or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Washington, DC / Baltimore, MD - HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Washington, DC / Baltimore, MD - HDTV - Page 351

post #10501 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntAltMike View Post

Wow! I wonder what outside target date that Fenty negitiated down from. Within nine years, we probably won't even be using FiOS anymore.

Charles County just rolled over & accepted a similar timeframe there.

http://www.charlescounty.org/verizon..._franchise.pdf

Be sure and see the "Line Extension Policy" part.

Of course, the Commissioners are so busy congratulating themselves that their tongues are sore and their backs slapped raw.

The finest govenment money can buy....
post #10502 of 13749
That's probably still a lot sooner than Baltimore City will get it.
post #10503 of 13749
I'm in west Fairfax county near the intersection of I66 and the Fairfax County Parkway. Since the conversion, I've been having problems with ch 4 reception on my Windows Media Center tuner. Signal strength looks ok but the video jumps/stutters frequently but only on ch4. However ch4 seems to come in fine on my Samsung HDTV which has a built in tuner. The Media Center tuner is an ATI 650 pci tuner.

Since ch 7 & 9 switched to VHF, I added an older Radioshack VHF/UHF antenna to the attic along with the UHF antenna I had been using. Each antenna goes thru an amplifier then gets combined (I just used an old splitter in reverse) into a 100+ ft coax run to the basement. Once in the basement it gets split again to go to 2 tvs and 2 Media Center computers. I get 7 & 9 fine now along with 5, but cannot get 4 to stop jumping.

Is it ok to just use a splitter to combine the two antennas? Is the fact that one antenna is UHF/VHF and the second is just UHF causing me problems? The amplifier on the UHF/VHF is an old unit from Home Depot, but the amplifier on the UFH is a newer Winegard amp. Any help anyone can give me would be appreciated.
post #10504 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Carr View Post

That's probably still a lot sooner than Baltimore City will get it.

what the verizon guy told me today when he installed my fios was that because i live out in the county and my phone lines are overhead i got it quicker
post #10505 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfparker View Post

I'm in west Fairfax county near the intersection of I66 and the Fairfax County Parkway. Since the conversion, I've been having problems with ch 4 reception on my Windows Media Center tuner. Signal strength looks ok but the video jumps/stutters frequently but only on ch4. However ch4 seems to come in fine on my Samsung HDTV which has a built in tuner. The Media Center tuner is an ATI 650 pci tuner.

Since ch 7 & 9 switched to VHF, I added an older Radioshack VHF/UHF antenna to the attic along with the UHF antenna I had been using. Each antenna goes thru an amplifier then gets combined (I just used an old splitter in reverse) into a 100+ ft coax run to the basement. Once in the basement it gets split again to go to 2 tvs and 2 Media Center computers. I get 7 & 9 fine now along with 5, but cannot get 4 to stop jumping.

Is it ok to just use a splitter to combine the two antennas? Is the fact that one antenna is UHF/VHF and the second is just UHF causing me problems? The amplifier on the UHF/VHF is an old unit from Home Depot, but the amplifier on the UFH is a newer Winegard amp. Any help anyone can give me would be appreciated.

I have a similar setup except I use a UHF antenna for Baltimore stations and a VHF/UHF antenna (in my attic) for DC stations, they both go through the splitter unamplified and then go through a UHF/VHF amplifier. It seems to work OK the only stations I have problems with are 11 and 13 (Baltimore). I also get channel digital channels 30, 66 and 67 from other locations.
post #10506 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfparker View Post

Is it ok to just use a splitter to combine the two antennas? Is the fact that one antenna is UHF/VHF and the second is just UHF causing me problems? The amplifier on the UHF/VHF is an old unit from Home Depot, but the amplifier on the UFH is a newer Winegard amp. Any help anyone can give me would be appreciated.

Yes ... and no I have some experience here, I tried this almost 2 years ago and then spent the next 8 months learning more about Physics.

The reverse splitter trick technically works, but here's what happens. First off, you're losing >50% of the signal from each source (~3.5dB). Not a big deal if you amplify first and then combine. The more important problem is that if each antenna "sees" the same channel, even if it's via a weak reflection, you end up with multiple standing waves on the line at the same frequency. Unless you're the luckiest person ever, these waves will not be in phase and will cancel each other out to some degree and confuse the receiver. In essence, you're creating multipath. By amplifying the signals before combining them, you're creating some really nasty multipath

Given the description, that's what I think is happening here. Since the UHF-only antenna has no appeciable gain for 7 and 9, all you're losing is 3.5dB at the combiner on those channels. Since it's already been amplified, not a problem. On the UHF side, however, you're playing with fire. Apparently 4 (UHF 48) has it the worst with your setup, but I would bet that given a change in weather/temperature you'd find more and more channels exhibit the same problem, especially as we head into the winter months.

