The Official AVS 'Smart Antenna' topic - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 167 Old 06-01-2009, 06:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooterville View Post

How is the Clearstream 4 antenna?

Well, it's not a smart antenna (which is the subject of this thread)....
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 167 Old 06-02-2009, 05:24 PM
Newbie
 
cfandsf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JNinCA View Post

Please note: the one from Amazon that is only $46 ships in 2 to 4 weeks. So you won't get it in time for the June 12 shutoff.

Solid Signal again ran out of ANT2000s, but they do still have factory refurb ANT2000s in stock for $50 (no free shipping).

Is an ANT2000M any different? All I can say is the one I bought said ANT2000M on the packaging. I assume it's the same.

As for your PBS affiliate, I'd call them and ask. A lot of stations here have put their new antenna somewhere temporarily. Once analog shuts down, they move the new antenna to the top of the tower (where the analog antenna used to be). This necessitates using a low power temp antenna for a few weeks during the move.

Should I wait for the transition (June 12th) to find out which stations I will be able to pick up?
cfandsf is offline  
post #123 of 167 Old 06-02-2009, 06:52 PM
Member
 
dreater's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfandsf View Post

Should I wait for the transition (June 12th) to find out which stations I will be able to pick up?

No. Your local stations have been broadcasting in digital for some time - months or years. Many of them are likely on their final frequency assignments now, although some may be changing on June 12th. If you get set up and do testing now, you'll have a chance to work out at least some problems while you still have analog to fall back on. If you wait until the 12th, and then discover you have problems... well then you'll have no TV at all until you solve the problems.
dreater is offline  
post #124 of 167 Old 06-08-2009, 05:54 PM
Member
 
kumo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTheGeek View Post

I got wind of this on another topic. I was wondering if anyone knew anything about this model. Sounds like it will work in dumb down mode if not connected to a smart antenna enabled device. Otherwise it will work in smart antenna mode. The whips tells me that only UHF is smart antenna. Also, this unit is so small I don't think it would perform as well as the two other models (DX Antenna DTA-5000 and the RCA ANT2000) that are on the market.

APEX SM550

See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post16479651
kumo is offline  
post #125 of 167 Old 06-09-2009, 07:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Apex SM550 apparently can grab POWER from CEA-909 I/F port, but is NOT THAT SMART,
other than (alledgedly???) controlling the Preamp Gain for those within a few miles of a tower:
http://www.shop-apex.com/catalog/ite...87/6860063.htm
P.S.: Post #105 above said about the same thing.....

Here are some actual Apex SM550 user reports:

firesignth's Tivax STB-T8 had NO CONTROL over the SM550.
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/vi...1fe8faef#36998

RCA DTA-800B1 CECB was tested with SM500 plugged into Power Insertion Module
versus plugged into the CEA-909 Smart Antenna I/F......NO DIFFERENCE:
http://www.audioholics.com/buying-gu...t/rca-dta800b1
And (amplified) SM550 vs (non-amplified) Rabbit Ears using Apex DT250A CECB....
Apparently could scan or manually enter antenna directions...but ONLY MINOR IMPROVEMENT:
http://www.audioholics.com/buying-gu...digital-dt250a

See what Candace said: http://inventorsgarage.com/blog4/200...cations-modes/
Apex SM550 WASN'T EVEN RECOGNIZED by her Apex DT250 CECB!!!!

Mixed reviews on CostCo: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US

BUT: All THREE reviewers on BestBuy LOVED THE CLOCK!!!!
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218067406680
[How often does Best Buy post bad reviews???]

Not that you could read the tiny clock while watching TV from your armchair.....ROTFL


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

holl_ands is offline  
post #126 of 167 Old 06-09-2009, 01:06 PM
Member
 
JNinCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Morada, Calif.
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
IOW, it is NOT a smart antenna.

I'd seen it and wondered how it could be a smart antenna. Smart antennas are directional. How can the smart antenna "steer" those rabbit ears? It can't.
JNinCA is offline  
post #127 of 167 Old 06-11-2009, 02:51 AM
Member
 
Robert SawyerIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JNinCA View Post

IOW, it is NOT a smart antenna.

