AVS Forum banner

San Francisco, CA - OTA

2M views 20K replies 1K participants last post by  jamesm113 
#1 ·
I'm thinking of upgrading to an HDTV and have some questions for those getting OTA HD in the Bay Area.


I live in Berkeley and it looks like while I get most of my networks from SF, I need to also point toward San Jose, 57 miles away, to get NBC. I've been looking at the Channel Master antennaes, but I can't tell if you have one station in the blue range and the rest in the green or yellow ranges, whether you can just point your directional antennae at the blue and pick everything else up off the rest of the antennae, or whether you'd need two directionals or one that can point in two directions.


Also, on antennaeweb, it has a column that's supposed to read "live now" for digital channels that are being broadcast, yet none of the bay area channels say "live now." Most are blank. I take it for granted that the digital broadcasts are available right? You can't get HDTV from an analog broadcast, can you, and I know that's available OTA. Also, I assume that all the digital channels are UHF, so I need to buy the antennae that can reach 60 miles on UHF to get NBC, don't I?


If I go the HD route, I'll be using Directv plus OTA, so I will need to get all the networks in HD to really make the investment worthwhile (as directv will give me either none, or only CBS HD). I'd appreciate if anyone in Berkeley, Oakland, Albany, etc. can sound off on their OTA experiences.


Thanks for the input.

UPDATE: I was asked to add the info below to my post. I now live in a hilly area in Oakland and can't get OTA reception any more. Too bad for me.


Viewers in the San Francisco Bay Area will find the following sites very useful for finding local digital stations:


Bay Area DTV - HDTV Channel List - http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html


FCC DTV Reception Maps - http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/


Locate TV stations available at your address and compute expected signal strength and directions -
http://www.tvfool.com/
 
See less See more
#14,441 ·
Just a quick aside regarding KTVU 2 RF44: It is the most difficult channel for me to receive from Sutro Tower. Unless my antenna is pointed in exactly the right direction I get frequent break ups... and Sutro Tower is only 3/4 mile away.

Larry
I have problems with my OLD HDHR like what you have but no problems with my newer (Single Antenna Connection) HDHR.

This is similar to what I saw with KCSM VC 60 RF 43 when they needed to repair their main exciter. Their chart sometimes shows glitches but not the sustained problems that caused me to e-mail the station. (Toast0 is using the OLD version of the HDHR.)

But looking at Toast0's chart for RF 44 I see no problems so their signal as transmitted likely is just fine.

http://ruka.org/~toast/atscdata/chart.php?c=44

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT, looking at old HDHR scans KTVU VC 2 RF 44 has lower Signal Quality than in the past.

10406FE2_T1-1_8_2017 (NEW HDHR)

SCANNING: 653000000 (us-bcast:44)
LOCK: 8vsb (ss=100 snq=59 seq=100)
TSID: 0x0141
PROGRAM 3: 2.1 KTVU-HD
PROGRAM 4: 2.2 LATV
PROGRAM 5: 2.3 Movies!
PROGRAM 6: 2.4 Buzzr

10406FE2_T1_9-5-2016 (NEW HDHR)

SCANNING: 653000000 (us-bcast:44)
LOCK: 8vsb (ss=100 snq=90 seq=100)
TSID: 0x0141
PROGRAM 3: 2.1 KTVU-HD
PROGRAM 4: 2.2 LATV
PROGRAM 5: 2.3 Movies!
PROGRAM 6: 2.4 Buzzr

1013024C_T1_8_30_2014 (OLD HDHR)

SCANNING: 653000000 (us-bcast:44)
LOCK: 8vsb (ss=98 snq=84 seq=100)
TSID: 0x0141
PROGRAM 3: 2.1 KTVU-HD
PROGRAM 4: 2.2 KTVU-SD

1013024C_T1-12_16_2013 (OLD HDHR)

SCANNING: 653000000 (us-bcast:44)
LOCK: 8vsb (ss=100 snq=95 seq=100)
TSID: 0x0141
PROGRAM 3: 2.1 KTVU-HD
PROGRAM 4: 2.2 KTVU-SD

1013024C-12_19_2012 (OLD HDHR)

SCANNING: 653000000 (us-bcast:44)
LOCK: 8vsb (ss=100 snq=94 seq=100)
TSID: 0x0141
PROGRAM 3: 2.1 KTVU-HD
PROGRAM 4: 2.2 KTVU-SD

As we have not been able to get KTVU to correct their aspect ratio for PROGRAM 5: 2.3 Movies! which may be just a parameter change,

getting them to accept their exciter is putting out not as great a signal as in the past may be impossible.