Let me ask you this ... what is your goal? Was it to just get 7 and 9 back? If that is the case, what you want is a VHF/UHF diplexer, not a splitter. Hook the Radio Shack antenna to the VHF side and the UHF antenna to the UHF side .. BEFORE any amplification. A diplexer is an RF filter that can combine the low VHF frequencies with the high UHF frequencies with almost no loss at all, and it has the benefit that any UHF signals picked up on the VHF antenna are completely filtered out for you, and won't cause you any more grief.

Now, be advised, depending on what model # your Winegard amp is (please tell us and we can look it up), it may not be able to amplify VHF. The one from Home Depot is probably not a very good device, I personally don't recommend using it (GE model perhaps?). If the Winegard amp cannot amplify VHF, you can still try it and see what happens, but it's likely you may need an amplifier capable of handling both VHF and UHF.

My personal advise would be to try a VHF/UHF diplexer first (also called a "combiner" if you're Googling or trying radioshack.com), then run the combined signal into the Winegard amp, and see what happens. If it works well, it's a cheap easy solution. If you don't get good results on the VHF side, you probably want/need a different amplifier.
post #10507 of 13749
Don't see it reported here but DirecTV has turned on WNUV HD and WUTB HD. That means all Baltimore HD locals are on DirecTV now.
post #10508 of 13749
WJLA has filed an STA to increase power from 30 kW to 52 kW. We have to see what the FCC says.

- Trip
post #10509 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

WJLA has filed an STA to increase power from 30 kW to 52 kW. We have to see what the FCC says.

- Trip

I hope they let them give it a try.
post #10510 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

WJLA has filed an STA to increase power from 30 kW to 52 kW. We have to see what the FCC says.

...and where will that leave WUSA with its comparatively puny 12.6 kW ERP? If the FCC approves the 52 kW for ACC, channel 9 will be some 6 dB down relative to its VHF competitor and tower mate.

Of course, this presumes that ``power density'' is a significant factor in reception as the filing asserts.
post #10511 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewster1977 View Post

I hope they let them give it a try.

+1 here, a resounding +1. I also hope that if they do, we know in advance when it will happen so we can assist with before/after data for WJLA I think they'll let them try it, personally.

Any word on how it's been going with WBAL's STA? Anybody in range of VHF 12 having issues with 11 being more powerful?
post #10512 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by djp952 View Post

Anybody in range of VHF 12 having issues with 11 being more powerful?

WBAL has no affect on VHF 12 from my location in Arlington.
post #10513 of 13749
I can't see WUSA being able to get any kind of power increase on channel 9. WBPH up there is just too constrictive.

If I was Gannett, I'd look at channel 14 very hard.

- Trip
post #10514 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

I can't see WUSA being able to get any kind of power increase on channel 9. WBPH up there is just too constrictive.

True, but if it turns out that the interference rules on VHF have been overestimated, which really seems to be the case from everything I've read to date, a power increase might still be possible. If all these STAs from VHF channels are working out, wouldn't the rules end up getting changed?

I'm still definately in favor of these stations trying it out to see what happens. The longer they wait the less acceptable these kinds of things will be to the public. Before the fall season starts is ideal

Didn't all of this happen before in the 1930s or something? I vaguely recall reading about VHF propogation being drastically underestimated originally, too.

It will work out at some point. I'm glad stations like WBAL and WJLA are taking the initiative, since in the end it will help the other stations.

edit: I hate to admit this, but I'm also in favor of the FCC playing favorites when it makes sense to do so. WPBH preventing WUSA from reaching it's designated viewers doesn't make sense. It does to fans of WPBH, I'm sure, but let's consider the greater good here. WUSA is a major network affiliate, I can't believe that WPBH's viewership even scratches the surface of what WUSA's is.
post #10515 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by djp952 View Post

...
I hate to admit this, but I'm also in favor of the FCC playing favorites when it makes sense to do so. WPBH preventing WUSA from reaching it's designated viewers doesn't make sense. It does to fans of WPBH, I'm sure, but let's consider the greater good here. WUSA is a major network affiliate, I can't believe that WPBH's viewership even scratches the surface of what WUSA's is.

Is programming content at all a consideration when the FCC evaluates a facility upgrade or channel change?