I'd seen it and wondered how it could be a smart antenna. Smart antennas are directional. How can the smart antenna "steer" those rabbit ears? It can't.

You have the wrong concept of Smart Antennas (at least in relation to the 909 standard). The 909 standard only refers to the interface between the 16(or 32 with polarization) "virtual antennas" and a controlling controller/ATSC tuner box/chip.

There are two possibilities...
1. Most probable... In this case they may have slaved the rabbit ears portion (not electronically steerable) to the internal antenna portion (Should be steerable), and the 16 channels are as follows
Virtual Antenna 1 = VHF + UHF (position 1)
Virtual Antenna 2 = VHF + UHF (position 2)
...
Virtual Antenna 16 = VHF + UHF (position 16)

OR

2. They specifically assigned VHF to one of the Virtual Antennas and you get the following...
Virtual Antenna 1 = VHF
Virtual Antenna 2 = UHF (position 1)
...
Virtual Antenna 16 = UHF (position 15)

There is NO requirement as to how the antennas need to be designed, only as to how they communicate (control and info) and provide switching (16/32 channels) and preamplification (4 levels).

A 'almost perfect' Smart Antenna design would be to look at the channels you want to recieve then select up to 16(/32*) specifically designed antennas for your selections (single channel VHF/single band UHF antennas http://www.blondertongue.com/reception/bty.pdf) and have an interface that would allow you to plug all of them into a Antenna to 909 converter box (I picture a box with up to 16/32* F-ports in with a 909 F-port out. This gives you a 16-32 directionally tuned antenna array that assumes it (and the antennas themselves) will never move out of alignment.

A 'god like' perfect Smart Antenna (or a Super Smart Antenna ) design is if you add the idea above (limited to 16) with the idea of using the RF channel number (per CEA-542-B) and polarization to control a Antenna box additionally with any number of F-ports for every 6Mhz channel (one for each polarity) in the acceptable range. You have an antenna controller inside the box that constantly measures it's own antennas for each frequency to find the best antenna to assign to each channel and polarity (this does take a bit of control AWAY from the STB) and then the STB asks for that RF channel and polarity the Antenna controller selects the one it thinks is the best to recieve that spcefic RF channel & polarity. This gives you an virtually unlimited number of antennas that does not care if you or the antennas move because it constantly updates its own opinion of which channel is best (not the STB deciding which Virtual Antenna is best) and gives it to you.

*Note: 32 not sure if you could use a polarization bit as a just another 16 antennas or if any tuner that askes for the alternate polarization can astually use RF tuning algorithims of different polarities to get better signals.
In other words
1. is there something that can be done on the STB side that when working on one specific channel can you fine tune the tuner so that moving to a different polarizaion of the same signal will help in the tuning process
OR is it just information so that
2. IF the SA uses the Direction modifiers THEN the polarization doubles its number of directions AND if the SA uses the channel RF channel number then the polarization bit will help describe the position of the specific real channel assignment.

PS I do not think I have heard of anyone even conceptualizing this "Super Smart Antenna" until now, but I assume that this is reason the 909 standard incorperated sending the RF channel and polarity into it's spec, otherwise why bother? If this is the first idea of the Super Smart Antenna then you heard it here first, I only thought it up now. Please send royalty checks to ...


Excerpt from my school paper Spr 05/06...

"This war will not be finished for many years, but once the Christmas 2007 returns are in there will be no turning back."
Robert SawyerIII is offline  
post #128 of 167 Old 06-11-2009, 04:03 AM
Member
 
Robert SawyerIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As an additional note...

Any antennas that are dedicated to a single channel could have a 6Mhz bandpass filter filter on that line to only allow that specific channel through i.e. http://www.tinlee.com/Graph_CFAL_8_5...618.php#graph5. This would eliminate the problem of adjacent and co-channel interference, but of course anything from harmonics and multi-path that resided in the pass range would still be there. You could even set up a 'multiswitch' to have 1 filter per channel and switch them to different antennas.