SHF
 
#14,442 · (Edited)
And Lifespeed, in case you didn't know, Larry along with being an amateur TV DXer is also a retired TV station engineer. ;)
And Chuck who visited Larry and determined that much of the signals from Sutro was passing over his head has some equipment he used that most of us can only dream of having. And the knowledge to understand what it showed.

SHF
 
#14,443 ·
The "null fill" info from Dielectric is fascinating and it's good to see that antenna companies are still working on new ideas.

Maybe sometime in my future I'll see some benefits here.

As for your comments, Lifespeed, I've tried attenuators and it doesn't seem to make any difference on the reception of the Sutro stations when using an antenna with lots of directivity, like my 91XG. I notice that the signals get weaker, but the quality doesn't seem to improve any. Besides the null factor that Chuck mentions, multipath from all the surrounding hills is a major problem here.

Larry
I see, didn't realize you were underneath the antenna pattern. The only thing I can think of would be more front-to-back ratio, but that is not likely an off-the-shelf antenna. Maybe a bigger or additional ground shield to the rear? Definitely experimental category. Are the signals impinging on your Yagi from a significant upward angle? Probably not how it wants to work.
 
#14,444 ·
I have problems with my OLD HDHR like what you have but no problems with my newer (Single Antenna Connection) HDHR.

SHF
Hmmm... looks like I need to invest in one of those newer HDHRs for use with my Dxing antennas with the rotor. Apparently the tuner in the newer model is a lot better. Plus, I'll then have another input for one of my other antennas that are on a switch for input 4! :)
 
#14,445 ·
I see, didn't realize you were underneath the antenna pattern. Are the signals impinging on your Yagi from a significant upward angle? Probably not how it wants to work.
I'd have to raise the front of my antenna about 18-20 degrees to point it directly at the top of Sutro Tower, so yes, the signals are coming at my antenna at an angle, and I'm sure that doesn't help the "quality" value at all. I get much better "quality" from the Mt. San Bruno, Mt. Diablo, Novato, etc. stations than I do from the ones on Sutro Tower.

Sutro is at 268 degrees, almost directly west, and I can't point my antenna between about 255 and 280 degrees or I get total overload. Lots of 100% signals on my HDHR receivers but with NO signal quality shown. The regular TV tuners seem to handle the signals with the antenna pointed directly west, but not the HD Home Run receivers. As I mentioned above, it's time to get a new version of the HDHR!

Larry
 
#14,446 · (Edited)
I'd have to raise the front of my antenna about 18-20 degrees to point it directly at the top of Sutro Tower, so yes, the signals are coming at my antenna at an angle, and I'm sure that doesn't help the "quality" value at all. I get much better "quality" from the Mt. San Bruno, Mt. Diablo, Novato, etc. stations than I do from the ones on Sutro Tower.

Sutro is at 268 degrees, almost directly west, and I can't point my antenna between about 255 and 280 degrees or I get total overload. Lots of 100% signals on my HDHR receivers but with NO signal quality shown. The regular TV tuners seem to handle the signals with the antenna pointed directly west, but not the HD Home Run receivers. As I mentioned above, it's time to get a new version of the HDHR!

Larry
My understanding is one of the main improvements in the more recent tuners is the better rejection of multipath. Although my situation in south San Jose is different - I am in the shadow of a hill blocking Mt. Sutro - pulling in RF 45 VC 44.1 with 10 dB noise margin (as shown on TVfool) with the HDHR4-US and Antennas Direct DB4E pointed between Fremont and SF. See tuner pic below. I get dropouts very rarely, and suspect I would do better if the 10' chimney mount mast wasn't 1-1/4" flexing in the wind. Didn't realize that would happen, need to find a 1-1/2" ten footer.

Edit: Although the new HDHR Connect is a good device, there is an obscure bug with their DHCP implementation that affects some people. It is usually triggered in conjunction with a "managed" high-end network switch, where it won't get an address. The workaround is to connect directly to the router instead. Hopefully Silicondust addresses this in firmware soon.

