watchable, but with some drop outs. Last winter I could receive WNYT-12 at ~20-45% (sometimes watchable, but often the signal fluctuated erratically). Since the leaves came on the trees the signal dropped to an unwatchable 10-20% and has not recovered. WXXA-7 has never been more than 5%, except during periods of atmospheric enhancement. With the antenna pointed to NYC, I receive WPIX-11 at 30-50% (usually watchable), WNET-13 at 25-45% (a hair less reliable than WPIX), and WABC-7 at 5% (unwatchable).

I suspect that the two Channel 7's may be interfering with each other, which would explain why I don't receive either even though their signals should be stronger than other co-located channels that I do receive. If true, it is probably due to reflections inside my attic and could be remedied by moving the antennas outside. Unfortunately, my wife strongly opposes such an option, but one of these days I do plan to go up on the roof and at least test my reception.

Thanks. One last question. If 75 ohm should be used everywhere why do some antenna manufacturers still use 300 ohm connections on new antennas? Some do supply the 300-to-75 ohm transformer, but they don't fit so well on square booms (like Antennacraft), and you have to tie it down to the boom with tape (Red Green always says duct tape is the handyman's secret weapon). Why even bother to manufacture with 300 ohm screw terminals in a antenna these days?

I can only think that the cost of installing a matching network ON the antennas to get the signal to travel properly would be a cost issue. The transformers (called baluns as in balanced/unbalanced) to convert from 300 to 75 ohm are cheap and are labor cost and material effective. Terminate the driven element with a screw and nut, and add a transformer to match it. The 300/75 ohm thing has to do with impedances...a Google search on that subject will explain the whole thing.

I also recently purchased a YA-1713 antenna. My plan was to use the Taco for Albany VHF and the YA-1713 for the NYC stations. However, so far I have been unable to pick up any signal either from NYC or Albany on the YA-1713. As for the Taco, I can receive WRGB-6 at about 30%, which is usually watchable, but with some drop outs. Last winter I could receive WNYT-12 at ~20-45% (sometimes watchable, but often the signal fluctuated erratically). Since the leaves came on the trees the signal dropped to an unwatchable 10-20% and has not recovered.

Ah yes, the problem with the leaves (or lack of in my case) affecting reception. I can relate to that. ;-)

I remember seeing a picture of that Taco antenna in one of your previous posts.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15502081&highlight=#post15502081

Looking at that picture I can't make heads or tails - it has large elements like for VHF-Lo, but I don't see any VHF-Hi or UHF elements. Are you sure that thing is meant for TV? Just doing a quick Google search, Taco has a web site for their Yagi antennas:

http://www.wade-antenna.com/TACO/Yagis.htm

Tower Guy recommended the Winegard HD7082P to me for Albany area reception. Since you are one mile north of my location with slightly higher elevation, you might be able to get away with that in the attic if it will fit (as a replacement for the Taco if you want to spend more $$$). It has nearly an 11 foot boom. Then you could stick the Clearstream outside for NYC UHF signals if you can get your wife to agree (it's a small antenna - not that obtrusive). I heard the YA-1713 antenna is pretty good for High VHF. Maybe you have it located too close to the Taco?

I suspect that the two Channel 7's may be interfering with each other, which would explain why I don't receive either even though their signals should be stronger than other co-located channels that I do receive. If true, it is probably due to reflections inside my attic and could be remedied by moving the antennas outside. Unfortunately, my wife strongly opposes such an option, but one of these days I do plan to go up on the roof and at least test my reception.

That could be true since Poughkeepsie is dead center between Albany and New York City. It would also depend on the front to back ratio of the antenna as well. In general, too many antennas installed in the attic could affect more than just reception on Channel 7. Do you have all three antennas (Taco, Clearstream C4, Winegard YA-1713) installed in the attic right now? I've heard stacked UHF and VHF antennas on a mast need to be at least five feet apart. I'm not quite sure how that rule of thumb applies to all three of your antennas for an attic installation.

