Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Anyone have a URL of a chart of what the final HDTV freqs will finally be?

After viewing a dozen web pages from searches, I have more questions
than answers ... be nice to be able to plot a few different antennas.

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:21:37 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Anyone have a URL of a chart of what the final HDTV freqs will finally be?

After viewing a dozen web pages from searches, I have more questions
than answers ... be nice to be able to plot a few different antennas.

I found this chart:
http://www.dtvprimer.com/DTVchannels.pdf
It looks correct for the few local HDTV stations, but is certainly
preliminary. No clue on the minor-channel layout as that's the
stations business, not the FCC's.

However, the actual channel number and the displayed channel number
might be different. See:
http://www.dtvprimer.com/freetv.html
in the section on PSIP (program and system info protocol) near the
bottom. If you understand what's happening, please let me know.

Incidentally, another wonderful feature of PSIP DCC (direct channel
change) is the ability to pre-record a collection of commericals in
the DVR, and later shove them in your face when you least want to see
them. Since many commercials are played over and over and over and
over again, why use valueable bandwidth sending them more than once?

Isn't technology wonderful?



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:21:37 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Anyone have a URL of a chart of what the final HDTV freqs will finally
be?

After viewing a dozen web pages from searches, I have more questions
than answers ... be nice to be able to plot a few different antennas.

I found this chart:
http://www.dtvprimer.com/DTVchannels.pdf
It looks correct for the few local HDTV stations, but is certainly
preliminary. No clue on the minor-channel layout as that's the
stations business, not the FCC's.

However, the actual channel number and the displayed channel number
might be different. See:
http://www.dtvprimer.com/freetv.html
in the section on PSIP (program and system info protocol) near the
bottom. If you understand what's happening, please let me know.

What is happening is that many TV stations have been assigned a
channel on which to broadcast their new DTV signal prior to Feb. 17,
2009 while at the same time remain broadcasting their NTSC video on
their original channel. The chart shows these two channel designations
in the first two channel columns, and in the last column it shows what
channel the TV station will end up on when Feb. 17 comes around. As
indicated, some stations will be moving their DTV broadcast from the
temporary channel assignment back to their original NTSC channel
assignment, and some stations will remain broadcasting the DTV signal
on the temporary channel, which becomes their new permanent channel.



Ed K7AAT

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Ed_G wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:21:37 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Anyone have a URL of a chart of what the final HDTV freqs will finally
be?

After viewing a dozen web pages from searches, I have more questions
than answers ... be nice to be able to plot a few different antennas.
I found this chart:
http://www.dtvprimer.com/DTVchannels.pdf
It looks correct for the few local HDTV stations, but is certainly
preliminary. No clue on the minor-channel layout as that's the
stations business, not the FCC's.

However, the actual channel number and the displayed channel number
might be different. See:
http://www.dtvprimer.com/freetv.html
in the section on PSIP (program and system info protocol) near the
bottom. If you understand what's happening, please let me know.

What is happening is that many TV stations have been assigned a
channel on which to broadcast their new DTV signal prior to Feb. 17,
2009 while at the same time remain broadcasting their NTSC video on
their original channel. The chart shows these two channel designations
in the first two channel columns, and in the last column it shows what
channel the TV station will end up on when Feb. 17 comes around. As
indicated, some stations will be moving their DTV broadcast from the
temporary channel assignment back to their original NTSC channel
assignment, and some stations will remain broadcasting the DTV signal
on the temporary channel, which becomes their new permanent channel.



Ed K7AAT

Here is the official ruling. There are 2 tables. The first is as of
now, the 2nd is effective 17 February 2009.

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2008/73/622/

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

.... and some stations will be transmitting DTV on a third channel (not the
present analog nor the present DTV channel)

I have also found that a number of stations have applied for changes (so far
they seem to be ERP changes) to what is contained in the eighth FCC report
of March 2008. One needs to go to the FCC site and enter call sign of each
station to find the present information.

