Digital TV by 2009?

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by tubesrule

Since I am on the side that believes 99% of television programming is crap, I use VCR's and DVD's to watch my old sets. If the need arises after the switch over, we can always run our old sets off an ATSC tuner.

Surprisingly what I haven't seen discussed here is the difficulty in receiving ATSC signals. I live near Detroit, about 10-15 miles from all the main towers. There are 7 main US stations and 1 Canadian station locally. I have a roof antenna on a two story house in a flat area. I purchased a Hitachi ATSC tuner just to play with. It has been an abysmal failure. On average, I can get 3 of the stations most of the time, 2 others about 50% of the time, and the rest rarely or never. At the same time I can get a watchable picture on their analog equivalents through the same box.

For me, ATSC is useless, and I'm in a prime area! I do believe this is being driven to a great extent in an effort to end broadcast television.

That's interesting. If you are in a prime signal area, within say 15 miles of all major Detroit stations, you should be getting excellent reception from all seven of them (plus CBET-9 in Windsor), especially if you have a good high-power rooftop antenna. Why you get such poor reception on certain of Detroit's digital channels baffles me. If you are that close to the towers, all your area's channels, digital as well as analog, should be received equally well. If you lived as far from the stations as I do from Cleveland's network channels (45 air miles), it would make sense that your digital reception is so poor on some channels. Again, however, being only 10-15 miles from the towers, you should have almost more signal than you can handle on both analog and digital channels. The only other things I can think of are your ATSC tuner is defective or has been damaged, or else your antenna is damaged or the feedline is cut or shorted. However, if you can receive the analog channels well, I don't know. I am not sure how powerful Detroit's digital transmitters are, but it is almost certain they are much less powerful than the analog stations. CBS, which owns Detroit's WWJ-TV (CBS 62), recently rebuilt that station's transmitter, which may now have the most powerful analog signal of any television station in metro Detroit; however, I don't know if the digital transmitter has been upgraded the same way. The other Detroit stations (2, 4, 7, 20, 50, 56) may be operating very low-powered digital transmitters compared to the analog ones; this could well be why your reception of those stations' digital signals (the four you say you receive 50 percent of the time or rarely/never) is so poor. It could also be that your particular ATSC tuner is poorly designed; I'd try a different brand, if possible.

As to your comment on using older sets with external ATSC tuners, that is exactly what I intend to do if I still have my RCA analog CRT TV in 2009. This set still makes an excellent picture with its inline CRT and automatic color controls (I have digital cable with a converter, a VCR and a DVD player; therefore, I am accustomed to using outboard units with the set and leaving the TV itself on channel 4), which is one big reason I am not about to get rid of it as long as it works as well as it has over the last five and a half years.

If and when the analog stations go dark .... oh, the heck with it. I'll deal with that when the time comes. As I see it, there is no sense worrying about something that isn't even here yet. As Marshal Sam McCloud (Dennis Weaver's character in the McCloud mystery movie series on NBC in the '70s) said in one episode, "The Indians have a one-word philosophy--now. The past is old and dead, and the future is new and not born yet." The point was that there is absolutely no sense being concerned or downright worried about the past or the future. The former cannot be changed; the latter isn't here yet. In this discussion of the FCC's plan to end analog TV some four years from now, this means we really shouldn't worry about something that isn't even here at this time. Who knows--the FCC (or Congress) may push back the cutoff date for analog yet again, to 2015 or even later. Knowing that the government operates extremely slowly, this wouldn't surprise me. In any event, it's not worth worrying about.

BTW, I almost hate to think what it will mean for those of us with many old TVs if we must use ATSC tuners to get reception on them. Today, ATSC tuners are relatively expensive, so many of us may not be able to afford more than one at this point. Second, it may be all but impractical to split the output of one ATSC tuner among several sets; the output will be progressively weaker at each splitter output (not counting cable losses), with the sets furthest from the tuner getting the weakest signal. Conversely, the sets closest to the tuner may get more signal than they can handle. This was also a problem in master TV antenna distribution systems years ago, as well as the first cable systems in the '50s which were little more than glorified distribution systems. The best way to get HD on your old sets is to use individual ATSC tuners with each set; as the prices of these boxes become more reasonable, the cost won't be as much of an obstacle as it may be now. Another alternative is to have your cable company put ATSC tuners on your old sets, splitting the cable output among them (Comcast and possibly other cable providers will install additional outlets at no charge, but there will be a monthly charge for each HD cable box; this could make this approach all but impractical for those of us with more than two or three TVs). Comcast will also permit subscribers to install their own cable wiring, but the installation must conform to FCC standards for RF leakage and so on, so perhaps it's a better idea to have them install the wiring and as many outlets/converters as you may need for your vintage sets. The only problem, as I mentioned above, is that Comcast (and very likely other cable operators) will charge a monthly equipment rental fee (in addition to the charges for the cable service itself) for each ATSC cable box in your home; these fees could spiral well out of control if you have more than two or three such converters.

