or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Salt Lake City, UT - HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Salt Lake City, UT - HDTV - Page 8

post #211 of 3734
Quote:


Originally posted by bivey
I'm wondering if I should invest in an outdoor antenna. I would do this if I knew I could get 13 (FOX).

you should get much better reception w/ an outdoor antenna. 38 miles is pretty far to expect an indoor or attic-mounted antenna to work.

nobody can guarantee that you'll get fox even w/ an outdoor antenna 'cause their signal is so weak. i only get about 50% from them, while the rest of my channels are 80-100%, & i'm 21 miles away. the only way to know is to try it. see if moving the attic antenna outdoors gives you a better signal. if the signal does improve, i don't think you would have to buy another antenna. can't you simply mount the attic antenna outdoors? good luck.
post #212 of 3734
Quote:


Originally posted by HiHoStevo
I do think I am going to try and buy an antenna that has a motorized remote that I can move it with... it would be a pain climbing up and down into the attic trying to get it adjusted properly and the occasional tweaking that always seems to be necessary.

buying a rotor may not be necessary 'cause all the digital stations pretty much broadcast from the same direction, at least from my location, according to antennaweb.

when i installed my antenna on my roof, i brought a 13" tv up there to determine the best position. it was analog, but the digital & analog signals are broadcast from the same place, so it gave me a good idea of signal strength either way. since installation about a year ago, i've only been up there one more time to adjust the position to give me a better signal on fox. i rotated it about 3 degrees, & my fox signal jumped from about 20% to 50%, enough to eliminate all video/audio dropouts due to weak signal. you may not have to spend the extra money for the rotor either. good luck.
post #213 of 3734
bbartschi


Thanks I talked to a CSR and submitted waiver's for all the local networks. She said it takes about 45 days, asked me questions do you live near the mountains, in a valley, near an airport?

Hopefully it won't take to long for them to get approved or denied.

Does anyone know what the deal is with FOX showing up on D* program guide OCT 12 channel 86-87 MLB Yanks vs SOX will you need a waiver for this channel, and who is eligible to get it?
post #214 of 3734
Quote:


you should get much better reception w/ an outdoor antenna. 38 miles is pretty far to expect an indoor or attic-mounted antenna to work.

I'm going to install a roof top antenna so my signal strengths will increase substantially but I doubt I will be able to pull in FOX as I am 40.1 miles from the tower. I hope I can get FOX on D* channel 86 or 87 tomorrow.

right now my FOX signal is about 16%
post #215 of 3734
Any word on FOX-HD on D*? It was listed in the D* program guide on-line as channels 86-87, now they mysteriously vanished
post #216 of 3734
This may not be the right forum, but I'm not sure what would be.

Are any BYU or U games going to be broadcast in HD this season? I know there have been a couple so far. I don't think the BYU game this Saturday on KSL is.


Thanks,
post #217 of 3734
The first BYU game against Notre Dame was in HD on ESPNHD. Rather nice. None since then have been. I'm not holding out for any others either...
post #218 of 3734
Jack Hubbell's "History of Yellowstone" will be repeated tonight at 7:00 PM, in HDTV.
post #219 of 3734
My understanding was that no one in Utah has enough cameras to do a game in HD (football or otherwise.) ESPN obviously brought in their own HD cameras. I know KBYU is planning on getting enough HD cameras to broadcast football in HD, but that's a coupla years away. KSL's news cameras are obviously capable of doing widescreen, but I thought they couldn't do HD (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but even then, they're dedicated to news, not sports.

Speaking of which, am I the only one who finds it difficult to watch any other newscast besides KSL's now? I mean, honestly, if I'm deciding between two shows on TV, if one's being broadcast in HD, that will tip the scales toward that show. However, the more I watch KSL's newscast, the more I find it really tough to switch over to another channel for the simple fact its in widescreen. Am I too much of a broadcast snob now or is this normal?
post #220 of 3734
I agree that if I'm watching news on my HD set, it must be KSL (which I think is only ED at 480p, but at least it's wide screen).

