or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Norfolk, VA - OTA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Norfolk, VA - OTA - Page 88

post #2611 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdennant View Post

It makes a lot of sense if you look at the cost of operating in one service as opposed to the other: Take one look at the cost of running a relatively inefficient UHF transmitter with a TPO (Transmitter Output Power) of 52 kW as opposed to a more efficient VHF transmitter with a TPO of approximately 20 kW and you'll understand. Then, too, there is the cost of the UHF, IOTs (Inductive Output Tubes) at $29,000 each (our UHF transmitter uses three) as opposed to the solid state VHF transmitter that has no parallel costs. It also costs money to cool the more inefficient UHF transmitter.

As always, it is a business decision. I estimate that the cost differential between operating WVEC-DT on VHF as opposed to UHF would be approximately $60,000 less on an annual basis.

Also: The upper VHF frequencies are ideally suited to the DTV service in terms of propagation, immunity to noise and, as mentioned above, cost of service. I would not be surprised if WAVY-DT elects to come back to channel 10. But, that is something Les will have to address.

Quote:


The upper VHF frequencies are ideally suited to the DTV service in terms of propagation, immunity to noise

Peter, which VHF frequencies are the preferred out of the 2-13 channels for DTV?
My CM4228 seems to do a fair job down to 10 at my distance from the transmitters. I might have to put my Radio Shack V/U-190 back up.
post #2612 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjriver View Post

How long has it been going on????? MUCH TOO LONG!!!!! It wouldn't help that much though given the pq of 15-1's bit starved video. I used to watch WHRO a lot but the quality of the broadcast is so bad I just stopped even trying. I fear that's exactly what we are in for with the others with the stations selling their subs.

Harold,

Don't know if this is permanent or not but WHRO is only broadcasting 2 sub-channels instead of the usual 3. Also, the PQ on the new HD material seems to be much improved over the older stuff they show. Much of the problem may have had to do with the original compression from the source.
post #2613 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd View Post

Check this FCC document out:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-05-2649A2.pdf

It shows what channel numbers all the TV stations in the country plan on going to after the analog cutoff in 2009. For this area, looks like only WVEC and WTVZ will be changing back to their original channels of 13 and 33. The rest will stay the same. So we'll have one VHF station and the rest will be UHF, if that makes any sense...

And WSKY (channel 4) in Manteo when it goes live.
post #2614 of 6660
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjriver View Post

Peter, which VHF frequencies are the preferred out of the 2-13 channels for DTV?

The upper VHF frequencies: Channels 7 through 13 (175 MHz - 216 MHz).
post #2615 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysb View Post

I thought one result of the conversion to DTV was to free up spectrum space. Yet some stations on the list are electing to stick with even low VHF channel frequency assignments. What gives?


The spectrum being freed up is 698 Mhz to 806 Mhz, UHF channels 52-69.
post #2616 of 6660
Initially I was worried about having to get a VHF antenna in addition to my UHF one but the fact is by that time D* will have all of the locals in HD and with the multicasting OTA which will be rampant by then an antenna wont be needed. There wont be a noticable quality difference. IMO its really not an issue.
post #2617 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano View Post

Initially I was worried about having to get a VHF antenna in addition to my UHF one but the fact is by that time D* will have all of the locals in HD and with the multicasting OTA which will be rampant by then an antenna wont be needed. There wont be a noticable quality difference. IMO its really not an issue.


Good point, but it still depends on what quality signal the locals feed D*. I hope that D* utilizes fiber direct from the stations and not rely on OTA themselves. If they don't we will really be screwed. I had high hopes for increased HIGH QUALITY HD OTA from the broadcasters. Stupid me! I just hope all of them don't sell their subs.
post #2618 of 6660
We haven't heard anything from the stations recently (here or in the paper) about selling subs or its true impact on OTA/cable/FiOS/satillite HD. There are times when silence is golden and times when it is ominous. Which is it now? thump, thump... thump, thump...

Drew

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjriver View Post

Good point, but it still depends on what quality signal the locals feed D*. I hope that D* utilizes fiber direct from the stations and not rely on OTA themselves. If they don't we will really be screwed. I had high hopes for increased HIGH QUALITY HD OTA from the broadcasters. Stupid me! I just hope all of them don't sell their subs.
post #2619 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdennant View Post

It makes a lot of sense if you look at the cost of operating in one service as opposed to the other: Take one look at the cost of running a relatively inefficient UHF transmitter with a TPO (Transmitter Output Power) of 52 kW as opposed to a more efficient VHF transmitter with a TPO of approximately 20 kW and you'll understand. Then, too, there is the cost of the UHF, IOTs (Inductive Output Tubes) at $29,000 each (our UHF transmitter uses three) as opposed to the solid state VHF transmitter that has no parallel costs. It also costs money to cool the more inefficient UHF transmitter.

