Converter Box Coupon Insert - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 01:50 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
hienz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moon
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The following is what I got in the mail along with the $40 coupons. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED IMAGE BELOW. I added the colors. As of this date, April 3 2008, the following stores in Florida are selling the following converters:
  • Radio Shack - Digital STREAM DTX-9900
  • Best Buy - Insignia NS-DXA1
  • Wal Mart - Magnavox TB100MW9, and RCA DTA 800
  • Circuit City - Zenith DTT900

Don't misunderstand me when I say they are selling only these. They may be selling other brands when they become available. According to the insert, the following 4 converters (colored in Green) have "Pass Thru" capability, meaning they will allow analog signals to pass through to your TV:
  • ECHOSTAR TR-40,
  • Magnavox TB-100MG9,
  • Philco TB100HH9,
  • Philco TB150HH9.

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED IMAGE BELOW.

I haven't got out and made a purchase yet, mostly due to other's reviews of these converter boxes, like:

Quote:


The Magnavox digital converter only works well if you have a very strong amplified digital antenna which I had to purchase at an additional $40.

Quote:


In some areas your box won't work yet.

Quote:


Most, if not all, of the channels will start "pixelating" (for lack of a better word) while you're in the middle of watching your shows and that's pretty annoying. Also, it seems to lose the signal pretty often. I wouldn't even mention it if it didn't happen so often.

Quote:


With the converter box, I have to have the rabbit ears tilted towards the window at an odd angle (they can't stay there that way) just to get a choppy half-broadcast of one channel!!! What an incredibly useless piece of equipment.

Quote:


Using the unit's remote makes switching from channel to channel slow. I still need my TV's remote to adjust the volume. The unit's remote is pretty cheap and I wonder how long it will last. The buttons are extremely small and difficult to activate. Using this unit makes some of my TV's feature useless--most notably, picture in picture.

Quote:


I used a government $40.00 coupon to purchase the Magnavox Digital Converter Box in order to get a few more years out of the analog TV in the basement rec room.
Product worked just fine initially, but after a few days, it began to drop signals (No signal), but would return in a few seconds.
The converter then began to not detect signals at all, first for one digital signal, then others.
Note: A separate digital TV in another room works just fine on the same antenna!

Quote:


I was charged the local tax on the full price and not the price after use of the coupon. I set up the box, but found that I was only receiving digital channels and didn't receive the local ABC, CBS and NBC channels (which are the ones that we mainly watch). After messing with the box for quite a while, I called customer service. They answered right away, but the technician was unfamiliar with the box. I then requested support on-line and received an answer that basically says that the box doesn't pass through the signals from the local analog-only channels. There was nothing in the instruction manual to indicate that. So I packed up the box and put it in storage until the local channels switch to digital.

Quote:


It just seems like this product was hastily designed without concern for the consumer. Unfortunately, the exchange-only policy of the DTV converter box coupon program means that I'm stuck with the unit unless Walmart decides to carry a different model. It just doesn't make it a pleasurable experience.

Quote:


The part I didn't like is the remote. It doesn't operate volume so I still need my old remote. Also it is just cheap. The buttons for channel are way at the top and you have to press them really hard to get them to work.

Quote:


With my rooftop antena hooked up directly to my analog TV, I get nine local chanels. When I hooked up the converter box, I only get one chanel. I keep getting a "No Signal" message when I change to the other chanels programmed into my television. I am not sure if it will get better when the changeover happens, but I unhooked it and connected the antena back to the TV. I am very disappointed.

Quote:


I thought that buying this converter box was suppose to be simple....so far it's cost me more money than I expected. When buying your convert box don't forget to pick up the cables to patch with. Not to mention you will still need your antenna. I was under the impression that we would be able to do without the bunny ears boy was I disappointed. So far I'm not getting all my regular channels because the signal isn't enough. Good luck to our future.

Quote:


The remote is terrible. The batteries it came with were dead. The buttons are too small. It cannot power off the TV, control volume, or mute. There are no channel buttons on the unit so it is useless if you lose the remote or if the remote breaks. You cannot change the aspect ratio (wide, zoom, letterbox) on a per channel basis, you can only change this in setup. If you plan to use this frequently,
I would spend a little more to get one with a remote that can run the TV power, volume and mute. It should have better zoom options, a remote with bigger buttons, and channel buttons on the unit.