BTW (2): If your over-the-air digital reception is so poor, why not get digital cable? All cable systems today carry both analog and digital signals, so if you had cable you can get every one of Detroit's digital stations just as clearly as your analog stations are now. Just a thought.

BTW (3): I agree with your statement that "ninety-nine percent of TV programming is crap . . . " I too have a DVD player and VCR hooked up to the TV in my apartment, with a subscription to the on-line DVD rental service Netflix (www.netflix.com). I watch a lot of the old crime dramas and mystery movies I grew up with, like the old NBC Mystery Movies of the '70s, Quincy, M.E., with Jack Klugman, et al., many of which are now on DVD. I have to say I've never enjoyed watching TV more. Let the networks air their often bottom-feeder programming. With a DVD player and a subscription to a DVD rental service such as Netflix or Blockbuster Video, you will never be at a loss for good programming on your treasured old sets. With DVD, TV runs on a new schedule--yours. No more being at the mercy of the networks. This is an idea whose time has come, maybe 20 or more years too late, but you know the old saying--better late than never.

Last night I watched Hellraisers on INHD2. It's a B+ horror, gore movie from the late 80's that I hadn't seen. Not bad. It didn't exhibit any of the sometime distracting crappy artifacts of digital cable. They are an annoyance sometimes (on all channels, not just HD). I don't know if you get problems like this in broadcast - I haven't tried an antenna yet (I will eventually, that's why I got the Sony, it does it all).

I suppose there is room for the vintage collector out there - but you will need to make signal some other way, not off the air from commercial broiadcasters. There will always be old VCRs and old DVD players for you to use. I collect radios (and I use them), but the old TV bug hasn't hit me. I prefer to use the ones that sound good (like a nice FM with an electrostatic tweeter) or function well (like a nice shortwave).

Keep in mind that the difference between regular TV and HDTV isn't even like the difference between AM and FM, it's more like the difference between AM and SACD.

Maybe I'm a pioneer and/or a pollyanna but I have found enough quality (and certainly quantity) of entertainment on cable TV since 1976 to be paying for it almost continuously since then. In Athens, Ohio in the 70's it was the only way to get more than one college station. Then when I lived a good 60 miles from Cleveland's transmitters it was a natural choice, especially with the then fledgling premium channels - HBO and Showtime. We used to get some Canadian on cable (which you could barely get off the air) and sometime Browns home games, even when they stunk and couldn't fill the stadium (just like today except somehow they fill the place!). Today I have no issue with paying over $100/month for TV and Internet. I'd pay that if my income were half what it is, and I'm as big a cheepskate as any of you!

[Chad Hauris]

I remember living in Athens Ohio when I went to school there in the 90's. If you were using rabbit ears on the TV you could barely just get one channel (WOUB Public television). Could not afford to get cable then. A lot of residents had huge antenna towers to pull in stations from W.Va. or Columbus.

Saw some digital sets on display at a TV store and I wasn't impressed with the over-the-air digital picture enough to make me want to spend thousands for one. Had some artifacts to it, like you could see the picture was made out of blocks, especially when things were moving.

Requiring a convertor box for digital to analog is not the same thing as requiring everyone to subscribe to pay TV services. It is a one time charge to buy the unit...and surely their prices will drop if there is no analog TV and more people need to buy one.

[tubesrule]

Hi Jeff,
I'm not sure why it is so bad either. Most UHF stations do not seem to come in all that well, and since all digital stations are in this range, it may explain it. This may be due to the power of these UHF channels. I tried an antenna mounted amp, but it made little difference. I had considered if the box might be defective, but when it does lock on a signal, it performs as expected, and it tunes the analog signals fine, although with varying amounts of snow. I have not been able to try a different brand of tuner, but would like to. Overall I'm pretty disappointed with ATSC and it's all or nothing behavior

I know of several people in the area that have Comcast digital HD, and for the most part it works adequately, but they are plauged with regular breakup's of the image/sound, or lockups of the box. I just find it hard to pay $60/month for this level of service. When my friends have called for support, the tech's that have come out basically say that's as good as it get's, so get used to it!

No thanks!