The WWAZ/Fond du Lac channel change request cites the Hispanic audience that will be served by relocating the site to the Milwaukee antenna farm. Likewise, the WLS/Chicago channel change notes coverage of the Gay Pride Parade and Mexican Independence Day as examples of its commitment to local programming.

Bringing this matter of content closer to Washington, if programming factors in at all, doesn't WETA have a much stronger case for moving to channel 51 than does WWPX?
post #10516 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by djp952 View Post

Didn't all of this happen before in the 1930s or something? I vaguely recall reading about VHF propogation being drastically underestimated originally, too.

It will work out at some point. I'm glad stations like WBAL and WJLA are taking the initiative, since in the end it will help the other stations.

edit: I hate to admit this, but I'm also in favor of the FCC playing favorites when it makes sense to do so. WPBH preventing WUSA from reaching it's designated viewers doesn't make sense. It does to fans of WPBH, I'm sure, but let's consider the greater good here. WUSA is a major network affiliate, I can't believe that WPBH's viewership even scratches the surface of what WUSA's is.

Experimenting for a broadcast station can be an expensive proposition, depending on the capacity of the transmitter and antenna. Generally you need to make sure the physics and allocation work on paper, before you spend the money.

Regarding your question about when VHF propagation was determined.. Prior to when the original VHF TV station construction permits were being issued in the 1940's, the assumption for both transmission and reception to allocation was calculated. The assumption was, and still is with DTV; that a receive antenna would be horizontal polarity, of at least 10dB gain and installed outside at 30 feet above ground. If this installation is typical, then the theory and practice work perfectly. Fast forward to 2009 and none of the original assumptions took into account 'rabbit ear' antennas, antennas mounted in attics, etc. Modern construction of homes may have foil or mylar coated insulation, noisy house wiring caused by consumer electronic devices (computers and florescent lights), etc. All of these factors cause attenuation or interference to the VHF signal through walls. Of course the antennas indoors have less gain also.

So now is where the tricky part comes into play. It's true that VHF signals (especially DTV which are rated at RMS power, not peak power like NTSC), propagate much further on the horizon than UHF signals. So the issue with interfering with a co-or ajacent channel in another market is a huge factor, but now the field strength to penetrate buildings within a market is compromised. Depending on the individual situation, the FCC may be stuck. Do they authorize a higher power with the risk of interference to viewers to other markets? Or do they keep the power lower and have upset OTA viewers without outdoor antennas within a market?

To me it was silly to allow stations to go back to a VHF channel. Not only has it created confusion with viewers who got used to receiving a UHF signal, but it has put the stations in an unfortunate PR and financial bind in having to possibly upgrade their facilities more than twice.
post #10517 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly From KOMO View Post


To me it was silly to allow stations to go back to a VHF channel. Not only has it created confusion with viewers who got used to receiving a UHF signal, but it has put the stations in an unfortunate PR and financial bind in having to possibly upgrade their facilities more than twice.

Right on! It caused headaches and confusion for the broadcasters and for the consumers.
post #10518 of 13749
Hey everyone, I had a quick question. Is anyone having issues seeing the substations of WJLA (7.2 and 7.3) and WUSA (9.2)? I'm not sure is the problem is Directv or not. I have my roof antennas connected to the off air antenna in my Directv receiver. I pick up 7.1 and 9.1 flawlessly but the substations don't come in. The funny thing is that the Directv guide has show listings for 7.3. I didn't know if it was something I could fix or if it was something else. Thanks
post #10519 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

WUSA has 3.67 Mbps of 0x1eee. That's Mobile DTV.

I don't know where you get this -- I checked your official TSReader of WUSA, and it shows 3.44 Mbps of "0x1fff MPEG-2 NULL Packet". Absolutely no mention of "0x1eee" -- unlike WPXW channel 66, with 3.66 Mbps of "0x1eee Unknown usage".

Maybe you have a later TSReader cap that I can't access, but I still don't see how you can confirm Mobile DTV at WUSA, yet. However, I will admit that I've seen 9-1 macroblocking heavily recently, on a standard-def TV.
post #10520 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly From KOMO View Post

... The assumption was, and still is with DTV; that a receive antenna would be horizontal polarity, of at least 10dB gain and installed outside at 30 feet above ground. If this installation is typical, then the theory and practice work perfectly. Fast forward to 2009 and none of the original assumptions took into account 'rabbit ear' antennas, antennas mounted in attics, etc. Modern construction of homes may have foil or mylar coated insulation, noisy house wiring caused by consumer electronic devices (computers and florescent lights), etc. All of these factors cause attenuation or interference to the VHF signal through walls. Of course the antennas indoors have less gain also.