OR you could use just this idea on a 'traditional' Smart Antenna to get a Smart Antenna WITH PER CHANNEL FILTERING(where the Set top box still controls everything), which I dub a Semi-Super Smart Antenna. (Thats what I'm going to call it, so )

I think the SSA controller could even have it's own control system for each antenna like to move it in and out of a node, physically if necessary, over to secondary(or more) identical antennas in physically different locations.

The posibilities are only limited by imagination (of course the reality has a list of many other limitations, cost being classified of high in importance on said list).

Excerpt from my school paper Spr 05/06...

"This war will not be finished for many years, but once the Christmas 2007 returns are in there will be no turning back."
Robert SawyerIII is offline  
post #129 of 167 Old 06-13-2009, 03:18 PM
Newbie
 
duke523's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is there any hdtv out yet that support and have a smart antenna connection?
duke523 is offline  
post #130 of 167 Old 06-13-2009, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke523 View Post

Is there any hdtv out yet that support and have a smart antenna connection?

Nope. Not a one.
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
post #131 of 167 Old 06-13-2009, 09:46 PM
Member
 
Doc Sief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eagan, MN, southern suburb of St. Paul, 16mi from TV Towers
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bix View Post

Would those who have tried the ANT2000 and disliked it be able to elaborate on its faults? Since it's become easier to find again I've considered picking it up but ProjectSHO89's posts have given me pause. I like my Radio Shack UFO but the shape makes it hard to get closer to a window and this seems like the best alternative in theory. Plus, the UFO's programmable antenna is for UHF only, using rabbit ears for VHF. I'm in NY where 3 major channels will be on VHF post-transition so the VHF being part of the smart antenna in the ANT2000 is appealing to me.

Also, how would those who have tried both the ANT2000 and UFO compare them.

Thanks!

OK I tried them both again on my DTA800B on main floor (4' AGL) The UFO can be easily aimed at Channel 41 in Big Lake 46 miles away and gets a great signal, but poor on the UHF based out of Shoreview (336deg instead of 7 and 10deg compass heading). The VHF channels come in great once properly adjusted. But the moving of aim point drives my family nuts. The RCA ANT2000 works great, can also pick up Channel 41 and others without doing a thing!
Doc Sief is offline  
post #132 of 167 Old 06-19-2009, 12:13 PM
Member
 
kumo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Situation: We have a nominal (more about the qualifier below) line of sight (LOS) to the transmitters of the local (Portland, Oregon) stations that are all located in two clusters within a very narrow segment of the compass rose, WNW of us, the closer one (per TVFool) at 1.6 miles and 284° and the further one at 2.5 miles and 291°. With our proximity to the transmitters and LOS, signal strength is not an issue at our location.

We have mounted an Eagle-Aspen two-bay antenna in the (unfinished) attic (approximately 30 feet above ground level) at the east end of the house pointed (through the attic) at about 287° in the direction of the transmitter farms; a digital television on the first floor of the house directly below the antenna is connected to the Eagle-Aspen. On the west end of the second floor of the house, approximately 20 feet above ground level, we have an analogue television set and a Tivax STB-T8 converter box, the latter attached (until last week) to a simple UHF loop, half of a rabbit-ears-plus-loop cheap antenna that we purchased long ago, probably in the early 1970s.