Quote:


I bought one of these converter boxes two weeks ago, five days in it died and would not turn on. I took it back to the store and got a replacement. I got the thing home and it didnt even work right out of the box. I am not the only one who has had this problem and know other who have had the same problems. I would take it back for a replacement, but I think this box is junk. Dont waste your money.

Quote:


Does not pick up the strongest analog channel in digital Kansas City KMBC channel 9. I called the station and they are broadcasting in digital.

Quote:


can only receive one channel at a time for vcr recording there in no timer and no s video you must record what you are watching in other words you can not record one channel while watching another like you can with a vcr or dvd recorder with a tuner.

So, as you can read, these converter boxes seem to be crappy junk. I'm thinking they were made that way ON PURPOSE just to force the consumer to go out and buy a brand new digital TV with an expected lifespan of only 3 years.
LL
hienz1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 03:52 AM
Senior Member
 
wh5916's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In three short weeks, the limitations and unique problems with digital television have been an eye opener...image that will freeze/pixellate at random, and audio that sometimes cuts in and out. My distance from the transmitters is around 14 miles, and the indoor antenna experiments that I attempted were virtually useless.

My converter, the Zenith model, is now connected to an outside antenna that has seen happier days...many of the VHF elements were damaged by a falling tree branch during that very unwelcome Hurricane Isabel a few years back. It's still working well enough to pull in the local digital signals--oddly, one of the stronger signals it pulls in is the one I'm farthest from, and it's the only channel identified as a borderline potential problem at the tvfools.com website--channel 4 in Manteo, NC, the only digital in this area currently broadcasting on VHF.

Audio cutting in/out is still an annoyance with this arrangement, at times...and windy days make things a bit worse. A newer antenna may perhaps help, and it's a solution that I'll probably end up attempting.

Overall, though, I can't fault the Zenith converter in any area except for audio--and in that respect, it's a subpar performer, with its very annoying, overly compressed sound in the left channel only. Channel changes are rapid, and when things work the way they should, image quality far surpasses anything I've ever received with analog.

I am finding myself wondering, though, if our government has made a mistake mandating the switch to digital. I have a feeling that a lot of folks who use nothing more than a pair of rabbit ears are going to be extremely frustrated/disappointed come February 2009. Audio that cuts in/out and images that freeze/block up are no doubt going to drive many folks up a wall.

Digital oddities aside, the biggest issue with the boxes is probably the fact that they're first generation devices. There's a ton of technology packed into the $60 Zenith that would have sold for a small fortune at an earlier date.
wh5916 is offline  
post #3 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 04:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dagger666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
my HDTV is hooked to very old rabbit ears and on a windy/rainy day you get the freeze/pixel late screens but that is no different than analogs snowy/Shadow/blinds picture. Each has it's problems because it's broadcast in the air and susceptible to weather conditions. Digital TV is a much nicer than analog and has advantages like HD and sub channels. What I'm waiting for is sports, multiple games to be broadcasts on main and sub channels at the same time. Digital TV may just bring broadcast tv back into the main fold if they play it right. In ny channel 7,4,31,5,21 already have main and sub channel broadcast, these are the ones i can pick up now.
dagger666 is offline  
post #4 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 06:09 AM
Member
 
NicS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Western Michigan
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
+1 hphase.
My Zenith DTT-900 works just fine. I think those 15 quotes are a small minority of of the big picture here.
NicS is offline  
post #5 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 06:44 AM
 
rrrrrroger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wh5916 View Post

I am finding myself wondering, though, if our government has made a mistake mandating the switch to digital. I have a feeling that a lot of folks who use nothing more than a pair of rabbit ears are going to be extremely frustrated/disappointed come February 2009. Audio that cuts in/out and images that freeze/block up are no doubt going to drive many folks up a wall.

Well I know my parents are already complaining. (1) They can only get 4 DTV stations where they used to get around 15 analog. (2) Those stations keep breaking-up. (3) My mom keeps saying, "I guess I'll spend a lot more time reading since the TV appears to be worthless." (4) My dad says, "I hate the government..." and then goes on his usual tirade about how policitians suck (which they do).

I agree.