There's another factor with DTV that I wonder how much thought was put into, and that's the "acceptable quality" factor. With analog TV, you could get something that's watchable if your tolerance for some ghosting/snow was moderate. The exact same signal level at the antenna with DTV might be worthless. I'm a prime example of this phenominon. I had an antenna that "got" 7 and 9 analog just fine, the picture was quite good actually, but it wasn't perfect. That exact same antenna couldn't provide enough signal for any receiver I have to lock onto 7 digital at all. 7 was/is at the maximum alotted power for VHF, so in theory that shouldn't have happened, right? I suppose that's why I keep harping that the numbers have to be wrong ... lol WUSA isn't anywhere near the max, so I don't consider that to fall into the same category, really just WJLA.

edit: it's not like I can do anything about it, I suppose I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing here ... sorry ... very troll-like behavior on my part.
post #10521 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by re_nelson View Post

Likewise, the WLS/Chicago channel change notes coverage of the Gay Pride Parade and Mexican Independence Day as examples of its commitment to local programming.

Bringing this matter of content closer to Washington, if programming factors in at all, doesn't WETA have a much stronger case for moving to channel 51 than does WWPX?

Under that theory, WUSA has the strongest case of them all, considering its for-profit status. However, I'll still give the nod to WETA because of their interference issue with WHAG. Didn't they file for 51 before WWPX?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly From KOMO View Post

To me it was silly to allow stations to go back to a VHF channel. Not only has it created confusion with viewers who got used to receiving a UHF signal, but it has put the stations in an unfortunate PR and financial bind in having to possibly upgrade their facilities more than twice.

In theory, you have a point; however, there was simply too much money to be had in channels 52-54, let alone the others. It's like how ABC put that second HD subchannel on, purely for the money -- ABC picture quality be damned.

Additionally, how much could revenue possibly be taken away by a weak OTA signal? Something like 80% of viewers have cable or satellite, anyway, and especially the more affluent people that advertisers tend to crave. I read somewhere that half of those that have OTA can still get the VHF OTA signals, leaving maybe 9-10% of the populous. OTA people tend to be older and poorer people, neither of which are advertiser-friendly crowds. I could see a station manager or two deliberately using a lower-power VHF to their advantage, by "forcing" some OTA viewers to sign up for basic cable. Why? So the station can get $.50-1.00/sub/month off the backend, not just for them, but for everyone else subscribed to cable -- all to make up the difference in any lost revenue. Plus, the power bills, transmitter maintenance costs, and any potential new transmitter costs, are kept lower. Then again, I'm cheap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djp952 View Post

I had an antenna that "got" 7 and 9 analog just fine, the picture was quite good actually, but it wasn't perfect. That exact same antenna couldn't provide enough signal for any receiver I have to lock onto 7 digital at all. 7 was/is at the maximum alotted power for VHF, so in theory that shouldn't have happened, right? I suppose that's why I keep harping that the numbers have to be wrong ... lol

And they could be wrong. However, a dedicated VHF preamp and VHF-UHF combiner might do the trick for both 7 and 9. That's cheaper than 7 and 9 upping their power.
post #10522 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by SternLover21215 View Post

Hey everyone, I had a quick question. Is anyone having issues seeing the substations of WJLA (7.2 and 7.3) and WUSA (9.2)? I'm not sure is the problem is Directv or not. I have my roof antennas connected to the off air antenna in my Directv receiver. I pick up 7.1 and 9.1 flawlessly but the substations don't come in. The funny thing is that the Directv guide has show listings for 7.3. I didn't know if it was something I could fix or if it was something else. Thanks

What DirecTV receiver are you using? Have you tried direct tuning to 7.3? Have you tried tuning to 7.1 and then using up channel to get to 7.2?
post #10523 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eben View Post

What DirecTV receiver are you using? Have you tried direct tuning to 7.3? Have you tried tuning to 7.1 and then using up channel to get to 7.2?

Eben,

I have an HR20 receiver. I've tried direct tuning to 7.3 directly and using the up channel. The funny thing is that I can get the substations for other channels like 4.2, 4.3, and 50.2. I'm assuming the signal for the substations is coming from the same source as the other stations.
post #10524 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

I don't know where you get this -- I checked your official TSReader of WUSA, and it shows 3.44 Mbps of "0x1fff MPEG-2 NULL Packet". Absolutely no mention of "0x1eee" -- unlike WPXW channel 66, with 3.66 Mbps of "0x1eee Unknown usage".