Our neighbors on a slight rise above us to the immediate west have a giant (probably more than 100 feet tall and more than 75 feet spread) sycamore tree, the trunk of which is about 20 feet due west of our house. In the summer, when the tree is full of leaves, our LOS is a virtual LOS, because the direct signal must pass through the leaves of the tree. Whenever a breeze ruffles the leaves, we have had -- on both the downstairs set connected to the Eagle-Aspen in the attic and the upstairs set connected to the UHF loop antenna -- break-up and freeze frame on the local ABC channel (KATU, virtual channel 2.1) which broadcasts on UHF channel 43, and the local PBS channel (KOPB, virtual channel 10.1) which pre-transition broadcast on a UHF frequency, but has returned to channel 10 post-transition. KATU broadcasts from the closer of the two transmitter farms at 284°, and KOPB broadcasts from the farther of the two transmitter farms, at 291°. As one might (or might not) expect, we have seen less break-up on KOPB and KATU on the downstairs set that is attached to the Eagle-Aspen in the attic than we did with the upstairs set that was attached to the simple loop antenna, but we have experienced some break-up on both, nevertheless.

We have had solid reception, both pre-transition and post-transition, from the NBC affiliate (KGW, virtual channel 8.1), which broadcast on channel 46 before the transition and now has returned to channel 8 post-transition, from the farther of the two transmitter farms at 291°. We have no explanation, not even a tentative one, why the signals from KGW (steady) and KOPB (occasional break-up), which are broadcast from the same location with the same power, should be received differently.

Last week, the day before the transition, we received delivery of an ANT2000, which we immediately placed in service on the upstairs Tivax STB-T8 in place of the ancient loop antenna. For practical and aesthetic reasons, mounting the ANT2000 horizontally (hanging from the ceiling) was not an option, and so it is mounted vertically on the wall, facing due west (270°), with its top edge perhaps six inches below the ceiling, located about two feet higher, and five feet to the north, of the converter box (which also places it about two feet higher and five feet farther north than the UHF loop was). The coaxial cable permanently attached to the ANT2000 is only about six feet long, so we needed to add a length of coaxial cable, using a splicer, to attach the antenna to the auxiliary connector box of the ANT2000, with its separate very short Smart Antenna cable connection to the Tivax converter.

The neighbor's sycamore now has its full complement of summer leaves. We have had some breezes in the past week. The downstairs set, attached to the Eagle-Aspen in the attic, continues to show the occasional break-up or freeze frame when the set is tuned to KATU or KOPB and a breeze blows through. On the upstairs set, attached to the ANT2000, the presumed multipath problem appears to be 100 percent solved. The Smart Antenna experiment has resulted in a resounding success at this location.
kumo is offline  
post #133 of 167 Old 06-29-2009, 07:34 PM
Member
 
JNinCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Morada, Calif.
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kumo View Post


Last week, the day before the transition, we received delivery of an ANT2000, which we immediately placed in service on the upstairs Tivax STB-T8 in place of the ancient loop antenna. For practical and aesthetic reasons, mounting the ANT2000 horizontally (hanging from the ceiling) was not an option, and so it is mounted vertically on the wall, facing due west (270°), with its top edge perhaps six inches below the ceiling, located about two feet higher, and five feet to the north, of the converter box (which also places it about two feet higher and five feet farther north than the UHF loop was). The coaxial cable permanently attached to the ANT2000 is only about six feet long, so we needed to add a length of coaxial cable, using a splicer, to attach the antenna to the auxiliary connector box of the ANT2000, with its separate very short Smart Antenna cable connection to the Tivax converter.

The neighbor's sycamore now has its full complement of summer leaves. We have had some breezes in the past week. The downstairs set, attached to the Eagle-Aspen in the attic, continues to show the occasional break-up or freeze frame when the set is tuned to KATU or KOPB and a breeze blows through. On the upstairs set, attached to the ANT2000, the presumed multipath problem appears to be 100 percent solved. The Smart Antenna experiment has resulted in a resounding success at this location.

I'm glad it all worked out for you, but other people reading this, please don't think hanging the ANT2000 vertically is the solution. The smart antenna activates different elements, depending on the direction of the tower. Hanging it vertically would mean the antenna would be looking straight up and straight down for signals.
JNinCA is offline  
post #134 of 167 Old 07-03-2009, 03:12 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Extreme Range Smart Antenna On-Air Test:
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/smart

I was primarily interested in whether Hi-VHF could be received 70-miles from Mt Wilson (L.A.)
and whether crossed dipoles in DX Antenna DTA-5000 have as much gain as a Folded Dipole.