The old analog system worked just fine. Why was it necessary to change what already worked, and replace it with something that provides (1) fewer stations and (2) lots of breakups in picture & audio. First principle of engineering: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebody View Post

DTV has the freeze/pixellated screens but that is no different than analogs snowy/Shadow/blinds picture.

BS. There is a difference:

- When analog "breaks up" at least you can still hear the audio and/or see the picture. Even if it's just a black-n-white picture; it's still enough for your brain to decode and reconstruct into an understandable context. This is how I routinely watch Davinci's Inquest from 60 miles away. It's not perfect, but it is an enjoyable show and a good drama.

- When the digital breaks up, it freezes or the audio drops out, and there's nothing for your brain to reconstruct. It's just a frozen image w/ no sound that is completely useless. I tried to watch NBC Weather Plus like this, and I could not determine what they were saying. A complete waste of time.

That is an extremely unpleasant way to watch tv.

SOMETHING (analog) is better than nothing (digital) in my opinion, my mom's opinion, and also my dad's opinion.
rrrrrroger is offline  
post #6 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 07:55 AM
Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Change is often painful. With the digital conversion, picture quality is gained (in most cases) in return for increased likelihood of losing access to a signal at range or due to other interference problems. Some users really like the increased picture quality and are not bothered with the inability to view channels with marginal signal strength/quality, while others care more about signal access than picture quality. When in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and status quo, and I think this has rightly driven the delays in the mandatory conversion to digital. But now that the ATSC set-top technology is inexpensive and the percentage of the population in range of a number of digital stations is high, I think 2009 is a reasonable time for analog cutoff.

There's no doubt that some people are going to be adversely affected by the transition to digital, just like when the government widens the road in front of your house and needs to buy some of your land against your will, "for the greater good". But in this case, the property in question - the radio spectrum - is already public property. The government can reallocate its use to serve the greater good as long as this has sufficient political support.

I think that as the analog cutoff happens, broadcasters and viewers will make adjustments to take advantage of the new technology. New towers will go up, broadcast powers will increase, good reception antennas will become easier to find in stores, and some users who would have subscribed to cable for hundreds of dollars per year will instead decide to stick with free OTA.

My local CBS station, WRAL, has been giving away antennas to people who send them a photocopy of their reciept for a digital TV or tuner. Not rabbit ears - in many cases, CM4228s! I think that as people begin to associate OTA antennas with good picture quality at low cost, there will be more public interest in upgrading antennas, both on the receiving and sending ends.
sggoodri is offline  
post #7 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 08:32 AM
Member
 
TonyTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NE US
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I found the Winegard advertisement the funniest. They show a very snowy analog channel picture and next to a clear perfect digital picture of the same thing. They then echo that statement "because digital is so much better, the government is mandating a change to digital TV in 2009." Please! If the UHF signal was that snowy, the digital signal would be a blue or black screen!

Folks it all has to do with greed. The FCC wanted to auction the frequencies off for dollar$ and the cell phone companies and others wanted to buy them to sell things back to us at a cost. Public property frequencies? Give me a break.
TonyTiger is offline  
post #8 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dagger666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
NO it isn't greed, it progress. FIOS has changed the telephone from slow low bandwidth copper wire to high speed fiber optics. Browsers have changed the Internet form text bulletin boards to streaming video/audio. Film photographs have changed to instant digital images. Scratchy pop sounding recordings have changed to crisp rich sound Cd's. Fuzzy looking VHS has changed to crisp HD DVDs, oops sorry Blu-Ray. Now TV is switching from analog to HD Wide screen multi channel broadcasts. Like all the others you will need to invest some $$$ in the accessories to take advantage on this.
dagger666 is offline  
post #9 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 10:19 AM
Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagger666 View Post

NO it isn't greed, it progress.

Two of our local stations, WUNC (PBS) and WRAL (CBS) have been very proactive about the transition to digital, adopting all-digital equipment very early. Both stations, a non-profit and a for-profit, see the transition as good for their viewers. The PBS station wants to increase the amount of content they can offer using subchannels while also providing HD resolution on documentaries. The CBS station seeks to boost viewership from local residents to boost their advertising value. Their HD news and sporting event broadcasts look spectacular IMHO. And it's free except for the cost of a good antenna (which the the CBS station has been giving away) and a tuner (which the companies leasing the shuffled spectrum are subsidizing). I must admit, it makes me more willing to put up with commercials.

