Free vs. Cable TV analog conversion ... Free is better ?? - Videokarma.org TV - Video

Snade · #1 11-08-2008, 07:41 PM

I think I get more detail and sharper focus on my analog TV with a digital converter box and DIY UHF antenna (free except for the box), compared to a Comcast cable connection to my analog TV.

Granted, I only get about 25 stations with the free option compared to hundreds of stations on cable, but I'm thinking the free option might be better because I can get the major networks and a better picture on the old TV. And it is free.

What do you think ?

electroking · #2 11-08-2008, 08:00 PM

Of course the cable feed involves transmission through an analog channel with
possibly less than top shape hardware. Here where I live the lower channels
of the cable band (2-6) have had very noisy picture for years. With a set-top
box the only analog processing takes place in your home, so I guess what
you describe will be experienced by many others. Nearly three more years to go
here in Canada...

radiotvnut · #3 11-08-2008, 08:28 PM

I know my picture is better with the OTA converter (10 channels) vs. Comcast cable (60 something channels). At the present, I don't use any type of digital cable box and it's going to stay that way for as long as possible. Several of the Comcast channels are noisy and have been for years. Channel 11 on cable has interference from channel 11 OTA and 18, 19, 20 on cable often have major interference. In fact, the only reason we have cable is because we have internet service through Comcast. With the OTA converter, I receive ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, 3 different PBS stations, a weather channel, and RTN. At present, RTN is still just a black screen. Maybe I will actually see programming there soon. On cable, I can't get RTN or two out of the three PBS channels. If the cable goes up in price over it's already excessive amount or they force everyone to rent a digital cable box, we will be turning it off and going with OTA converters for each TV.

freakaftr8 · #4 11-09-2008, 12:36 PM

Ditto that, channel 16 here bleeds over 17,18,19,20 and 21 here where I live using comcast. Channel 13 CBS football Looks great on my 67 Zenith although

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiotvnut

I know my picture is better with the OTA converter (10 channels) vs. Comcast cable (60 something channels). At the present, I don't use any type of digital cable box and it's going to stay that way for as long as possible. Several of the Comcast channels are noisy and have been for years. Channel 11 on cable has interference from channel 11 OTA and 18, 19, 20 on cable often have major interference. In fact, the only reason we have cable is because we have internet service through Comcast. With the OTA converter, I receive ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, 3 different PBS stations, a weather channel, and RTN. At present, RTN is still just a black screen. Maybe I will actually see programming there soon. On cable, I can't get RTN or two out of the three PBS channels. If the cable goes up in price over it's already excessive amount or they force everyone to rent a digital cable box, we will be turning it off and going with OTA converters for each TV.

ChrisW6ATV · #5 11-10-2008, 12:22 AM

What do I think? Well... I dropped satellite TV in late 2005 because I was tired of the mediocre picture quality (on their HD channels, much less the SD ones) and high cost. Cable? I haven't had that since 1995.

Over-the-air TV, even analog NTSC, with your own real antenna, beats cable by far.

radiotvnut · #6 11-10-2008, 12:54 AM

I'll add to my previous post that my main complaint with cable and satellite TV is the cost and the lack of quality programming. The cable/satellite providers partly justify their charges by the number of channels they provide. What good are a zillion channels if there's not anything I'm interested in on 99.9% of them? Me personally, I'd do just fine with the OTA converter box. I'd sure be doing fine if the local NBC affiliate would get their act together and show programming instead of a black screen on the RTN channel!

Jeffhs · #7 11-10-2008, 01:46 PM

I have Time-Warner cable. Had digital for a couple of years, then decided to go back to analog "expanded basic" a couple months ago. TW tells its subscribers not to worry when 02.19.09 rolls around, as the cable system is ready for digital; if your TV is connected to TW cable or any other cable system, you need not worry about losing your local network stations. In fact, you won't need a cable box (STB) to get digital after the transition, unless you want the extra digital channels above 99. If you have an analog NTSC TV, the signals will be converted to that standard at the cable headend. I don't know if the aspect ratio would be corrected for 4:3 analog sets as well, or if I'll be watching letterboxed pictures on most channels after the transition; most OTA converters will have a method to change the aspect ratio if necessary, but I don't know about cable, especially since I do not intend to get full digital cable again, at least not any time soon.