Folded Dipole (1/2-in pipe) could reliably receive CH7 & CH9, whereas DTA-5000 got neither.
RCA ANT2000 could receive CH9 and in one (and only one) rescan received CH7 (but not CH9).
Although many people surrounding L.A. are waiting for CH11 and CH13 to increase power,
local CH12 (only 2.7-miles away) makes it even more difficult to receive adjacent channels....

I didn't expect good UHF reception at 70-miles and low height....and was not surprised.....
Two local UHF channels came in okay with DTA-5000, but not ANT2000....
Local CH27 (only 2.7-miles away) is adjacent to one of these, making it difficult to receive.

BTW: Winegard YA-1713 10-Element Hi-VHF Yagi reliably received CH7, 9, 11 and 13 at 7-ft height.
Still trying to find as good a spot in the attic, joining CM4228 UHF 8-Bay (which only received CH9)...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

holl_ands is offline  
post #135 of 167 Old 08-29-2009, 09:19 AM
Member
 
Doc Sief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eagan, MN, southern suburb of St. Paul, 16mi from TV Towers
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post

Extreme Range Smart Antenna On-Air Test:
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/smart
I was primarily interested in whether Hi-VHF could be received 70-miles from Mt Wilson (L.A.)and whether crossed dipoles in DX Antenna DTA-5000 have as much gain as a Folded Dipole.Folded Dipole (1/2-in pipe) could reliably receive CH7 & CH9, whereas DTA-5000 got neither.RCA ANT2000 could receive CH9 and in one (and only one) rescan received CH7 (but not CH9).Although many people surrounding L.A. are waiting for CH11 and CH13 to increase power,local CH12 (only 2.7-miles away) makes it even more difficult to receive adjacent channels....I didn't expect good UHF reception at 70-miles and low height....and was not surprised.....Two local UHF channels came in okay with DTA-5000, but not ANT2000....
Local CH27 (only 2.7-miles away) is adjacent to one of these, making it difficult to receive.BTW: Winegard YA-1713 10-Element Hi-VHF Yagi reliably received CH7, 9, 11 and 13 at 7-ft height.Still trying to find as good a spot in the attic, joining CM4228 UHF 8-Bay (which only received CH9)...

As I note in another the APEX 502 pages, this is not a truly compatible with Smart Antenna CECB. It will scan with the default setting of direction 1, gain 1, if you go to the 'Configuration Menu' and then select Smart Antenna, it will then change these setting to best bring in a channel, it will then leave the antenna at these settings if you switch to another channel.

Hate to say it but you'll need to repeat your Extreme range test with the RCA ANT 2000 with a more compatible box like the RCA DTA809. Another thing is the RCA ANT2000 will require the 'Full scan' to fully take advantage of its smart antenna capabilities; it will also need to be fixed in space, even a 2-5deg turn can make or break a signal, it can't be suspended.
Doc Sief is offline  
post #136 of 167 Old 08-29-2009, 05:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 58
For that test (and earlier tests at my home), I tried all three of my Smart Antenna CECB's:
Tivax STB-T8 (Zoran), Apex DT502 (Zoran) and RCA DTA800B1 (Broadcom).
Although I didn't report EVERYTHING I did to keep it simple, I always tried to improve
things using MANUAL mode (if available). I also manually rotated the antennas to verify
they actually form a beam in the desired direction....yup, it's where it's supposed to
be and Signal Quality drops with more than about 15-degrees rotation.
At home, I successfully tested both antennas with my old Sylvania 6900DTE HD-STB.

With the Tivax, on EITHER antenna, I could frequently find a better solution by tweaking the
electronic steering commands via the CECB's MANUAL controls (one or two points to the RIGHT).

But since I rescanned prior to each test, the DT-502 problem you reported would not be visible...
and I'm always look to tweak whatever settings the box comes up with anyway....
Fortunately (???), I only have a few channels that can be picked up by the low-gain
Smart Antennas, so shorter search times....