I know a couple other families who are giving up cable TV subscriptions in favor of free OTA digital reception on an upgraded antenna and CECB or digital TV. I suspect that the cable companies are the most likely to be upset with the digital OTA transition.
sggoodri is offline  
post #10 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 10:48 AM
Senior Member
 
dcgilbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Near Colfax, La.
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagger666 View Post

NO it isn't greed, it progress. FIOS has changed the telephone from slow low bandwidth copper wire to high speed fiber optics. Browsers have changed the Internet form text bulletin boards to streaming video/audio. Film photographs have changed to instant digital images. Scratchy pop sounding recordings have changed to crisp rich sound Cd's. Fuzzy looking VHS has changed to crisp HD DVDs, oops sorry Blu-Ray. Now TV is switching from analog to HD Wide screen multi channel broadcasts. Like all the others you will need to invest some $$$ in the accessories to take advantage on this.

What he said! There is the possiblity of a little greed tho.
dcgilbert is offline  
post #11 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 11:04 AM
Member
 
TonyTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NE US
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with what you are saying that technology keeps advancing and I have no desire to get into an argument. I just think the way to do this is by demand rather than push.


IMHO the examples you quote were all done in a free market economy. As technology improved people WANTED the new products/services and no government mandate needed to be given. Look how satellite radio (XM and Sirius) established a beachhead but neither has been able to dominate, so they want to merge. Not enough people wanted to pay to support 2 services for what they were getting. Look at HD Radio. It is trying to get established with a high entry cost and no real quality benefit over satellite radio, Ipods or CDs. They'd be better of coding on a chip and getting radio manufacturers to include it in the box. But the manufacturers want to see a demand first.

The only regulation was to allow FIOS cable to be added to the poles. FIOS victories are based on a market based perception of better and improved service.

No regulation, just better software and higher capacity networks driven by customer demand and a dollar to be made from subscriptions or advertising.

No regulation necessary, manufacturers came up with better quality products and people wanted them.

I won't even go into the only regulation coming from this which was the Recording Industry Association of America wanting to sue 12 year olds and grandmas.


HA Ha, SONY won this one to make up for the BetaMax fiasco. No regulation necessary just good old marketing and deal making at a corporate level. Good for SONY!

Yes, via government regulation TV is switching to Digital. Was HD possible over analog transmission, yes. But that would require new hardware as well. So no gain for the subscriber. But with digital tuners available and some stations already broadcasting in digital was their a scream to go digital? Only from us early adopters.

The technological problems are only a minor problem. How many analog tuner TVs are going to end up in landfills? Want to get rich? Come up with a $5 chip on a balun with analog passthrough that kids can give grandma to tune digital and analog signals from her existing rabbit ear into her TV. Make enough of them available and no regulation is necessary. The market will demand digital signals and nested stations. And no, that's not what the coupon program is when it is combined with selling off frequencies so Verizon or Comcast can sell us more digital TV and other services on our cell phones or other devices. I truly hope this switch will create a viable alternative to cable and satellite television services or at the very least make them hold the line on price increases.

Please I'm not trying to be argumentative just realistic.
TonyTiger is offline  
post #12 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 11:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This forum is turning into a blog...
hphase is offline  
post #13 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

This forum is turning into a blog...

Yea, way too many newbies who like to Post First, Think Second, and READ Third.

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #14 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 12:32 PM
Member
 
drla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Regarding reception problems. I have to agree with rrrrrroger. Digital reception is far more prone to interference, multipath, whatever. Anytime you have a drop out, the picture will freeze or the sound cuts out. This is completely unacceptable. You miss part of the programming. Analog reception is much easier to deal with. It degrades far more gracefully, and if you have a good signal you won't have to worry about the signal dropping out suddenly. An analog signal stays stable and interference will cause minor problems.