 

Attachments

#14,447 · (Edited)
Hmmm... looks like I need to invest in one of those newer HDHRs for use with my Dxing antennas with the rotor. Apparently the tuner in the newer model is a lot better. Plus, I'll then have another input for one of my other antennas that are on a switch for input 4!
Remember that while the "new" HDHR's have two or three tuners they have only one (1) antenna terminal.

That's great for my use but perhaps not for yours. Perhaps you might spend more money for SiliconDust’s model that is better suited for your needs. You may have to dig into their web pages as it is not a model they sell to consumers. I just know that one exists that has better monitoring.

-----------------------------------------------------

I am becoming more convinced that KTVU VC 2 RF 44 is sending out a signal from the transmitter that has a poor signal to noise ratio, and weeks ago was much worse.

When I found weeks ago that RF 44 was not working for me anymore I checked Toast0's chart and as it was fine I followed your statement from when NTSC analog was still on to:

"Always consider that the transmitters from Sutro are always on and are sending a perfect signal", or words to that effect.

We are now at a point in time that that may not be true. I got KCSM to repair their exciter which they did over a period of a few weeks. Between my observations and Toast0's chart I was able to get their attention and pointed out that they could monitor their results using:

http://ruka.org/~toast/atscdata/chart.php?c=43

Discounting the possibility of problems at the transmitter I concluded that with some of the trees having dropped their leaves and others not due to an early season heavy rainstorm was producing multipath.

So I switched to a different antenna pointed at Monument Pk using one of my old HDHRs for KTVU VC 2 RF 48 which is working quite well.

Monitoring KTVU VC 2 RF 44 I now again can get an acceptable signal on my newer HDHR so I can switch back my captures. The signal is still not as good on my old HDHR to be usable.



I will be doing dual captures of RF 44 and RF 48 for a while.

-------------------------------------------

What I did not do was to consider the possibility that KTVU VC 2 RF 44 signal had deteriorated and now has improved to the point to be usable but still has a way to go to get back to the fine signal it was in the past.

I went back to some of the full scans I did in the past and listed the results in a post above. I have many more saved scans.

--------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------------------------

Larry, what I did not do was to capture HDHR scans when I made the switch to KTVU VC 2 RF 48 and watch RF 44 transmitter’s S/N ratio carefully.

Thus I do NOT have the documentation needed to call KTVU and complain about their poor S/N ratio on RF 44.

How can we prove to KTVU that their RF 44 signal could have a better S/N ratio?

Is the monitoring attached to the transmitter able to show the S/N actually transmitted?

SHF
 
#14,448 ·
Larry, what I did not do was to capture HDHR scans when I made the switch to KTVU VC 2 RF 48 and watch RF 44 transmitter’s S/N ratio carefully.

Thus I do NOT have the documentation needed to call KTVU and complain about their poor S/N ratio on RF 44.

How can we prove to KTVU that their RF 44 signal could have a better S/N ratio?

Is the monitoring attached to the transmitter able to show the S/N actually transmitted?

SHF

All you need is one person whose TV shows an SNR >30dB on KTVU and then you know there's no problem. Maybe Ben in Hayward can do this. I seem to remember that the minimum recommended transmitted SNR is 27 dB but almost every station is better than that. I think mid 30's is typical.

KTVU is very weak here but often reaches an SNR of 23 dB. I've seen 25 dB. I'll keep an eye out for a day with extra good conditions.

Chuck
 
#14,449 ·
All you need is one person whose TV shows an SNR >30dB on KTVU and then you know there's no problem. Maybe Ben in Hayward can do this. I seem to remember that the minimum recommended transmitted SNR is 27 dB but almost every station is better than that. I think mid 30's is typical.

KTVU is very weak here but often reaches an SNR of 23 dB. I've seen 25 dB. I'll keep an eye out for a day with extra good conditions.

Chuck
Toast0's charts show "signal_to_noise" and it is possible to go back in time. He made a change a while ago that requires both the "Start:" and "End:". It is possible to read the captured S/N for each sample. (Click on "signal_to_noise" to the right and then you can see the values as you move the cursor over the circles.

His raw data is a huge file, I have not looked at it for more than 2-3 years ago.