I was very surprised that Ch 2 spent millions on their new studio (including the helicopter) but didn't pop for at least a few HD cameras.

If I recall correctly, however, Ken English once said that the news anchors didn't really want to be seen in HD detail -- something about "warts and all."
post #221 of 3734
bakerzdosen
You are normal

I would watch grass grow in HD.
Its amazing the shows I have started to watch since getting HD over a year ago.
I have never watched more prime time sitcoms now that almost all of them are HD.

And yes it is difficult to watch any other local news channel besides KSL. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I believe that KSL's news is broadcast in 480p.
Maybe kenglish could comment.
post #222 of 3734
Yep. I'm the same way. I find that it has to be KSL for news now that it's widescreen. I've got some personal contacts at the other two big stations that work in their respective news departments. Pre-HD, I would watch 2 or 4 about equally, with very little KSL (thinking Dick Norse is just too darn old), but now I just can't tear myself away from KSL, warts and all.

I even caught myself watching "Music and the Spoken Word" once or twice over the past year. Now if that isn't a testimony to the power of HD drawing someone in where they'd not otherwise go, I don't know what is...
post #223 of 3734
Quote:


Originally posted by Kevin R. Anderson
I was very surprised that Ch 2 spent millions on their new studio (including the helicopter) but didn't pop for at least a few HD cameras.

i went on the tour of kutv when they opened it to the public after moving into their new studio. i asked one of their head production guys if they were planning on broadcasting widescreen any time soon. the gist of his answer was that they weren't until more people had widescreen tv's & could receive digital signals.

it's the classic chicken & egg problem. broadcasters won't provide more content until more people have widescreens. the public won't buy widescreens until there's more content.

i wonder just how many more viewers ksl is gaining--& the other stations losing--by broadcasting in widescreen. i actually think kutv has a better news show than ksl, but i watch ksl on my hdtv 'cause it's widescreen. when i watch on my analog tv, though, i watch kutv.
post #224 of 3734
Glad to hear I'm normal in at least one aspect .

You know, I seem to recall Ken English (or someone else I would consider "in the know") mentioning that channel 2 had exactly the same news cameras in their studio as Ch. 5 but I can't seem to find that post at the moment. It is my understanding as well that it's "just" 480p.

I too wonder how many extra viewers KSL tends to get because of their broadcast. Even my "psuedo-luddite yet news fanatic" wife would rather watch a reporter she can't stand on KSL than watch a lower quality broadcast on a different channel. I actually find it quite amusing - even though I fully agree. I know that I tend to watch more CBS primetime - or apparently like some of you, PBS (gasp!) - than I would simply because it's in HD.

It just seems weird that I could belong to such a small minority in the SLC broadcast area. (I guess that everyone could - one way or another - insert their own religious-based joke here.) I just have to believe that there are _a lot_ more than the 20 or so "voices" I see here on this forum that feel the same way about HD/widescreen in the SLC area.

Thanks for the amusing responses. I have to admit, I laughed at all of them.
post #225 of 3734
We do our news in 480I, which is then upconverted to 1080I for the HD channel. Of course, we were due for a complete video rebuild of our news operation at the same time we went to DTV (1999).

So, we upgraded all of our studio cameras to widescreen imagers, started using the digital outputs of them, changed out the entire control room (switcher, monitors, etc), upgraded news editing bays, added digital routing switcher capability (including conversion equipment to go between widescreen and 4:3).

The new Calrec audio console is on a boat, somewhere between England and here, right now. This will upgrade us to 5.1.

The new, expanded Digital Routing Switcher is still being installed. It will give us capacity for 144 in by 144 out, with frames capable of 288 x 288.
It will also fix the problems with pops and occasional "chain dragging behind a truck" noise in the digital audio.
post #226 of 3734
Quote:


Originally posted by kenglish
This will upgrade us to 5.1.

awwww, yeah!

how long will it take to be online w/ that after you receive it? i assume you mean 5.1 for everything, not just news?
post #227 of 3734
Just News. And, that's if I can keep them interested in doing it.