I guess we'll just have to wait for better tuners. Current tuners still don't decode all 50 field ensembles described in A/74.
drla is offline  
post #15 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dagger666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If the government did not stand in and say upgrade very few company's would spend the money. Seat belts, air bags, crush zones they are supposed to make the car safe but it took the government to have them added and used.
dagger666 is offline  
post #16 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dagger666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
but people have made a demand for more digital TV and other services on our cell phones or other devices. Did not really need goverment to decide that. May i add cell phones as an upgrade over the first celler phones.
dagger666 is offline  
post #17 of 39 Old 04-03-2008, 02:57 PM
Senior Member
 
wh5916's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrrrrroger View Post

Well I know my parents are already complaining. (1) They can only get 4 DTV stations where they used to get around 15 analog. (2) Those stations keep breaking-up. (3) My mom keeps saying, "I guess I'll spend a lot more time reading since the TV appears to be worthless." (4) My dad says, "I hate the government..." and then goes on his usual tirade about how policitians suck (which they do).

I agree.

broke, don't fix it." BS. There is a difference:

I'm very sorry that, somehow, a hybrid system couldn't have somehow been considered instead...perhaps a system that would have included both analog and digital audio, with technology that would permit rapid switching between the two if the digital audio was suddenly lost. I could deal with occasional freezing/blocking of the image a bit better if the sound would at least remain constant.

Back in January, I encouraged a friend in Albuquerque to apply for her coupons--she's in an apartment, and her only TV is analog, with a pair of rabbit ears. I have a feeling that she's going to wonder why I encouraged this once getting her first taste of digital reception with rabbit ears...I've already tried to prepare her a bit, and am going to recommend the best antenna that she can afford.
wh5916 is offline  
post #18 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 04:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dagger666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
she will need a better set of rabbit ears and then she will thank you. I'm getting a new out door antenna because it looks like i have to. It's very early in the switch over so nothing will go right. After and the broadcasters see they now have 1 main and up to 6 sub channels to air content and bring in revenues you think they will let it slide. The rest of the world went digital and isn't complaining so just give it time. I have a feeling pay-per-view will come to broadcast TV and if digital wasn't that good people would not be spending more for it over cable or buying dish satellites receivers.
dagger666 is offline  
post #19 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 07:11 AM
Member
 
TonyTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NE US
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
dagger666
Do you think a choice of more channels played a part in cable/satellite growth? When they came out with, what was it 32 channels or so, I was only getting 3 VHF and 3 pretty poor UHF stations. They did it without being told to do it. Okay, I admit your right concerning the Dish guys it did take the government to get them to offer local channels.
BTW, as an early adopter in the late 70's/early 80's I subscribed for pay to a 1 channel movie channel broadcast on UHF with an encrypted signal. I think it was called WPHT or something close to that. I still have some VHS tapes I made of the barely viewable picture. It was analog and I was over the fringe line. That could have been HD since they required their own decoder box (Scientific Atlanta, I think) but of course no one even had a widescreen TV back then let alone HD.
TT
TonyTiger is offline  
post #20 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 08:50 AM
 
rrrrrroger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
They tried hybrid digital/analog with the radio, and it's not really working. (1) The sound is not really any better due to lack of space sharing the digital & analog in the same band. (2) The digital interferes with the AM analog, making older radio sound "buzzy". (3) The digital rarely works beyond 10 miles (same flaw as digital television).

I suspect, if hybrid digital/analog existed for TV, most americans would ignore it (same way they are ignoring HD Radio).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagger666 View Post

NO it isn't greed, it progress.

Progress is making things better. When UHF was added to the TV spectrum, it was better because it provided more channels. When color was added, it was better because it gave realistic pictures (while still remaining compatible with old B&W sets).

When digital TV arrived, it created FEWER stations (key word: stations, not channels; most Americans get 2-3 fewer stations than previously). For me: it dropped from 23 to 8, and for my mum & dad: 20 to 4. Having less choice is not progress in any way, shape, or form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drla View Post

Regarding reception problems. I have to agree with rrrrrroger. Digital reception is far more prone to interference, multipath, whatever. Anytime you have a drop out, the picture will freeze or the sound cuts out. This is completely unacceptable. You miss part of the programming.

Analog reception is much easier to deal with. It degrades far more gracefully, and if you have a good signal you won't have to worry about the signal dropping out suddenly. An analog signal stays stable and interference will cause minor problems.

Thanks Drla. It's just like what I said before:

- When analog "breaks up" at least you can still hear the audio and/or see the picture. Even if it's just a black-n-white picture; it's still enough for your brain to decode and reconstruct into an understandable context.