PS: Suspended antennas in recent test were stabilized with a second rope so they
weren't moving.... Obviously they can't be blowing about in the wind....

There is no doubt in my mind that these CECB's control both the DTA-5000 and ANT2000
to automatically find a good solution (except final MANUAL tweak in Tivax), esp in a
Multipath Rich environment (my house indoors)....and in side-by-side comparisons
(as I reported) the DTA-5000 was roughly equivalent to a 4-Bay for UHF, readily beating
the tiny Loop Antenna on a set of Rabbit Ears (the REAL competition indoors).

Just because Antennas Direct found some technical "violations" of CEA-909 that caused THEM
problems doesn't prove anything one way or the other as to how the various CECBs work with
the DTA-5000 (which was the ONLY antenna available at the time), nor the RCA ANT2000,
which presumably was developed and tested with AT LEAST an RCA DTA-800A (Zoran) CECB
and the RCA DTA-800B (Broadcom) CECB, which came out long before the ANT2000 was released:
http://www.nabfastroad.org/

Nor did Antennas Direct outright state that the CECB's were totally incapable of controlling
their (partially debugged) Smart Antenna....oh, it's too fast for the way WE want to do it....
One of their other excuses was lack of CECB's with CEA-909 I/F during their development/test period,
but they should have located a Sylvania 6900DTE HD-STB....the ORIGINAL CEA-909 implementer....
Since they elected to get into the Smart Antenna business by bidding on the NAB FASTROAD development
contract, surely they should have realized they would need to buy (or borrow) an STB with CEA-909 I/F,
and perhaps work with the CECB manufacturers to identify and resolve these issues as they came up....

When someone is having problems, don't look for someone (else) to blame....
Work with NAB and CECB manufacturers to either fix the spec or get
the CECB manufacturers to fix their non-conforming boxes (which are
expected to actually MEET the CEA-909 spec if they elected to include it).

Of course, anyone with an RCA DTA-809 or any other CECB is free to do their own test and post it....
Everyone has a different set of on-air test conditions.....


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

holl_ands is offline  
post #137 of 167 Old 11-06-2009, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrevorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
So, it appears the upshot of all this is there are a number of Smart enabled CECBs (I just ordered one and need a compatible antenna), there are no Smart enabled DTVs, and the only two Smart enabled antennas (DTS-5000 & ANT2000), despite being successful, have both been discontinued. And as the final demolition, there's no apparent intention on the part of antenna manufacturers to make further use of the technology, even though there exists a formally standardized interface (EIA/CEA-909) and at least a modest demand.

Did I miss anything?
TrevorS is offline  
post #138 of 167 Old 11-07-2009, 05:46 AM
Senior Member
 
PeterTheGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorS View Post

So, it appears the upshot of all this is there are a number of Smart enabled CECBs (I just ordered one and need a compatible antenna), there are no Smart enabled DTVs, and the only two Smart enabled antennas (DTS-5000 & ANT2000), despite being successful, have both been discontinued. And as the final demolition, there's no apparent intention on the part of antenna manufacturers to make further use of the technology, even though there exists a formally standardized interface (EIA/CEA-909) and at least a modest demand.

Did I miss anything?

I did a Google search and you can still get new RCA ANT2000s. But it isn't listed on the RCA web page and SolidSignal has it listed as discontinued.

I wish the technology would have made a better showing. But the auto-tune algorithms were poor in my opinion. I was constantly manually tuning the antenna. Also, there is a posting about how poor the standard was implemented in some of the DTV converter boxes. Under a NAB contract, Antenna Direct had made a photo-type EIA/CEA-909A antenna and found a few boxes were not sending the commands correctly. NAB has been pushing this technologies but it doesn't look like manufactures backed it very well. Also, not enough consumers in the market that would have been best served by this technology were willing to spend the extra money.