<rant on>

It seems that the PC market has set the bar for all consumer electronics these days. (and by that I mean set the bar so low) It locks up constantly, doesn't quite do what they say it does, and everybody just keeps forking over money for the next update that will be the "fix". I doubt anyone accepted this from electronics 50 years ago, and we shouldn't now. How many times would a consumer be willing to "reboot" his car before demanding they fix it correctly?

<rant off> :-)

[john_w]

It seems that conventional broadcast has been slowly losing support anyhow. My old 1989 Zenith tuner works a WHOLE LOT better than my 2004 TOTL Panasonic large screen (also a conventional CRT, standard def set), and the new one has PIP, component video and all the bells and whistles. I just don't think that TV manufacturers want to invest in decent reception anymore, since the vast majority have moved on to cable and satellite decades ago. And I live near a major metropolitan area. I'll try Rat Shack's most powerful booster antennae, and if that doesn't cut it, I'm going to join the masses and get a dish. (Comcast sucks here, last I heard. Too many drop-outs.) So one way or another, broadcast's days are numbered anyhow.

Ah, the end of free TV wafting through the airwaves. It was a fine erra, while it lasted. I'll just have a beer in its honor, remember it fondly and move on. Just like a few old relationships.

I don't know what I'll do if I ever get my hands on a cool vintage TV. Probably get the converter with extra long interconnects and try to hide the box somewhere. But definitely under protest! Vintage television is not something I'm looking for specifically right now, but sometimes these kinds of things just find me.

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by tubesrule

Hi Jeff,
I'm not sure why it is so bad either. Most UHF stations do not seem to come in all that well, and since all digital stations are in this range, it may explain it. This may be due to the power of these UHF channels. I tried an antenna mounted amp, but it made little difference. I had considered if the box might be defective, but when it does lock on a signal, it performs as expected, and it tunes the analog signals fine, although with varying amounts of snow. I have not been able to try a different brand of tuner, but would like to. Overall I'm pretty disappointed with ATSC and it's all or nothing behavior

I know of several people in the area that have Comcast digital HD, and for the most part it works adequately, but they are plauged with regular breakup's of the image/sound, or lockups of the box. I just find it hard to pay $60/month for this level of service. When my friends have called for support, the tech's that have come out basically say that's as good as it get's, so get used to it!

No thanks!

High definition digital television is still a very new technology which obviously has bugs to be worked out. By the time the FCC ends analog TV in some four years, the HDTV system will probably work much better, with better pictures, better sound (many ATSC tuners already have home-theater sound outputs with 5.1-channel Dolby decoders, etc.)--and the ATSC tuners themselves will be much better as well, with the lockup problems, etc. having been worked out (we hope, anyway) by then.

Any new technology has bugs in the beginning. For example, when color TV was first introduced in the '50s, the sets were terribly expensive and there were few color programs to watch, even from the networks. The color receivers of the '50s were not that good (by today's standards) either, but again, they were the best there was at the time. Today's NTSC color TV system is much better and has far fewer bugs than it was and had fifty-odd years ago; the sets are easily affordable (especially now, with stores trying to sell off their inventory of analog CRT sets, even 27" and 32" models, ASAP) and are much more reliable, not to mention almost fully automatic (set the color controls once on most modern CRT sets and forget them--they did away with manual vertical/horizontal hold controls some years ago as well); HDTV will follow the same route. Ten years after HDTV takes hold in this country, the reception (and the technology itself, of course) will be better than it is now; ten years after that, still better; and so on--at least that's what everyone hopes for anything new like this. It will just take time, that's all. It is not realistic to expect such a new technology to be letter-perfect at this early stage of its development.

[Justen]

I find it interesting to look at consumer HDTV- to me it looks very weak. My edit studio monitor is a 19" NTSC Broadcast Monitor- 980 lines of resolution. It is simply the best looking picture I have ever seen, EXCEPT for the Broadcast HD Monitors- of course they are about 18K each. But what the consumer HD stuff looks like is barely better than my mid 90's RCA TV- certainly not worth the difference in price. I can't even get interested in the LCD sets- they just aren't very sharp compared to a good tube.

Good thing I only make television- I don't actually watch the stuff!

[andy]

I hope digital TV does in fact lead to better quality. TV stations have a way of doing everything possible to screw up the picture and sound.

I remember seeing a HD channel in Pittsburgh that was just using their NTSC feed and cutting off a little at the top and bottom of the picture so it would fill more of the 16x9 screen. In that case, the HDTV feed was actually LOWER resolution than the NTSC feed. Needless to say, it looked horrible.