I remember seeing a picture of that Taco antenna in one of your previous posts.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15502081&highlight=#post15502081

Looking at that picture I can't make heads or tails - it has large elements like for VHF-Lo, but I don't see any VHF-Hi or UHF elements. Are you sure that thing is meant for TV? Just doing a quick Google search, Taco has a web site for their Yagi antennas:

Yes, it's quite the odd duck and honestly, I'd be nervous about moving it outside, since its large size and odd shape are bound to be a liability in a wind storm. That's probably why it was discontinued long ago. I can find no mention of such a Taco antenna anywhere online. Nevertheless, it seems to have great performance and is clearly significantly better pulling in both VHF-Lo and VHF-Hi than my YA-1713. Note that it does have one pair of short elements (about the same size as the YA-1713 elements) towards the back of the antenna. You have to look pretty hard to see them in that photo, since they are behind the large dipole with the yellow plastic spacers.

Like you, I originally thought that this might be a VHF-Lo only antenna, so I was hopeful that the YA-1713 would do better on VHF-Hi, but that hasn't been the case.



Tower Guy recommended the Winegard HD7082P to me for Albany area reception. Since you are one mile north of my location with slightly higher elevation, you might be able to get away with that in the attic if it will fit (as a replacement for the Taco if you want to spend more $$$). It has nearly an 11 foot boom. Then you could stick the Clearstream outside for NYC UHF signals if you can get your wife to agree (it's a small antenna - not that obtrusive). I heard the YA-1713 antenna is pretty good for High VHF. Maybe you have it located too close to the Taco?

I'm not too optimistic that the HD7082P would do much for me, since the Winegard spec sheets indicate it only has 0.2-.9dB more gain than the YA-1713 on VHF-Hi. The HD8200U or HD7084P could do a little better, but those are too big for the attic.

So, regarding my antenna setup, when I bought the house a couple of years back it came with two attic-mounted Taco Antenna's. One appears to be a 12-foot FM antenna that I have subsequently removed. The other, which I still use, is a VHF-only antenna. It is a very odd design, so I haven't been able to identify the model. The boom is ~8 ft long and it has 9-elements, most being ~6-7 ft long, although a couple of the elements are shorter. Some of the elements have wire loops either at their ends or in the middle of the element. Also, some of the elements are interconnected with what appears to be a coiled inductor.

Are you sure this Taco antenna is actually a TV antenna? It sounds a bit strange to me. Taco also makes antennas for other applications (2-way radio, etc.) and single-channel and single band antennas. Can you identify it from their website? http://www.wade-antenna.com/index.htm (it might also not be there, because I think Taco has stopped making consumer TV antennas). Its features don't sound like common TV antenna features. Coils in the antenna elements are used to make "trapped" antennas that work on multiple frequency bands See for example http://www.smeter.net/antennas/trap-dipole-antennas.php Coils at the ends might be "capacitive hats", used to make the effective length longer than it really is, or to detune the antenna to make it more broadband. See for example http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/GlossaryA.html#capacitance I don't think either of these are common features of TV antennas, and I don't see any current Wade antenna that has these.

Also, I assume you have your CM7777 set up correctly, if you use both the VHF & UHF inputs you have to open it up and set a switch to enable both (otherwise it only amplifies the "combined" input).

I suspect that the two Channel 7's may be interfering with each other, which would explain why I don't receive either even though their signals should be stronger than other co-located channels that I do receive. If true, it is probably due to reflections inside my attic and could be remedied by moving the antennas outside. Unfortunately, my wife strongly opposes such an option, but one of these days I do plan to go up on the roof and at least test my reception.

Battling channel 7's is a very good possibility....I have the same issue with WNYA in Albany on rf 13 and WVNY in Vermont on RF 13, me being close to being in the middle of the battle. WVNY isn't quite strong enough to lock the TV here, but just strong enough to desense WNYA...I've only actually seen WVNY one Sunday morning when a tropo duct was screaming hot, and lasted only 45 minutes...during that time, WNYA was gone.
Now that the enhancing season is over, WNYA is a fairly solid 50% SS, it being some 40 miles closer to me then WVNY, with a very, very occasional desense if the weather tries to open a duct, but very rare, and never actually drops out....I can just see Mother Nature's work on the SS meter. There was one occurence of WXXA rf 7 dropping out for Albany viewers during the end of the summer where the rf 7 (we think) in Binghamton was to blame. My 50 miles distance from WXXA and even farther to Binghamton caused no issues up here.
So, I would say your 7's are up to the same mischief. There are so many channels, why the FCC put stations so close on the same channel is beyond me.