As for your CECB, just want to clarify your comment. The smart antenna is optional not required on smart antenna enabled devices.
PeterTheGeek is offline  
post #139 of 167 Old 11-07-2009, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TrevorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTheGeek View Post

I did a Google search and you can still get new RCA ANT2000s. But it isn't listed on the RCA web page and SolidSignal has it listed as discontinued.

I wish the technology would have made a better showing. But the auto-tune algorithms were poor in my opinion. I was constantly manually tuning the antenna. Also, there is a posting about how poor the standard was implemented in some of the DTV converter boxes. Under a NAB contract, Antenna Direct had made a photo-type EIA/CEA-909A antenna and found a few boxes were not sending the commands correctly. NAB has been pushing this technologies but it doesn't look like manufactures backed it very well. Also, not enough consumers in the market that would have been best served by this technology were willing to spend the extra money.

As for your CECB, just want to clarify your comment. The smart antenna is optional not required on smart antenna enabled devices.

I realize the tuner will function properly with any antenna, but I would much prefer an antenna that was able to be at least near optimized via the STB included Smart technology.

I also ran Google searches, but all I found were listings for boxes that were no longer in stock (Amazon being just one example). Where did you find them to be actually available for purchase?

There have been problems with individual interface controllers correctly following the specifications ever since the introduction of interface controllers (regardless of specific application -- HDMI being just one example). The only way interface controller errors get corrected is through formal feedback, and that's heavily dependent on manufacturers developing associated products and discovering and communicating issues (frequently with end user "help"). For a manufacturer to throw up their hands due to discovery of an inconsistency simply signals a lack of genuine interest to begin with.

Also, there will always be a spread on percentage of potentially benefitting consumers who will avail themselves of any particular technology and its incarnations (unless, of course, forced). I see two particular problems in this case. One being the typical advertiser and "reviewer" of the Smart antennas who stupidly lead consumers to believe the Smart antennas self adjust, as opposed to pointing out the need for a Smart controller at the DTV or converter box (I just yesterday edited the ANT2000 product Wiki to correct this very stupidity -- far too late to help, of course). I find this stupidity practically everywhere I look -- a very effective way to go about discrediting what could be an excellent product -- severely misrepresent it.

The other problem being that without some meaningful participation on the part of the DTV manufacturers, it's near impossible to grow the population of potential buyers. So now, with the antennas discontinued, it becomes a chicken Vs egg situation. I see the fault being primarily on the antenna manufacturer side of the fence.
TrevorS is offline  
post #140 of 167 Old 11-07-2009, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrevorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTheGeek View Post

I wish the technology would have made a better showing. But the auto-tune algorithms were poor in my opinion. I was constantly manually tuning the antenna.

The funny thing about algorithmic development is it too tends to go hand-in-hand with perceived success of the functionality being developed. I don't think early implimentations being relatively primitive is even vaguely unusual in the technological world. It takes broadening acceptance to drive that development and from what I've read, many found the Smart interface to be a decided improvement over continually having to make manual adjustments. I've no doubt Smart antenna implimentation could and would have improved with time and growing acceptance. However, being cutoff barely out of the gate provides no opportunity for that to happen !
TrevorS is offline  
post #141 of 167 Old 11-07-2009, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:


I see the fault being primarily on the antenna manufacturer side of the fence.

Why? If it were YOUR money at stake putting a new product into a market where the only controllers were "dead-end" devices whose communication protocols make the Tower of Babel look simple, would you spend the money?

Think carefully before answering...

Besides, a competent Smart Antenna implementation would probably retail for several hundred dollars initially. Would you be prepared to "eat" the returns when it doesn't work due to lack of a uniform interface?

Again, think carefully before answering...

Now, is it still the fault of the "antenna manufacturers?"
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
post #142 of 167 Old 11-07-2009, 07:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrevorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProjectSHO89 View Post

the only controllers were "dead-end" devices whose communication protocols make the Tower of Babel look simple

And what is the basis for this statement?
TrevorS is offline  
post #143 of 167 Old 11-08-2009, 04:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorS View Post

And what is the basis for this statement?

http://www.nabfastroad.org/NAB_Final...ev_Public2.pdf along with publicly posted comments from John Ross, the lead design engineer from that project.