Maybe you have a later TSReader cap that I can't access, but I still don't see how you can confirm Mobile DTV at WUSA, yet. However, I will admit that I've seen 9-1 macroblocking heavily recently, on a standard-def TV.

Whoops. I thought I'd recently uploaded a newer one, but I guess I didn't...

I was actually referring to the one that djp952 posted: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=10474

I plan to use that data, I just need to rename them, edit out the EIT data (this is the really time-consuming part) and then upload them to RabbitEars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

Under that theory, WUSA has the strongest case of them all, considering its for-profit status. However, I'll still give the nod to WETA because of their interference issue with WHAG. Didn't they file for 51 before WWPX?

No, WETA and WWPX were filed before the June 20, 2008 deadline, which means the FCC will treat them as mutually exclusive and as though they were filed on the same date.

- Trip
post #10525 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

...
Something like 80% of viewers have cable or satellite
...
I read somewhere that half of those that have OTA can still get the VHF OTA signals, leaving maybe 9-10% of the populous
...
a dedicated VHF preamp and VHF-UHF combiner might do the trick for both 7 and 9. That's cheaper than 7 and 9 upping their power.

Really?!?

According to Nielsen, the DC DMA has over 2.3 million households. (Let's ignore Baltimore just to keep it simple.)

So, in other words, you're saying -- using your figures from above -- that the purchase, installation, and continuous operation -- you realize that the power supplies for these preamps will consume a couple of watts or so of electricity, each, right?? -- of some 200,000 or more additional VHF preamps would be cheaper than channel 7 and 9 throwing a bit more juice at their VHF transmitters???
post #10526 of 13749
WHUT is now in HD (1080i). Don't know exactly when it changed but I was surfing through the channels and saw an HD logo at the bottom of the screen.
post #10527 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

200,000 or more additional VHF preamps would be cheaper than channel 7 and 9 throwing a bit more juice at their VHF transmitters???

For some, a preamp won't be needed; an RG-6 cable will suffice. In any case, I was only giving an example for him; I wouldn't recommend a preamp for 200,000 people. Additionally, it wouldn't be a "bit" more power on 7 and 9. The power bill would go up pretty significantly with higher VHF powers. A switch to UHF would be another thing, entirely.

I looked up the location of Elkridge, MD; it's located inbetween DC and Baltimore's towers. Perhaps the antenna is already pointed towards Washington, but if it isn't, then pointing that way might fix the problem, without losing any Baltimore stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdviewer25 View Post

WHUT is now in HD (1080i). Don't know exactly when it changed but I was surfing through the channels and saw an HD logo at the bottom of the screen.

Just checked the OTA tuner. 32-1 is 1080i HD; 32-2 is 480i SD feed. Currently no audio on 32-2.
post #10528 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

I looked up the location of Elkridge, MD; it's located inbetween DC and Baltimore's towers. Perhaps the antenna is already pointed towards Washington, but if it isn't, then pointing that way might fix the problem, without losing any Baltimore stations.

LOL, I have to assume you're talking about me there! Yeah, it's pointed towards D.C. I have separate systems for D.C. and Baltimore Being as in-between as I am, it's nigh on impossible to get both from a single system, I spent a very long time trying! Now I use a computer and separate tuners hooked to each city's antenna system so there is no worries about aiming or trying to receive channels from nulls or rear gain. (I've been at this a while, and contrary to what I might sound like, I'm pretty thrilled overall with my results ... you can't argue with close to 50 channels, even if 33% of them are PBS - heh)

edit: 32.2 no audio confirmed. Let's give them some time. There was also stretch-o-vision going on earlier on 32.1. Thanks for the heads-up, I've added the channel and am looking forward to even MORE PBS programming from here in rainy downtown Elkridge!! (I jest, but I actually really appreciate having WMPT, WETA and WHUT available to me. I also get WMPB, which is handy for nights were scheduling recordings are tight on the D.C. array). The wife loves WHUT, when she gets back from Germany next year I think the fact that it's finally HD will make her a pretty happy camper. [If anyone wants to know, she's Navy Reserve and was activated last month and will be gone until next October .. hence my increased trolling time at avsforum :-) ]
post #10529 of 13749
Any chance of new TSReader data on WHUT?

- Trip
post #10530 of 13749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
Any chance of new TSReader data on WHUT?

- Trip
Your wish ... my command. Enjoy

 

whut-tsreader-08282009.zip 2.5966796875k . file
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 › Washington, DC / Baltimore, MD - HDTV