As always, it is a business decision. I estimate that the cost differential between operating WVEC-DT on VHF as opposed to UHF would be approximately $60,000 less on an annual basis.

Also: The upper VHF frequencies are ideally suited to the DTV service in terms of propagation, immunity to noise and, as mentioned above, cost of service. I would not be surprised if WAVY-DT elects to come back to channel 10. But, that is something Les will have to address.

Thanks for the info. Your station comes in more solidly for me than any of the others these days, so I'd hate for that to change. But then by then hopefully most of us will be able to get all the local HD channels by satellite and cable so it wouldn't really matter much.
post #2620 of 6660
WNCT in Greenville, NC (Analog 9, DTV 10) has elected to stay at 10 after 2009. This may have something to do with WAVY staying at 31, can't say for sure. I beleive WSKY could go to channel 38 (old WTVZ) or 41 (old WVEC) in the second round election by the FCC. DTV on Low band VHF is still a wing and a pray type deal. We will see.
post #2621 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo1080 View Post

WNCT in Greenville, NC (Analog 9, DTV 10) has elected to stay at 10 after 2009. This may have something to do with WAVY staying at 31

DING-DING-DING-DING!!!!!

No more calls, we have a winner!

Also, just like with everything else in life there are a variety of opinions on whether VHF or UHF is best for DTV. Initially people assumed that hi-band VHF was going to be best, but that was in theory only. Since DTV stations have come on-line I've heard other opinions expressed.
post #2622 of 6660
I understand that WVEC-DT is installing new equipment for DD 5.1 audio. I checked their progress last night on one of the HD shows and my observation was that they were not broadcasting DD5.1. They seem to be only broadcasting mono on the center channel only. All audio came out of the center channel. All other speakers in my system had a very very low level white noise. Anybody else checking their audio?
Earl
post #2623 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdennant View Post

The upper VHF frequencies: Channels 7 through 13 (175 MHz - 216 MHz).


AT 200 mhz. isn't the data rate cut in half of say 400 mhz . There are only so many waves to place data on. I thought 480 mhz and up is for 8vsb data rates of 20 mbps and up.

Would 200 mhz give 20 mbps data??

David
Hayes Va. all channels work fine here.
post #2624 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by VARTV View Post

Ah... This is all brought to you by LIN TV... I'm curious if LIN's digital low-powered TV's have anything to do with this. If you look on the USDTV/Norfolk website, the coverage area is limited... Is this due to the USDTV signals coming from WKTD-CD/17 and WNLO-CD/45??

USDTV Norfolk

National satellite feed is G3r 4100 V 29585 5/6 8psk..
19 channels there. Bandwith on each channel can't be better than 1.4 mbps.
Dish and direct use 2.3-4.0 for sd.



1.5 mbps will require a 9 inch screen to look good. Who's kidding Who.
What a joke.
Here is a list from lyngsat.com


Satellite G3-r 4100 v 29585 5/6 8psk

USDTV Guide Channel 10 161 164 E
ESPN 11 177 180 E
ESPN 2 12 193 196 E
Disney Channel East 13 209 212 E
Toon Disney 14 225 228 E
Food Network West 15 241 244 E
Discovery Channel 16 257 260 E
The Learning Channel West 17 273 276 E
HGTV East 18 289 292 E
Lifetime East 19 305 308 E
Lifetime Movie Network 20 321 324 E
Fox News Channel 21 337 340 E
USDTV Guide Channel 41 657 660 E
ESPN 42 673 676 E
Disney Channel East 43 689 692 E
Discovery Channel 44 705 708 E
Fox News Channel 45 721 724 E
Starz East 46 737 740 E
Starz East 59 945 948 E


I bet there stockholders watch it. Love it.
post #2625 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8VSBanddvbs View Post

National satellite feed is G3r 4100 V 29585 5/6 8psk..
19 channels there. Bandwith on each channel can't be better than 1.4 mbps.
Dish and direct use 2.3-4.0 for sd.

1.5 mbps will require a 9 inch screen to look good. Who's kidding Who.
What a joke.

I bet there stockholders watch it. Love it.

If what you say is true, could you imagine this stuff on a digital set...
post #2626 of 6660
Can't imagine it on any screen. Remember, source video is what you should get. The source= bandwitdth.

Example:

Barret Jacksion Auto auction feed this weekend used 25mbps MP@ML 4x3 4:2:2.

Speed channel G11 feed was near 3.5 mbps. Cband encypted , PowerVU

Directv and dish put it out at 2.8 mbps.

You can see what you lost.

If a channel was 6 mbps and your provider sends it to you at 1.5mbps I don't see any Value added. They should give it away. Oh you will have to sell you High end tv on Ebay and get a 9 inch screen and new glasses.
Just think,, there is a bean counter inside you tv.