At the bottom of the chart is a link to the raw data, I got a 75 MB file. "rf_44.json", the first record:

{"data":{"utilitization":[73,62,73,79,72,81,86,84,83,84,82,82,79,74,52,65,78,83,81,78,82,84,82,81,84,84,83,86,85,79],"transport_errors":[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],"strength":[77,79,80,77,78,78,77,78,78,78,77,79,78,80,80,79,78,78,80,79,79,78,78,80,78,77,78,79,80,79],"bps":[19395584,19394080,19394080,19394080,19394080,19395584,19394080,19394080,19394080,19395584,19394080,19394080,19394080,19395584,19394080,19394080,19394080,19394080,19395584,19394080,19394080,19394080,19395584,19394080,19394080,19394080,19395584,19394080,19394080,19394080],"missed_packets":[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],"signal_to_noise":[84,82,81,81,78,85,81,81,84,85,81,84,84,77,80,83,82,83,83,82,82,81,83,83,85,81,82,81,81,84],"symbol_quality":[100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100],"crc_errors":[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]},"streaminfo":"3: 2.1 KTVU-HD\n4: 2.2 KTVU-SD\ntsid=0x0141\n\n","end":1350418570,"start":1350418536}

I am going to PM him to see if he can pull just the samples for RF 44 for last year into a more friendly format.

While the same number AFAIK is the "Signal Quality" on the HDHomeRun Config (GUI).

I have a HDHR full scan for 9-5-2016 which shows snq=90. (ss=100 snq=90 seq=100)

It appears that I did not do other scans during 2016, 2015 but a bunch in 2014 and earlier.

Any "json" experts out there? I cannot do much right now, and perhaps not for quite a while. I think the proof is in the data.

Larry is way too close and you are way too far. Ben to the rescue I hope. Watch KCSM VC60 RF 43 also, it's S/N hit the bottom earlier in the year.

SHF
 
#14,450 ·
Maybe Ben in Hayward can do this. I seem t often reaches an SNR of 23 dB. I've seen 25 dB.
Chuck
Not seeing anything out of the normal for KTVU. But keep in mind I don't usually use any UHF antenna for Sutro tower. I don't really need one.
With that said, .... readings below are off of a VHF yagi fixed @ KSBW (That basically picks up everything sutro)
Not sure that is the ideal set up to find a problem.
So here's at the wall outlet

653.00 MHz
SNR 25db
MER 22.7
BER 0.0E+00

All Sutro stations are basically the same. No problems here.



Larry is way too close and you are way too far. Ben to the rescue I hope. Watch KCSM VC60 RF 43 also, it's S/N hit the bottom earlier in the year.

SHF
Yes, KCSM is a little lower, but way more bouncy on the meter.
Still not seeing any problems on the tv itself.
 
#14,452 ·
Not seeing anything out of the normal for KTVU. ...
OK, ...

On HDHR's Signal Quality display, 0 - 100%

Old HDHR shows ~ 6x%
New HDHR shows ~ 7x%

(Both New HDHR tuners busy right now so I cannot check again)

New HDHR 9-5-2016 showed 90% and other samples the Old HDHR showed 84%+ in the past

I hope that Toast0 is able to pull one reading / day for 2016.

On the scan I attached the other day (New HDHR)

RF 43 snq=67
RF 44 snq=59
RF 45 snq=78

Note: snq 50 is the dividing point, lower and no capture, higher the better as time goes on it changes.

I would like to be proven wrong and my leaves falling at different rates causing multipath what I saw.

SHF
 
#14,453 ·
I'm actually using the medium old HDHR, with two tuners and one antenna connection (but not the current one with DLNA). If you go back far enough in my data, there's some signal changes because the roofers tweaked my antenna a bit, and even farther back I put a splitter in front.
I remember your charts started before the single antenna connection HDHR was available. Did you replace an old one with the single antenna connection? If yes what year? Actually before 9/5/2016 would still be OK as that was when my single sample for 2016 was taken and all was well.

SHF
 
#14,455 ·
My understanding is one of the main improvements in the more recent tuners is the better rejection of multipath. Although my situation in south San Jose is different - I am in the shadow of a hill blocking Mt. Sutro - pulling in RF 45 VC 44.1 with 10 dB noise margin (as shown on TVfool) with the HDHR4-US and Antennas Direct DB4E pointed between Fremont and SF. See tuner pic below. I get dropouts very rarely, and suspect I would do better if the 10' chimney mount mast wasn't 1-1/4" flexing in the wind. Didn't realize that would happen, need to find a 1-1/2" ten footer.
SFischer1 said:
Remember that while the "new" HDHR's have two or three tuners they have only one (1) antenna terminal.