I'd have gotten an OTA converter box and done away with the cable entirely long ago, but my area is not the best for reception from Cleveland television stations; in fact, the NBC affiliate on channel 3 doesn't reach here at all on an antenna, and most other channels are fair to poor at best, except the CBS affiliate on channel 19.

I hate to think, however, what kind of problems I'd have trying to receive any of the Cleveland stations' digital signals here, using an indoor antenna (I live in an apartment building and cannot erect an outside TV antenna). Most channels except 19 would probably be blank, given digital TV's "all or nothing" nature, and even 19 could be iffy, even though the transmitter is only about 25 miles from here. So for me, it's cable or nothing except my DVDs and VHS tapes.

240sx4u · #8 11-10-2008, 01:48 PM

Mark, I have the same situation. My picture is superior using my OTA than digital cable.

Evan

marantzfan · #9 11-10-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snade

I think I get more detail and sharper focus on my analog TV with a digital converter box and DIY UHF antenna (free except for the box), compared to a Comcast cable connection to my analog TV.

Granted, I only get about 25 stations with the free option compared to hundreds of stations on cable, but I'm thinking the free option might be better because I can get the major networks and a better picture on the old TV. And it is free.

What do you think ?

True, but the free one isn't comcastic!

Jonathan · #10 11-14-2008, 01:13 PM

I'd never buy cable service. Picture quality is total crap, no matter what you cable service you get. Satellite pizza dish services might be all digital, but the quality is crap also, on par with the crap quality of digital cable. If I were you, and I had some room, I'd install a big dish, 10' or bigger. With C band, you get the master broadcast signal, so the best picture quality out there. AMC18 has the master broadcast feed of NBC on transponder 4, DVB-S2 with mpeg4 video. You want to talk about good? Picture quality is the best you'll ever see. You'll just need a DVB-S2 receiver that can decode mpeg4. The signal is in the clear and not encrypted. Even if you don't pay for big dish service, the free channels are worth it alone.

Your local NBC affiliate has a commercial receiver that decodes the mpeg4 into uncompressed HD video and ac3 audio over HD-SDI. That then feeds into an mpeg2 HD encoder which generates an mpeg2 stream with ac3 audio. This is then fed into the ATSC multiplexer which adds the PSIP data, channel name and other ancillary data. It finally goes to the 8VSB modulator and then to the transmitter.

240sx4u · #11 11-14-2008, 01:49 PM

^ I don't think Snade's town would approve of a satellite dish of that magnitude. LOL.

tboat4 · #12 11-14-2008, 02:16 PM

I was unhappy with all of the different cable providers we've had ( don't remember the name of the 1st one, then Continental, then Comcast, now Time Warner) until I got my new HD t.v., and had it installed by professionals. Wow, what a difference! Now every channel comes in clear as a bell with no noise or static. Yes, I'd like not to have to spend $45 a month for cable t.v., but I do enjoy some of their offerings.

mhardy6647 · #13 11-14-2008, 02:17 PM

Tell me about that DIY UHF antenna!
The converter-box reception was terrible here in my deep-fringe suburban location (with a fairly large Radio Shack UHF-VHF directional with rotator). I was thinking about trying something UHF only up in the attic before I give up).

bgadow · #14 11-15-2008, 10:30 PM

I don't think I've seen such clear pictures at my house as I've seen with a digital converter. Reception remains an issue, but when it's working, wow! I have a good outdoor antenna but not high enough-I need to borrow a taller ladder and see what I can do. I have a second setup, with a large UHF antenna in the attic. It works well for the 2 locals that have gone to full power. The real problem is that I only have those 2 (and their subchannels, so 4 altogether) that are reliable right now. We watch as much PBS as anything and I can't get any of them in digital until about 10 at night.