A surprise to me is that the coverage contour for analog TV is 64 dBu and
for DTV is 41 dBu - a difference of 23 db. However, the reductions of ERP
do not seem to be that large. Stations that are now a bit weak may be
unusable after Feb. 2009.

73, Mac N8TT


J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed_G"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: Chart of HDTV freqs?


Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

snip

What is happening is that many TV stations have been assigned a
channel on which to broadcast their new DTV signal prior to Feb. 17,
2009 while at the same time remain broadcasting their NTSC video on
their original channel. The chart shows these two channel designations
in the first two channel columns, and in the last column it shows what
channel the TV station will end up on when Feb. 17 comes around. As
indicated, some stations will be moving their DTV broadcast from the
temporary channel assignment back to their original NTSC channel
assignment, and some stations will remain broadcasting the DTV signal
on the temporary channel, which becomes their new permanent channel.



Ed K7AAT

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Right now, the Analog channels that I get solid and noise free seem to be
subject to fades on their UHF DTV counterpart. Makes me wonder how it will
goof up the market when I won't be able to go back to analog as a back-up
when the DTV goes down.
"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
... and some stations will be transmitting DTV on a third channel (not the
present analog nor the present DTV channel)

I have also found that a number of stations have applied for changes (so
far
they seem to be ERP changes) to what is contained in the eighth FCC report
of March 2008. One needs to go to the FCC site and enter call sign of
each
station to find the present information.

A surprise to me is that the coverage contour for analog TV is 64 dBu and
for DTV is 41 dBu - a difference of 23 db. However, the reductions of ERP
do not seem to be that large. Stations that are now a bit weak may be
unusable after Feb. 2009.

73, Mac N8TT


J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed_G"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: Chart of HDTV freqs?


Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

snip

What is happening is that many TV stations have been assigned a
channel on which to broadcast their new DTV signal prior to Feb. 17,
2009 while at the same time remain broadcasting their NTSC video on
their original channel. The chart shows these two channel designations
in the first two channel columns, and in the last column it shows what
channel the TV station will end up on when Feb. 17 comes around. As
indicated, some stations will be moving their DTV broadcast from the
temporary channel assignment back to their original NTSC channel
assignment, and some stations will remain broadcasting the DTV signal
on the temporary channel, which becomes their new permanent channel.



Ed K7AAT

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

JB wrote:
Right now, the Analog channels that I get solid and noise free seem to be
subject to fades on their UHF DTV counterpart. Makes me wonder how it will
...
Ed K7AAT

Really? Something is quite wrong there!

Digital signals should require much less power to deliver the same
"quality" signal.

Indeed, digital is an upgrade to all existing systems. Listen to an
analog signal, then a digital signal--whether over hardwire (remember
the phone adds with the "dropping of a pin") or AM/SSB over RF ... can
you just imagine attempting an analog signal over a dial-up modem or
broadband? We would still be in the "internet stone-age!"

All that really does not take any thought at all ...

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Ed_G wrote:

...
What is happening is that many TV stations have been assigned a
channel on which to broadcast their new DTV signal prior to Feb. 17,
2009 while at the same time remain broadcasting their NTSC video on
their original channel. The chart shows these two channel designations
in the first two channel columns, and in the last column it shows what
channel the TV station will end up on when Feb. 17 comes around. As
indicated, some stations will be moving their DTV broadcast from the
temporary channel assignment back to their original NTSC channel
assignment, and some stations will remain broadcasting the DTV signal
on the temporary channel, which becomes their new permanent channel.



Ed K7AAT


Ed:

I am learning just what a "sticky wicket" this all is ... :-(

Thanks and,
regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Dave wrote:

...
Here is the official ruling. There are 2 tables. The first is as of
now, the 2nd is effective 17 February 2009.

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2008/73/622/


Dave:

I had not viewed this before your post, thanks!

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
... and some stations will be transmitting DTV on a third channel (not the
present analog nor the present DTV channel)

I have also found that a number of stations have applied for changes (so far
they seem to be ERP changes) to what is contained in the eighth FCC report
of March 2008. One needs to go to the FCC site and enter call sign of each
station to find the present information.