[OvenMaster]

I got a new (Jan 2004) CBS analog station here on channel 67 and it's not even in stereo. The transmitter keeps popping and sputtering, and transmitting a good picture only every so often. Vast majority of time it's snowy, and I'm only 8 miles from the transmitter. I can see the antenna from my roof, so the antenna has a clear line of sight. When broadcasters do things like this, we're supposed to embrace digital TV? They still can't get analog right!

I know CC and BB don't exactly have great setup policies, but every time I look at the pictures on the HD sets, I am consistently disappointed, and I always ask what the big deal is supposed to be. If their sets ARE set up properly, then I suppose the days of TV of any sort in my house are numbered.

Tom

[Carmine]

Hate to repeat myself, but as I stated some time ago:

"...my complaint is not about picture quality, but rather this new 16:9 aspect ratio. Except for some sporting events, and epic films like Ben Hur, is 16:9 really the best way to frame a shot? Most TV shots are of a single person speaking, fairly close. Yet by the time you get back far enough to frame the complete head/bust in the shot, you've included a bunch of unnessecary junk (like the fence in the head shot of yours truly). Even inanimate objects like cars, houses, etc. are usually closer to square than "super wide", so you must include a bunch of extra stuff (such as the the SUV turning left in the first shot of the Rolls Royce). You end up with a smaller shot of the subject, no matter what. Perhaps not a problem on a 50" screen, but what about portable/table sets of the future?"



I've seen HDTV, and I'm just not blown away by it. I don't spend hours watching tropical fish swim, nor any of the other subjects typically used to show-off HDTV. This may be a gradual improvement, but it isn't the enormous difference from B&W to color that people try to compare it to. Yet for the sake of a few people who are really "into" watching TV, the masses must upgrade their hardware.

An atomic-powered Karagucchi XF-3500 FM tuner might be the best way to enjoy FM stereo radio, but what about the guy who just wants something cheap to listen to in the garage? Or more to the point, why must I give up my 1975 19" Chromacolor II garage TV that I mostly listen to, while working on my similarly outdated cars? Can you imagine being forbidden to drive on public highways because your car doesn't have airbags? Just like HDTV, the airbag (i.e. picture quality) is for YOUR benefit, but the gov. is going to force it on you?

And here we have the most fundemental problem; since when has it been the government's job to promote entertainment technology? This hasn't anything to do with safety, health, financial well-being, or general welfare. What's really happening is, this HDTV thing hasn't caught with the public and the FCC (motivated by the sale of broadcast frequencies) has abused its power by setting an artificial deadline, rather than allowing the market to work as it has in the cases of all kinds of computer and video formats.

[john_w]

I think a lot of the quality issue is similar to the audiophile "Law of Diminishing Returns." Though I wouldn't judge any of the current technological capabilities by broadcast sources. I don't think it's so much a matter of fine-tuning a new technology. We've been doing digital microwave communications broadcasting since at least the early 80's - the basic technology is really not new. If broadcast is consistantly that bad, then I suspect that somebody, either the broadcasters or the HD tuner/TV manufacturers - is doing things on the cheap. How much of the problem is the transmission, and how much is the tuner - especially the gain stage? If we don't know, who do we blame? I would tend to blame the tuner based on my new Panasonic experience mentioned above. But I think that some posters here are probably correct at placing blame with broadcasters for not doing as much as they can, because the government is forcing them into it. And I would especially ignore any broadcast reception I see at CC, BB, Sears, Costco, etc., etc...

The only non-broadcast, new video tech. that I've seen is ED format, and although it seems that some of you disagree, I think it looks great on both plasmas and LCDs. It's enough to make me lust after it, but not enough to make me bite on my budget just yet. I'm really curious to see what results the new HD disks will bring.

Regarding the old aspect ratio discussion: Yes, I remember that thread...I've been looking at the sides of the screen more during movies every once in a while, and you're absolutely right Carmine: Not much of anything happens there!! Jeez, you'd think directors would place things there every once in a while just for the fun of it. People would finally catch it on their 3rd or 4th viewing, and you get that "Hey - I never saw that before!!" kind of effect. But no, they're pretty much just focussed on whatever brings the big box office opening draw.

[Randy Bassham]

Along with the problems in weak signal areas digital signals have problems with multi-path distortion, what we call ghosts on analog TV. I've been using Directv satellite since Feb '95 and am usually pleased with the picture, my one complaint is with the stations that use a lot of compression, anything moving fast appears jerky.

Television is a medium, it is neither rare or well done.......Fred Allen