That's great for my use but perhaps not for yours. Perhaps you might spend more money for SiliconDust’s model that is better suited for your needs. You may have to dig into their web pages as it is not a model they sell to consumers. I just know that one exists that has better monitoring.
Lifespeed, I've heard that the new models are much better, and I suspect that it's due to the better rejection of multipath as you say.

I like the layout of the new HDHR Gui that you posted, but the one with the old unit is okay, too.

Stephen, I'll do some research and see what I can find on what units are available now. It's too bad that the newer units only have one antenna terminal, but maybe I can find a use for the additional tuners. Thanks for the info.

Larry
 
#14,456 ·
Any regular viewers of KTVJ-LD or KQRO-LD?

Hi Guys,


The SF Chronicle is working on an article about LPTV. Does anyone of you regularly watch KTVJ-LD virtual 12 (RF channel 4) from Mt. Tamalpais or KQRO-LD virtual 45 (RF channel 2) from Mt. Chual / Loma Prieta? For instance does anyone watch the ecliptic Sci-fi programming on our .8 from Northbay TV? Would you want to be interviewed as viewer? If so, let me know how the reporter can contact you today. Alternatively, does anyone watch any other LPTV or Class A (such as KAXT-CD) in the area?


Thanks in advance,
Keith
 
#14,457 ·
#14,458 ·
I remember your charts started before the single antenna connection HDHR was available. Did you replace an old one with the single antenna connection? If yes what year? Actually before 9/5/2016 would still be OK as that was when my single sample for 2016 was taken and all was well.

SHF
My charts start in 2013, and MythTV has this info: "HDHR3-US: 103 device IDs, 2 tuners, 1 input, ATSC/QAM, released 3/2011", so I think I'm good; but I can't find a receipt. Before I had the HDHomerun, I was using PCI tuners, and I don't remember when I switched, but it was to the single tuner. I've seen the newer models on sale at Fry's from time to time, I can try to pick one up and see if it makes a difference to reception (but I know with my current one, if I upgrade firmware, I lose some of the debug info I'm using for graphs, not sure if everything will be available on a new one and/or if they've changed the meaning of the percentages)
 
#14,459 ·
My charts start in 2013, and MythTV has this info: "HDHR3-US: 103 device IDs, 2 tuners, 1 input, ATSC/QAM, released 3/2011", so I think I'm good; but I can't find a receipt. Before I had the HDHomerun, I was using PCI tuners, and I don't remember when I switched, but it was to the single tuner. I've seen the newer models on sale at Fry's from time to time, I can try to pick one up and see if it makes a difference to reception (but I know with my current one, if I upgrade firmware, I lose some of the debug info I'm using for graphs, not sure if everything will be available on a new one and/or if they've changed the meaning of the percentages)
OK, my bad memory as to when you started collecting data.

I have looked at the data you provided and I do not see a drop and a rebound that would match what I have experienced for KTVU VC 2 RF 44 this Fall.

My original conclusion was that it was local leaves on trees dropping at a strange rate (Early Heavy Rain) and then more leaves dropping. Thus multipath increased and then decreased like that I have not seen in years past. It may be that more wood is now in the path to Sutro, looking out my window now I cannot see the tall trees in the distance that were moving in the big wind event we had years ago.

Still KTVU Signal Quality% (Which you list as Signal_to_Noise) has been better in the past for KTVU VC 2 RF 44. But I have only one data point for 2016 but lots for 2013, 2014. :(

Right now the Signal Quality% is running 20% higher on my New HDHR vs the Old HDHR. The New HDHR is 10% higher than random samples yesterday. Still not up to the 90% I saw often in the past.

The change that you made that allowed ~ four months on one screen clearly shows that KCSM had big problems in October but I cannot see anything like that for KTVU since September.

Larry's use suggests that he would benefit from a newer model, I do not see a reason for you to change.

I just do not like the snq=59 for KTVU that I posted. And the nonsense I just typed.

SHF
 
#14,460 ·
I just do not like the snq=59 for KTVU that I posted.
I usually get reasonable signal to noise for KTVU RF 44 in S. San Jose, see the attached screenshot 81%.
 

Attachments

Top