A surprise to me is that the coverage contour for analog TV is 64 dBu and
for DTV is 41 dBu - a difference of 23 db. However, the reductions of ERP
do not seem to be that large. Stations that are now a bit weak may be
unusable after Feb. 2009.

73, Mac N8TT

J:

Very good advice ...

Warm regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Really? Something is quite wrong there!

Digital signals should require much less power to deliver the same
"quality" signal.

JS-

Why do you say that?

You can't have a less-than perfect digital TV signal. There is no snow
because a weak digital signal's picture freezes or goes away. Therefore
there is no way to compare quality levels of less-than perfect pictures.

Most of the time my simple antenna picks up good HDTV. However there
are times when reception is poor, and I have to switch to the Analog
tuner. I'd rather have a little snow than no picture at all!

Fred

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Look at the spectra of the signals an compare the levels. More amplitude in
the sync pulse and average video than the ATSC pilot across the board from
what I'm seeing. Perhaps they are trying to get away with less. Perhaps
fooling around with tower work and dropping the power. Hard to tell with
the GUI meter and never had the service monitor up at the time. One is DTV
VHF HI that is a new one with no Analog so I lose it completely and 2 are
UHF that are fading on me from time to time where I have to punch to the
Analog broadcast, one of which is VHF. Generally more power is needed on
UHF to come up with comparable range.

"Fred McKenzie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Really? Something is quite wrong there!

Digital signals should require much less power to deliver the same
"quality" signal.

JS-

Why do you say that?

You can't have a less-than perfect digital TV signal. There is no snow
because a weak digital signal's picture freezes or goes away. Therefore
there is no way to compare quality levels of less-than perfect pictures.

Most of the time my simple antenna picks up good HDTV. However there
are times when reception is poor, and I have to switch to the Analog
tuner. I'd rather have a little snow than no picture at all!

Fred

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Fred McKenzie wrote:

...
Why do you say that?


Easy, with digital you are simply determining whether a signal is
present--or on (a binary one), on not--and off (a binary zero) ... an
analog signal contains much more data which can "screw up."

You can't have a less-than perfect digital TV signal. There is no snow
because a weak digital signal's picture freezes or goes away. Therefore
there is no way to compare quality levels of less-than perfect pictures.


Oh, yes you can, indeed, ever hear of "lossy data compaction?" It is
used for audio and video where not every bit/byte of data need to be
perfect--attempt that with an executable file and it fails ... the
program itself can "deduce" if the data is just "degraded" or is beyond
use and pass it along to the video/audio device or toss it as decided ...

Most of the time my simple antenna picks up good HDTV. However there
are times when reception is poor, and I have to switch to the Analog
tuner. I'd rather have a little snow than no picture at all!

As I say, something is wrong, and it may not be "all on your end", and
broadcast HDTV may need some upgrades to the software handling the
coding/decoding of the signals ... widespread usage, in the future, and
"fixes" along the way should provide a much improved system.

I have not had a chance to "experience" broadcast HDTV yet ... however,
the cable HDTV is much improved over old analog ...


Fred

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

John Smith wrote:

Fred McKenzie wrote:

Most of the time my simple antenna picks up good HDTV. However there
are times when reception is poor, and I have to switch to the Analog
tuner. I'd rather have a little snow than no picture at all!

As I say, something is wrong, and it may not be "all on your end", and
broadcast HDTV may need some upgrades to the software handling the
coding/decoding of the signals ... widespread usage, in the future, and
"fixes" along the way should provide a much improved system.

I experience the same phenomenon. My antenna is a UHF indoor bow tie dipole.
(All my HD channels are currently on UHF.) I am about 30 miles from the TV
tower which is at 1200'. My HDTV set can show signal bars like a cell phone.
Without moving the antenna or other surrounding objects, the signal will
sometimes slowly vary by one or two bars. If it goes down too far the
picture breaks up and quits. At other times the same station will give a
solid 3 or 4 bars.This happens on all channels. Perhaps atmospheric
movement? Lots of dust here in the desert. Any other ideas?