- When the digital breaks up, the audio goes silent and/or the picture freezes, and there's nothing for your brain to reconstruct. (I tried to watch NBC Weather Plus like this, and I could not determine what they were saying. A complete waste of time.)



As someone who routinely watches "80% downloaded" movies, they could probably fix digital so it was more watcheable. i.e. Show the viewer whatever data is available, rather than freeze. The way analog works. (But so far no one has shown any inclination to do this... maybe I should build my own box.)
rrrrrroger is offline  
post #21 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
 
CasualOTAer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wh5916 View Post

I'm very sorry that, somehow, a hybrid system couldn't have somehow been considered instead...perhaps a system that would have included both analog and digital audio, with technology that would permit rapid switching between the two if the digital audio was suddenly lost. I could deal with occasional freezing/blocking of the image a bit better if the sound would at least remain constant.

Back in January, I encouraged a friend in Albuquerque to apply for her coupons--she's in an apartment, and her only TV is analog, with a pair of rabbit ears. I have a feeling that she's going to wonder why I encouraged this once getting her first taste of digital reception with rabbit ears...I've already tried to prepare her a bit, and am going to recommend the best antenna that she can afford.

Maybe not... the transmitters in Albuquerque are on the top of Sandia Crest - which has a commanding view of the city from 10,000 ft vs. 6,000 ft for the city and its suburbs. If her rabbit ears are near a window that faces that direction, she may have fewer problems than folks like me back East with rolling terrain that masks the line of sight to the transmitters on hills barely a couple of hundred feet above the average terrain. Then again, a couple of multistory buildings in her LOS and it may not be so rosy... Why not check tvfool.com and enter her address? See what their site predicts.
CasualOTAer is offline  
post #22 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 09:42 AM
Senior Member
 
kousikb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrrrrroger View Post

When digital TV arrived, it created FEWER stations (key word: stations, not channels; most Americans get 2-3 fewer stations than previously). For me: it dropped from 26 to 9, and for my mum & dad: 20 to 4. Having less choice is not progress in any way, shape, or form.

I'd say you are exception and not the general rule. I used to live 25 miles from the broadcast towers.. now I live 33 miles ffrom the tower (moved to a new apartment 2 weeks back). I was never able to get more than 10 analog channels out of which only 3 are watchable and the rest were all static. In my previous location (zip 08854) I used to get 15 digital channels (33 if I include the sub channels) without any issue. Now I have moved to zip 08873, I get 8 analog channels, again only 3 are watchable and rest all are static. But I get the same number of digital channels as before. Yes, this time I had to position my indoor antenna little bit, because my apartment is surrounded with trees and I didn't have a clear view towards the tower. I am getting all these channels pointing towards the wall only. I'd say, if anybody is getting analog better today, they've far far better chance to get digital if the antennas are right. In fact I use the analog static feed I get to optimize the antenna direction (I didn't have signal meter in my TV or had any compass). I usually see the analog feed (usually all static) and point the antenna till the analog picture is best (still not watchable). And I retune the TV and it gets all digital without needing a signal meter or compass. Of course there are those cases, where analog broadcasts are in VHF and the digitals are in UHF and to watch digital you need a new antenna (good that UHF antennas are small compared to VHF).
I'd say.. try with one of these antenna like CM4221/CM4228 or DB-8 in your patio/balcony or in attic (if your stations are in UHF) and couple with a low noise pre-amp if you are more than 20 miles away.. your experience will be far better. The above commerical antennas are not that expensive and not that bulky too. Of course after Feb 17 2009, the digital stations will be full power and people's experience will be far better than now.
kousikb is offline  
post #23 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 09:54 AM
Member
 
Beaker74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Saint Louis, MO.
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrrrrroger View Post

most Americans get 2-3 fewer stations than previously

I'd have to ask you to please back that up with facts.

Digital data cannot be partially constructed as far as I know given current methods of transmitting, there could perhaps be better error correcting, however you then add overhead to the transmission.

I'm no engineer though, just my untrained understanding.
Beaker74 is offline  
post #24 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 01:33 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
hienz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moon
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe View Post

Yea, way too many newbies who like to Post First, Think Second, and READ Third.