We already pass 5.1 (or 5.0) on anything NBC sends us, and on "Music and the Spoken Word" when it's available. That's about all there is right now.

The new audio board will probably take a couple of months to install. Most of the newsroom audio is still analog (much easier to edit that way), so a lot of rewiring is involved. The whole equipment area is currently under reconstruction, and the audio room will be getting remodelled.

The nice thing about 5.1, or even 3.0 is, stereo can be used for music and nat sound, then the anchors stay in the center channel only. Spanish can be substituted for the anchors, or the anchor reads could be eliminated when playing archived material. Adding the rear surrounds could add special effects. So, it's really flexible.
post #228 of 3734
Quote:


Originally posted by kenglish
It will also fix the problems with pops and occasional "chain dragging behind a truck" noise in the digital audio.

Hey, I'm just happy to hear (no pun) that we're not the only ones out there that notice that, and are mildly annoyed by it.

Is anyone ever going to mention to Tom Kirkland that KSL news is broadcast in widescreen and that maybe he should fix his makeup before going on set with his little "compact"? All the weather anchors on the right of the screen seem to understand this little detail, but, well, I guess sports guys are a little different.

I gotta admit, hearing about the sound upgrades makes me want to watch on the home theater rig just to hear the difference instead of watching on the bedroom TV.
post #229 of 3734
Ogden, UT (40 miles from SLC)

I was wondering why I had to pay for FOX-HD on D* channel 88 if we are located in an O & O market? I watched the Yanks vs SOX wednesday night and last night I had to pay the DNS charges to get Astros vs Cards. I get CBS out of LA and their is no fee. I'm just trying to get it straight. When and if D* gets FOX-HD (supposed to be on channels 86 & 87 will I have to pay for those?
post #230 of 3734
1MaNArmY
The KSTU Fox 13 local affiliate is O&O (owned and operated) by the national network.
I have applied and been accepted for a waiver for FOX network channels about a month ago and was able to get network SD feeds from FOX affiliates in New York and L.A. (in the channels 300?) along with the local satellite feed of channel 13. I was told by a D* CSR that I needed to keep at least one of the SD New York or L.A. feeds active (for about $2/month) to indicate that I was eligible to receive FOX-HD when it becomes activated. Once FOX-HD was up and running I would be able to cancel the SD feeds and that FOX-HD would become part of the High Definition package from D*.
As of right now FOX-HD is only broadcasting the baseball playoffs until some legal issues between D* and E* are cleared up.
I was also told by another D* CSR that once these legal issues where cleared up that FOX-HD would be a permanent addition and on all the time.
Please bear in mind that the information from the D* CSR are sometimes not very reliable and that anything could change at any given moment.

I hope this helps.
post #231 of 3734
I rescanned for channels tonight and I finally got FOX, I watched the baseball game and it was pretty cool to see Fox finally going HD.
post #232 of 3734
thanks for your input bbartschi, looks like my waiver for FOX got approved in record time as I only submitted it on Monday. I am now getting 388,389,88, and 89 for 2.25 a month.
post #233 of 3734
good job
post #234 of 3734
How close am I to getting FOX-HD OTA? Ogden UT (40 miles SLC)

I got my amplified Winegard GS-2VRD (range 10-50 miles) up and running. I am now able to get 13 OTA but 13-1 is not available. My STB (RCA DTC210) will not let me determine my signal strength but it will allow me to fine tune the channel. Any suggestions, right now I have my antenna pointed at Farnsworth peak ~ 197 degrees from my location Ogden UT off 24 th and below Monroe. Where is FOX's tower located in relation to Farnsworth's peak? Signal strength for all channels >80 % except for FOX.

getting the following channels
2-1, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1 5-2, 7-1,7-2,
7-3, 9-1, 9-2,9-90, 11-1, 11-2,
11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 13 (AIR), 14-1, 16-1, 30-1
post #235 of 3734
Fox is on the southeast edge of Farnsworth Peak, but it is running low power and at a very low height, compared to the rest of the peak to the north. They have a construction permit for a very high tower and a power increase, but don't seem to be working on any construction yet.
post #236 of 3734
Okay guys......... I am actually in Cedar Hills trying to get the new house up and running...........