I found an antenna that looks like it could be a descendant of the Taco. It's got those loopy things on it.

http://www.wade-antenna.com/Wade/VIP%20&%20ZIP%20Antennas.pdf

I've heard TigerBangs on the highdef forum recommend this VHF antenna (VIP-306SR) for his prescription for deep fringe reception. With over a 12 foot boom, I doubt it would fit in anyone's attic though.

EDIT: Oops, scratch that.. the Delhi Antennas from Wade were discontinued (and I assume Taco Consumer antennas were also discontinued years ago).

http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hdtv-info-reception/97497-wade-antenna-has-discontinued-delhi-antenna-line.html

Battling channel 7's is a very good possibility....I have the same issue with WNYA in Albany on rf 13 and WVNY in Vermont on RF 13, me being close to being in the middle of the battle.

Stagger stacking can resolve such interference.

www.anarc.org/wtfda/stagger.pdf

The design shown works for stations that are 180 degrees apart. It can be fine tuned for other angles.

Unfortunately, it works on only one channel at a time. In Poughkeepsie you could do channel 7 or 13 but not both. In Hudson Falls it would work on channel 13.

I found an antenna that looks like it could be a descendant of the Taco. It's got those loopy things on it.

http://www.wade-antenna.com/Wade/VIP%20&%20ZIP%20Antennas.pdf

It looks like you've found a close enough match to prove that this really is a VHF TV antenna, and was probably a good long-range antenna. Since you seem to want to keep your antennas inside, I don't have many other ideas to offer. Is your antenna behind any metal that may interfere with the signal (foil faced insulation, gutters, drip edge, aluminum siding, flashing, wiring, etc.)? I have a meal drip edge myself that's pretty close to my signal path, yet I still get a good signal. If your house is broadside to Albany you might be able to get 2 antennas and arrange them in a horizontal array inside the attic (if it's a little off, you'd have to use unequal length feedlines to compensate for one antenna being ahead of the other).

Stagger stacking can resolve such interference.

www.anarc.org/wtfda/stagger.pdf

The design shown works for stations that are 180 degrees apart. It can be fine tuned for other angles.

Unfortunately, it works on only one channel at a time. In Poughkeepsie you could do channel 7 or 13 but not both. In Hudson Falls it would work on channel 13.

Yes, I am aware of this configuration and briefly considered it. I am running a phased pair of log-periodics, phased at rf 13 1/2 wavelength spacing. The problem only comes up with very high tropo ducting occurances, and it would not be worth gambling with changing what excellent reception I already have (at 53 and 91 miles away respectively) on all the rest of the stations I receive. But thanks for the link....
:D

All I know for certain is that the Antenna is a Taco (has "Taco" stamped into some of the parts) and the previous owner used it as a TV antenna. As I've said before, it seems to outperform a YA-1713 on VHF-Hi, so it appears to be a very good VHF antenna. Considering that it can get WRGB-6, WPIX-11, and WNET-13 from 65+ miles away in an attic, I really can't complain too much.

The other day, I tried the YA-1713 again and was able to receive a decent signal from WNYT-12 (~30%), although I had to angle the antenna more upward than I would have expected. I was also able to get about the same signal level from the Taco antenna. Presumably, enough leaves have fallen off the trees for WNYT-12 to be watchable again. The good news is that this proves that the YA-1713 is functioning correctly.

I'm still baffled that with the Taco, WPIX-11 and WNET-13 are the strongest VHF signals, while the YA-1713 doesn't get either NYC station. I did notice that for some configurations the two antenna's appeared to be interfering with each other, so I may have to take down the Taco to truly test the YA-1713. Ideally, I'd like to point the YA-1713 at NYC to get WPIX-11, WNET-13, and WABC-7 and the Taco at Albany to get WRGB-6, WXXA-7, and WNYT-12. I have enough room in my attic, that I should be able to accommodate both antennas. I could then use an A-B switch to select between them.