Bob, I've read too much already. The bottom line is: THIS TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T WORK !!! If it don't work right, why force it upon us?
hienz1 is offline  
post #25 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 01:45 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
hienz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moon
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagger666 View Post

If the government did not stand in and say upgrade very few company's would spend the money. Seat belts, air bags, crush zones they are supposed to make the car safe but it took the government to have them added and used.

Ralph Nader is the one who FORCED the government to change the safety regulations and then force the car companies to add seat belts. The government before this was diametrically opposed to seat belts. Airbags were added later due to these safety regulations REMOVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Remember when cars used to have those huge chromed bumpers? Now they don't have them because of the changes made BY THE GOVERNMENT. Then accident related injuries went up and lo & behold they decided to add airbags as an afterthought? Are you aware of the increases in airbag related injuries? An airbag can break your arm! An airbag can kill your baby!!! Come on, our government is in the process of going completely haywire, and we are suffering for it. Now back to Digital TV - that don't work?
hienz1 is offline  
post #26 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 01:51 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
hienz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moon
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wh5916 View Post

... a hybrid system couldn't have somehow been considered instead...perhaps a system that would have included both analog and digital audio, with technology that would permit rapid switching between the two if the digital audio was suddenly lost. I could deal with occasional freezing/blocking of the image a bit better if the sound would at least remain constant....

Dude, I love that idea. I would support that over the current system any day.
hienz1 is offline  
post #27 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 04:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hienz1 View Post

Bob, I've read too much already. The bottom line is: THIS TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T WORK !!! If it don't work right, why force it upon us?

Having been building DTV stations since 1997..to some degree I'd say you're right. There's a lot of poor electronics out there aside from DTV receivers.
I can tell you that here at my house, with multiple different receivers and a good outdoor antenna, I have no problems. But a lot could have been done better, however it's a little late for that now.

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #28 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hienz1 View Post

The bottom line is: THIS TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T WORK !!! If it don't work right, why force it upon us?

One thing I want to add..Many here expect these $50-ish boxes to work absolutely 100% right and meet every single need and feature set for that price...How many of you have $50 DVD players that are flawlesss and meet that criteria??

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #29 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 07:49 PM
Senior Member
 
wh5916's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualOTAer View Post

Maybe not... the transmitters in Albuquerque are on the top of Sandia Crest - which has a commanding view of the city from 10,000 ft vs. 6,000 ft for the city and its suburbs. If her rabbit ears are near a window that faces that direction, she may have fewer problems than folks like me back East with rolling terrain that masks the line of sight to the transmitters on hills barely a couple of hundred feet above the average terrain. Then again, a couple of multistory buildings in her LOS and it may not be so rosy... Why not check tvfool.com and enter her address? See what their site predicts.

Thank you for the advice and for, what I'm hoping, is going to be good news for her and her mom. I did check tvfool.com recently, and she appears to be in better shape than I am, with transmitters roughly 10 miles away. Hopefully it will work for her.
wh5916 is offline  
post #30 of 39 Old 04-04-2008, 08:11 PM
Senior Member
 
wh5916's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrrrrroger View Post

They tried hybrid digital/analog with the radio, and it's not really working. (1) The sound is not really any better due to lack of space sharing the digital & analog in the same band. (2) The digital interferes with the AM analog, making older radio sound "buzzy". (3) The digital rarely works beyond 10 miles (same flaw as digital television).

I suspect, if hybrid digital/analog existed for TV, most americans would ignore it (same way they are ignoring HD Radio).

In my previous posting, I was actually thinking of an enhancement to the current system that would be transparent, as much as possible, to the viewer--simply a digital signal that might possibly include an analog audio signal solely as a backup for the digital audio, to compensate for digital audio dropouts--i.e. if the receiver senses that the digital audio signal has somehow been lost, the analog audio kicks in rapidly and continues until the digital audio signal is restored.

Though it's certainly not digital, I have (yes, it still functions) a second generation Sony Beta Hi-Fi deck whose audio operates under a similar principle. If the deck detects a glitch in the Beta Hi-Fi stereo track, which would normally cause a complete audio dropout, the standard linear audio mono track kicks in within a split second, and continues playing until the Beta Hi-Fi audio track is restored. The frequency response of the mono track is limited, and it's filled with tape hiss--but it's still preferable to the alternative, which is no sound at all.
wh5916 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