I have not had a chance to "experience" broadcast HDTV yet ...
however, the cable HDTV is much improved over old analog ...

I have cable HDTV on my other set in the family room. Surprisingly (to me)
the broadcast HDTV picture is superior in quality to the cable HDTV picture.
Perhaps Cox is using more compression to squeeze more channels in the line.

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

AJ Lake wrote:

...
I experience the same phenomenon. My antenna is a UHF indoor bow tie dipole.
(All my HD channels are currently on UHF.) I am about 30 miles from the TV
tower which is at 1200'. My HDTV set can show signal bars like a cell phone.
Without moving the antenna or other surrounding objects, the signal will
sometimes slowly vary by one or two bars. If it goes down too far the
picture breaks up and quits. At other times the same station will give a
solid 3 or 4 bars.This happens on all channels. Perhaps atmospheric
movement? Lots of dust here in the desert. Any other ideas?


Yes, ducting and "ghosting" of the signal(s) due to reflections, etc.--I
can see these as being a REAL problem. From your description(s), sounds
like "they" just took the exact-same
technology/encoding/decoding-schemes and implemented them onto broadcast
.... what works well with cable (a relatively "stable" signal NOT prone
to the effects stated above ...) may not work all that well with
broadcast ... sounds like some "upgrades" are already in order.

I have just assumed, up to this point, that the digital HDTV signal is
"packeted" ... however, unlike our broadband modems and satelite
internet, you cannot request for a corrupt packet to be "resent" to your
TV ... however, I am wondering if corrupt packets (or, seriously
degraded ones) are just being "tossed" rather than passed along to the
video/audio circuitry? Perhaps the software should assume that no
matter how degraded (or, at least seriously degraded packets) should be
passed on and the viewer be allowed to determine if it is of enough
worth, or not? It almost sounds like this would be preferable to
no-signal-at-all. But then your description of "the bars" beginning to
degrade would soon reach a point of "un-viewable signal" anyway?; so,
at this point, perhaps no-signal-at-all is preferable ... hmmm, I wonder?

I have not had a chance to "experience" broadcast HDTV yet ...
however, the cable HDTV is much improved over old analog ...

I have cable HDTV on my other set in the family room. Surprisingly (to me)
the broadcast HDTV picture is superior in quality to the cable HDTV picture.
Perhaps Cox is using more compression to squeeze more channels in the line.

Hmmmm, you have me all the more anxious to have HDTV implemented in my
area ... LOL!

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
... and some stations will be transmitting DTV on a third channel (not the
present analog nor the present DTV channel)

I have also found that a number of stations have applied for changes (so
far
they seem to be ERP changes) to what is contained in the eighth FCC report
of March 2008. One needs to go to the FCC site and enter call sign of
each
station to find the present information.

A surprise to me is that the coverage contour for analog TV is 64 dBu and
for DTV is 41 dBu - a difference of 23 db. However, the reductions of ERP
do not seem to be that large. Stations that are now a bit weak may be
unusable after Feb. 2009.

73, Mac N8TT

The DTV RF signal needs to be about 17 dB out of the noise to work and
produce a nice, clean picture. Analog TV RF signal needs to be about 40 dB
out of the noise for a snow-free picture on screen. Holy crap, that's 23
dB! Coincidence? I think not.

In my case, I get generally horrible analog performance from Los Angeles
stations, 124 miles away. However, I usually have a half-dozen digital
pictures from there and they are, of course, perfect whenever they come in.

By the way, the original question -- as if anybody really remembered it --
is answered he

http://rabbitears.info/market.php

That site has a grunch of data. See the links at the top. This guy is
working his butt off.

73,
"Sal" KD6VKW

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:


That site has a grunch [bunch] of data. See the links at the top. This guy is
working his butt off.

73,
"Sal" KD6VKW



Sal:

Excellent URL, well worth my looking over ... thanks, I will certainly
bookmark this one!

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

"Fred McKenzie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Really? Something is quite wrong there!