1- I checked with antennaweb and they did not give me any suggestions for an antenna...?? just a list of probable stations I could receive.

So I would like to start out trying an boosted attic antenna. However, I need a suggestion for a good in attic antenna for both analog and digital reception. Also, any good places to buy this antenna locally?

2- A suggestion or recommendation for some "great" Home Theater folks here in Utah Valley (read= competent and ++customer service).

Thanks for your support,

Steve
post #237 of 3734
kenglish
Quote:


Fox is on the southeast edge of Farnsworth Peak, but it is running low power and at a very low height, compared to the rest of the peak to the north. They have a construction permit for a very high tower and a power increase, but don't seem to be working on any construction yet.

If I am picking up the analog channel of FOX why isn't the HD channel comming in? What is the FOX-HD channel anyway 13-1 or 13-2? On all the other local channels you get the regular analog channel in edition to the HD channels, I figured the HD channel would have come up on the scan.
Should I make some minor adjustments to the antenna and point it more to the southeast?
post #238 of 3734
1MaNArmY
As you probably understand channel 13 is the hardest digital signal to receive. From my understanding of digital television signals, there is a threshold power wise that you need to get over in order to receive a strong steady signal. Once you break that threshold you should be able to get and maintain that signal.

In my own personal experience I have tried a multitude of different antenna's, pre-amps, and mounting locations in order to get channel 13. Currently my set-up is as follows: Channel Master 4228 antenna with a CM 7778 pre-amp mounted to the chimney with a 10 foot high mast. I was only able to get a moderately steady signal after a neighbor a couple of houses up from me topped a large tree that was blocking my line of sight to the tower. I have heard on this and other forums that the higher you can mount the antenna the better the signal you will get.

I live on the border of Washington Terrace and Riverdale about a 1/2 mile south of Rohmer Park so I am only a few miles north of your location. I also work in downtown Ogden just a few blocks north of you and I know there are quite a few large trees in that area.

I would recommend the following: (a two-way radio with someone watching the signal meter helps for this)
Try moving your antenna around on the roof to try determine if there is a better location.
Mount the antenna on a longer mast or higher on the roof.
Shorten your cable length.
Try different antenna and/or pre-amp.

Trying to receive channel 13 has been like my White Whale and has consumed a lot of time and energy on my part (along with driving my wife crazy). I am jealous of those of you that are able to get 13 with no problem other that pointing you antenna at the tower. I am interested to see your results 1MaNArmY. Please bear in mind that I am definitely not a professional and have only gained my experience by pure trial and error.
post #239 of 3734
1MaNArmY
On another note it is also important to remember that when re-aiming your antenna make only small adjustments at a time and then wait a few seconds to check the signal before moving again. The digital signals take longer to get from the tower to you antenna so you need to give the receiver time to try to get the signal before moving again.
post #240 of 3734
Quote:


Originally posted by HiHoStevo
So I would like to start out trying an boosted attic antenna. However, I need a suggestion for a good in attic antenna for both analog and digital reception. Also, any good places to buy this antenna locally?

what color code did antennaweb say you needed to receive all the digital stations? go to radio shack & buy an outdoor, vhf/uhf combo antenna that is one level below the color code that antennaweb recommended. if it doesn't work for you, you'll be able to return it w/i 30 days of purchase. plus, the guys there may be able to give you advice on how big an antenna you'll need. remember, you don't want one that's too big because you'll overload the signal. good luck.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Salt Lake City, UT - HDTV