For SemiChemE:

I'm trying to follow posts and pictures, but I think the 2 pics I looked at are yours from this forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=#post15502081

These seem fairly obviously VHF-lo/high antennas.

Back when I was young (and that's a long time ago now), my dad would get VHF channels only on the TV....I was born and lived in Ossining, near the City.
As you see, the major NYC channels are all VHF...when we moved up here, all Albany channels were VHF....6, 10 and 13....the first UHF channel I remember was WXXA 23, and that was when I was late teens, maybe 20's. We never received it on an antenna, as cable was the rage then.
They built some massive antennas back in the days...and they were very effective receiving VHF signals from a distance.
So the north/south reception you plan should work...13 may be an issue as WNYA Albany will probably interfere with the NYC 13...but then there are the UHF stations in Albany...how would you go about receiving those?
And as far as setup for both antennas, get them as far apart as possble, because at VHF, they will probably interfere with each other if they are less then a wavelength of the lowest channel apart from each other. A wavelength for channel 2 is 8 feet, 6 inches.

I'm still baffled that with the Taco, WPIX-11 and WNET-13 are the strongest VHF signals, while the YA-1713 doesn't get either NYC station. I did notice that for some configurations the two antenna's appeared to be interfering with each other, so I may have to take down the Taco to truly test the YA-1713. Ideally, I'd like to point the YA-1713 at NYC to get WPIX-11, WNET-13, and WABC-7 and the Taco at Albany to get WRGB-6, WXXA-7, and WNYT-12. I have enough room in my attic, that I should be able to accommodate both antennas. I could then use an A-B switch to select between them.

I'm also in Poughkeepsie with a VHF antenna aimed at NYC (picture attached - the Channel Master VHF is the antenna on the bottom). Analog reception was fine for 26 years the VHF antenna was used to receive analog broadcasts from New York. After the transition I now pick up no VHF stations, so you are doing better than me. I can get one UHF station from NYC (WNYW).

If I originally had the antenna mounted so it was aimed at Albany - I'm sure I could get WRGB with this (can't change it now because of rusted U-Bolts that won't turn).

By the way on Ask This Old House today, they'll be troubleshooting a TV reception problem.

Sunday, November 15 — 4:30pm
17.2 - WMHT ThinkBright / Create
Container gardening; different types of flooring. Also: installing a rooftop TV antenna.

I wish I thought of writing to these guys - maybe they would have come over here to "this old house" in Poughkeepsie instead. :-)

I'm also in Poughkeepsie with a VHF antenna aimed at NYC (picture attached - the Channel Master VHF is the antenna on the bottom). Analog reception was fine for 26 years the VHF antenna was used to receive analog broadcasts from New York. After the transition I now pick up no VHF stations, so you are doing better than me. I can get one UHF station from NYC (WNYW).


I'm in (near) Poughkeepsie too, I never did get anything from NYC but always got analog stations from Albany in varying qualities (10, 23, 17 best, 6 good, 13 very poorly). I'm actually doing better post-transition; except for some problems with interference on 6 initially that I solved by moving my antenna, I now get 6, 10, 13, 17, 23, 45, with good signals, and sometimes 51. I'm actually doing better with DTV than with analog; so I don't know why the opposite is true for others.

That does look like a good VHF antenna (it has more elements than the one I'm using); my suggestion would be to try to free it up (even if you have to take a hacksaw to the U-bolt or get a good long-handled wrench and twist off the stuck bolts), and turn it around and point it at Albany and see what you get.

Your location may be different than mine, but I have hills blocking to the south but a pretty clear path to the north, explaining why I get Albany stations but not NYC.

My suggestion would be to try to free it up (even if you have to take a hacksaw to the U-bolt or get a good long-handled wrench and twist off the stuck bolts), and turn it around and point it at Albany and see what you get.

A 7/16" deep well socket will break the old U bolt with almost no effort.