Digital signals should require much less power to deliver the same
"quality" signal.

JS-

Why do you say that?

You can't have a less-than perfect digital TV signal. There is no snow
because a weak digital signal's picture freezes or goes away. Therefore
there is no way to compare quality levels of less-than perfect pictures.

Well, there is, sorta. You do need much more analog signal to get a noise
free picture, compared to the level of digital signal you need for a good
"lock."

By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

John Smith wrote:
Easy, with digital you are simply determining whether a signal is
present--or on (a binary one), on not--and off (a binary zero) ... an
analog signal contains much more data which can "screw up."

OTOH, when the digital signal is neither a one nor a zero,
or the CRC doesn't check, it fails completely while the
analog signal is slowly fading away.

During Hurricane Ike, all the digital signals here failed
while the analog signals were still (noisily) providing
useful information.

I hear digital voice used on HF amateur radio has the
same problem.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Dear Sal:
Thank you. I should have taken the trouble to think about the
difference.
Thinking back to the extensive tests of (analog) TV performance that
were performed in the 50s, makes the 64 dBu understandable. At that time,
the noise-figures of TV sets were, by modern standards, poor. It was also
found - without surprise - that people would tolerate a poor picture is the
sound was OK, thus followed the preferred ratio of video to sound carrier.

As noise figures fell, many of us became accustomed to satisfactory
performance using simple, indoor antennas. That is another way of saying
that the ERP standards of the 50s were overkill in the 21st century. With
the advent of DTV, outside antennas will once again become the norm.

What seems to be missing - at least until competitive pressure catches
up - is an effective way to compare NF of TV sets or converter boxes. One
needs a box that presents a small-signal DTV signal.

Again, thanks. 73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:
"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
... and some stations will be transmitting DTV on a third channel (not
the
present analog nor the present DTV channel)

I have also found that a number of stations have applied for changes (so
far
they seem to be ERP changes) to what is contained in the eighth FCC
report
of March 2008. One needs to go to the FCC site and enter call sign of
each
station to find the present information.

A surprise to me is that the coverage contour for analog TV is 64 dBu and
for DTV is 41 dBu - a difference of 23 db. However, the reductions of
ERP
do not seem to be that large. Stations that are now a bit weak may be
unusable after Feb. 2009.

73, Mac N8TT

The DTV RF signal needs to be about 17 dB out of the noise to work and
produce a nice, clean picture. Analog TV RF signal needs to be about 40
dB
out of the noise for a snow-free picture on screen. Holy crap, that's 23
dB! Coincidence? I think not.

In my case, I get generally horrible analog performance from Los Angeles
stations, 124 miles away. However, I usually have a half-dozen digital
pictures from there and they are, of course, perfect whenever they come
in.

By the way, the original question -- as if anybody really remembered it --
is answered he

http://rabbitears.info/market.php

That site has a grunch of data. See the links at the top. This guy is
working his butt off.

73,
"Sal" KD6VKW

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
I hear digital voice used on HF amateur radio has the
same problem.

Amateur digital communications have one real and serious problem, they
have not adopted Ogg Vorbis as their standard digital
encryption/coding/decoding/error-checking "mode"--indeed, an actual
"superset" of Ogg Vorbis is needed for radio duplex communications ...
amateurs, in general, need be the "final designers"--that won't happen
until larger numbers are involved.

Ogg Vorbis is open source, free to use/implement in your own software,
it just doesn't get the blessing of the arrl and it can't be used as an
excuse to inflate prices ... :-(

Until that is established as a standard, Ogg Vorbis, (or, a "mode"
invented/designed/implemented with the same
redundancy/efficiency/fool-proof-ness), these problems will be of a
notable nature ... :-( How and when to request re-sending of error
packets, how many times these requests can be allowed, how long to hold
a packet in the buffers, how large of buffers to be used, size of the
packets allowed, etc., etc., etc will all need to be agreed upon in that
standard--so far NONE I HAVE SEEN ARE ADEQUATE--indeed, only one is on
the right track at all ... and, the standard can be designed to be
highly adaptable/upgradeable--with only firmware upgrades needed to
bring old hardware completely up-to-date (manufacturers will surely
attempt to get in control of this and be able to force the purchase of
new equip/planned-obsolescence by the denial of new "flash firmwares" or
designing new firmware upgrades in such a manner as make existing equip
unable to accept them, example, just make it too large for the present
memory(s) size(s) and disallow memory upgrades--you know, the "standard
stuff" already being done. grin)