Pay particular attentions to sections 3.3 & 3.4.
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
post #144 of 167 Old 11-08-2009, 05:31 AM
Senior Member
 
PeterTheGeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorS View Post

I also ran Google searches, but all I found were listings for boxes that were no longer in stock (Amazon being just one example). Where did you find them to be actually available for purchase?

I took a closer look and nobody has stock. Looks like they are all gone.
PeterTheGeek is offline  
post #145 of 167 Old 11-09-2009, 04:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrevorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProjectSHO89 View Post

http://www.nabfastroad.org/NAB_Final...ev_Public2.pdf along with publicly posted comments from John Ross, the lead design engineer from that project.

Pay particular attentions to sections 3.3 & 3.4.

Thanks for the link. Just started on the document and it's looking interesting.
TrevorS is offline  
post #146 of 167 Old 11-09-2009, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrevorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTheGeek View Post

I took a closer look and nobody has stock. Looks like they are all gone.

Yeppers, my finding exactly.

In associated searching I ran across a link that predicts my OTA reception -- the results ere exceedingly depressing ! The discontinued external and internal Smart antennas appeared to be good as far as the "Light Green" zone. However, it seems that with the aid of trees 30ft or more tall (for reflections I suppose), I'm located in a "Blue" to "Purple" zone -- and even then I can't expect to pick up Baltimore, only Philadelphia (~35mi) . So, I'm not sure if playing with one of those two Smart antennas would have done me any good -- even with the external placed as high as I reasonably could. Sometimes, living in a hole is really annoying !
TrevorS is offline  
post #147 of 167 Old 11-15-2009, 12:33 PM
Newbie
 
bberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow, sad to see the DTA-5000 is no longer available. It has been my favorite antenna here and if it dies I'll be lost.
bberry is offline  
post #148 of 167 Old 12-13-2009, 06:24 PM
Newbie
 
granathg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just bought a 32" Vizio HDTV and the rabbit ears I saved from years ago are a nuisance. I'm thinking about an indoor smart antenna, but I don't know if my set is capable of controlling it. Following is the reply I got from a Vizio tech rep yesterday. He says I can use a smart antenna with my TV, but doesn't say the TV can exploit the antenna fully. I find nothing in the User Guide that even mentions this antenna. Can someone on the forum advise me?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Gary,

Thanks for your inquiry. Yes you would be able to use this with your current television. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us at 877-698-4946.

Best Regards,

Nick Gengler

"America's Fastest Growing HDTV Company"
606 Gateway Drive Suite 200
North Sioux City, SD 57049

Phone 877-698-4946
EMail: nick.gengler@vizio.com


From: Customer Support [mailto:support@vizio.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:26 PM
To: Techsupp
Subject: Contact Form

First Name: Gary
Last Name:*****

Model Number: VO320E
Serial Number: LQKEADK2724380
Comment: Is my new TV compatible with any of the new "smart antennas?" If not, which of your 32" TVs are compatible?
granathg is offline  
post #149 of 167 Old 12-13-2009, 07:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Unless a set specifically calls out 'Smart Antenna', it will not be able to take advantage it. Yes, you can connect the RF antenna coax feed, but it will not work like a Smart Antenna.

In particular, look on the set for a 'Smart Antenna' interface on the set.

No Vizio to my knowledge has ever had a Smart Antenna interface.

Here is a device with a Smart Antenna interface, located to the left of the AC powercord:

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #150 of 167 Old 12-13-2009, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrevorS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
If the TV provides support for a "smart antenna" it will have a jack that looks much the same as a LAN jack does on a computer -- only visible difference being the lock is offset to one side. Also, you can be sure the TV manual will mention it. In case you're unaware, the function of the jack is to provide control signals to the "smart antenna" to enable it to optimize its reception for the selected channel. Those control signals are what enable a "smart antenna" to be smart.
TrevorS is offline  
Reply HDTV Technical

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off