What is really funny is on most settop boxes made today with a sub required, If you don't pay the fee, they cut off your free channels. I mean you wont get over the air channels with there boxs. "VOOM" USDTV,, I don't know if this is true with USDTV but it is the wave of the future.
Get your 9 inch screen while they last.
post #2627 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8VSBanddvbs View Post

AT 200 mhz. isn't the data rate cut in half of say 400 mhz . There are only so many waves to place data on. I thought 480 mhz and up is for 8vsb data rates of 20 mbps and up.

Would 200 mhz give 20 mbps data??

David
Hayes Va. all channels work fine here.

Uh, no. The bandwidth of an 8vsb carrier is 6 Mhz with a payload of 19.4 mbs, no matter what frequency you put it at.
post #2628 of 6660
Gentleman,

In the words of Spock in ST II: The Wrath of Khan, you are using one dimensional thinking. Does 2 MBp/s of video using MPEG-2 as a delivery codec format look like 2 MBp/s using a MPEG-4 codec? or WM10? USDTV is not using MPEG-2 for is delivery, it can't be......
post #2629 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo1080 View Post

Gentleman,

In the words of Spock in ST II: The Wrath of Khan, you are using one dimensional thinking. Does 2 MBp/s of video using MPEG-2 as a delivery codec format look like 2 MBp/s using a MPEG-4 codec? or WM10? USDTV is not using MPEG-2 for is delivery, it can't be......

Very, very good point, Ted! I hear MPEG4/WMV can delivery around 2x as much audio/video clarity in the same amount of bandwidth...
post #2630 of 6660
Thankyou WAVY for showing this car show in HD on a Sunday afternoon. With a late start to the football, this is wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #2631 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano View Post

Thankyou WAVY for showing this car show in HD on a Sunday afternoon. With a late start to the football, this is wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree. I know we give NBC a hard time sometimes, but it is nice that they put this show on. It was in HD last year too.

BTW, if you're interested in the cars at the auto show, check out my thread about it over at TCF: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb...d.php?t=280916

post #2632 of 6660
After nearly a year without problems WHRO is again experiencing audio drops (no video problems). As it was before they fixed the problem last year I only get the drops on my Hitachi and not my Zenith receiver. I know of at least one other person out there who saw the same problem.
post #2633 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhahne View Post

After nearly a year without problems WHRO is again experiencing audio drops (no video problems). As it was before they fixed the problem last year I only get the drops on my Hitachi and not my Zenith receiver. I know of at least one other person out there who saw the same problem.

I remember that problem too. I don't watch much on WHRO anymore (since reception is spotty these days and the video quality isn't real good...), but I was watching Motorweek yesterday and did notice 3 or 4 very brief hiccups in the audio. I don't think there was a video issue though. I was figuring it was just my reception, but maybe not...
post #2634 of 6660
I'm a car nut so I watch Motorweek on WHRO every week. It is available in "widescreen" on 15-1, but the PQ is so poor that it is unbearable to watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd View Post

I remember that problem too. I don't watch much on WHRO anymore (since reception is spotty these days and the video quality isn't real good...), but I was watching Motorweek yesterday and did notice 3 or 4 very brief hiccups in the audio. I don't think there was a video issue though. I was figuring it was just my reception, but maybe not...
post #2635 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by HILLTOP SAILOR View Post

I'm a car nut so I watch Motorweek on WHRO every week. It is available in "widescreen" on 15-1, but the PQ is so poor that it is unbearable to watch.

I thought 15-1's PQ has been much better than it had been just six months ago... I didn't watch MotorWeek, though...
post #2636 of 6660
I think one major reason that the picture quality on Motorweek is rather poor is that it's not HD, I'm certain it's just widescreen SD.
post #2637 of 6660
Does anyone know what WAVY's plans are for Olympic coverage? Will they be running NBCHD on 10-1 with their normal broadcast on 10-2 as they did with the 2004 Summer games?
post #2638 of 6660
If the PQ is not up to broadcast standards when it is received at the station then they shouldn't air it on 15-1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd View Post

I think one major reason that the picture quality on Motorweek is rather poor is that it's not HD, I'm certain it's just widescreen SD.
post #2639 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by HILLTOP SAILOR View Post

If the PQ is not up to broadcast standards when it is received at the station then they shouldn't air it on 15-1.

Yeh, but it's still better than watching the analog channel version of it...
post #2640 of 6660
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhahne View Post

Does anyone know what WAVY's plans are for Olympic coverage? Will they be running NBCHD on 10-1 with their normal broadcast on 10-2 as they did with the 2004 Summer games?

I actually heard on their commercial about it yesterday that it would be in HD on channel 10 dot 1. It's all simulcast this year so they shouldn't have to change anything.
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 › Norfolk, VA - OTA