While you and a buddy can use it between yourselves, or, you can attempt
to get your club interested ... it remains on the fringes ... I find
"digital hams" on the HF bands to be as rare as "chickens teeth", at
least ones working with decent digital transmission
software/algorithms/etc. ... :-(

There was a group of hams which broke away from all this are were going
to release open source code which would have to be accepted just because
of its' sheer efficiency and performance ... internal bickering and
outside pressures had/has brought its' progress to a crawl/halt at the
present time ... such "tinker-ings" gets the attention of high powers in
high places ... :-(

(or, is this all just my paranoia--I will allow you and the future to
decide ...) digital radio is coming ... it is just walking with a cane!
LOL

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

The neat thing about going full digital? You no longer have any idea why
the signal breaks up. PERIOD. The Customer is no longer bothered by
interference of any kind. Either it works or not. If your QSO, Phone Call,
Mayday, Police call for backup, TV signal gets knocked off the air, you
won't have a clue why.

I have experimented with Easy Pal Digi SSTV and DRM it is neat but I can
rarely get the S/N high enough for a complete transfer. Text is more
reliable, but it is hard for me to put my faith in a signal that sounds
clean and strong to my ear but with no result. I could have passed several
photos on MMSSTV with half the S/N and knew well what they were. Sometimes
getting the information through is more important than waiting for
conditions to get better to get it perfect.

I don't mind being a network admin. but being a radio op isn't quite dead
yet.

picture breaks up and quits. At other times the same station will give a
solid 3 or 4 bars.This happens on all channels. Perhaps atmospheric
movement? Lots of dust here in the desert. Any other ideas?


Yes, ducting and "ghosting" of the signal(s) due to reflections, etc.--I
can see these as being a REAL problem. From your description(s), sounds
like "they" just took the exact-same
technology/encoding/decoding-schemes and implemented them onto broadcast

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Amplitude Modulation of NTSC requires a LOT of signal to be noise free since
even a small amount of noise is visible.

We have no basis for comparison with ATSC other than by level, since we
don't have a way to discern between multipath, power line noise, deliberate
or any other kind of interference. How are we supposed to point the
antenna? With a stupid meter that takes 10 seconds to average? All I can
think of is to put it on a rotor and nudge it 2 degrees every 10 seconds
until the picture pops in. It is amazing what gets left out in the rush to
market.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice
picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital
signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

JB wrote:
The neat thing about going full digital? You no longer have any idea why
the signal breaks up. PERIOD. The Customer is no longer bothered by
interference of any kind. Either it works or not. If your QSO, Phone Call,
Mayday, Police call for backup, TV signal gets knocked off the air, you
won't have a clue why.


Actually, NOT. Even the simple bars on a cell phone tell you if
communication is possible or not. The software running on an up-to-date
rig can describe the exact reason to you, if your rig interfaces to your
computer screen ... not to mention broadcast HDTV is in its' infancy,
taking its' first baby-steps ... even if you give the avg. American TV
viewer this information, do you think he would know what to do about it?
For "those dummies" you will pretty much have to have the software
handle the problems ... or make simple recommendations, perhaps "MOVE
THE ANTENNA DUMMY", or "RAISE THE ANTENNA DUMMY", or "BUY A DECENT
EXTERNAL ANTENNA DUMMY", or "POSSIBLE SIGNAL REFLECTIONS ARE OCCURING,
MOVE/REPOSITION THE ANTENNA DUMMY", etc. ROFLOL!

I have experimented with Easy Pal Digi SSTV and DRM it is neat but I can
rarely get the S/N high enough for a complete transfer. Text is more
reliable, but it is hard for me to put my faith in a signal that sounds
clean and strong to my ear but with no result. I could have passed several
photos on MMSSTV with half the S/N and knew well what they were. Sometimes
getting the information through is more important than waiting for
conditions to get better to get it perfect.


If the binary signal just clears the noise floor, and not by much mind
you (I am hesitant to quote an exact figure here) a perfect signal is
quite possible ... that is simply the nature of digital.

I just don't know why anyone would claim that digital signals are not
MUCH superior to analog -- remember the old analog cell phones -- who
would ever wish to "go-back-there???" ... the only software I have used
with HF/VHF/UHF digital processing is open source ... I immediately made
modifications to the decoding/coding scheme (Ogg Vorbis), "packet hold
time" and size of the buffers and implemented my own CRC checking
(faster algorithm) ... however, others must get a copy of it from me and
we both share it or no communications are possible. I see amateur
software in the same light I see amateur antennas -- build your own or
have another amateur elmer/tutor/instruct/assist/share-with-you ... it
is just traditional and the true spirit of amateur radio ...

I don't mind being a network admin. but being a radio op isn't quite dead
yet.


I actually worked at the college I attended in the 1990's when I
returned to go "full into computers" (my previous degree was as in
electronic engineering), and before I began an intern position in my
field of study. My last few months, before receiving my diploma, the
actually created a new position for me, "Student Programmer", I was
actually quite proud of it--even though the "big boys" seen it as a
joke! LOL Being both a programmer and a network admin. assistant made
the job seem like "money for nothing", what other sys admins seen as
major problems and were on the phone to Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC)
over, for the VAX, I usually had fixed by the time the techs got there
.... made me rather "hated", really ... however, most finally came around
and asked for the perl-scripts and C programs I used to automate every
task I could find! ... common computer users worshiped us ... "some of
us" let this go to their heads ...

picture breaks up and quits. At other times the same station will give a
solid 3 or 4 bars.This happens on all channels. Perhaps atmospheric
movement? Lots of dust here in the desert. Any other ideas?


As I have said, I am anxious for it to be deployed in my area ... I am
already looking into "digital to analog conversion boxes" which I can
download the firmware from to "reverse engineer" and then flash open
source firmware into ... either by hook or by crook. grin

Only God can control atmospheric conditions (but then, there is HARRP
and other such projects which do SEEM to alter them), and who can stop
that neighbor from erecting that steel storage shed, building that
wrought iron fence, installing those bars on his windows, operating that
ham rig from his stealth antenna grin, etc? :-(

Yes, ducting and "ghosting" of the signal(s) due to reflections, etc.--I
can see these as being a REAL problem. From your description(s), sounds
like "they" just took the exact-same
technology/encoding/decoding-schemes and implemented them onto broadcast


Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

JB wrote:
... All I can
think of is to put it on a rotor and nudge it 2 degrees every 10 seconds
until the picture pops in. It is amazing what gets left out in the rush to
market.


Sounds to me you are approaching the real focus of the problem ...
especially that "rust to market" part ... ahhh, capitalism and its'
little annoyances. chuckle

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

John Smith wrote:

...
Sounds to me you are approaching the real focus of the problem ...
especially that "rust to market" part ... ahhh, capitalism and its'
little annoyances. chuckle

Regards,
JS

That "rust" thing, make it rush ...

Must have been a Freudian slip, and reflects the speed we can expect
improvements at ... LOL

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:41:49 GMT, "JB" wrote:

The neat thing about going full digital? You no longer have any idea why
the signal breaks up. PERIOD. The Customer is no longer bothered by
interference of any kind. Either it works or not. If your QSO, Phone Call,
Mayday, Police call for backup, TV signal gets knocked off the air, you
won't have a clue why.

Unfortunately, you're correct. I have considerable experience dealing
with various path impairment issues using various wireless
technologies, especially Wi-Fi. User will complain that they loose
connectivity, drop connections, suffer from erratic performance, and
generally see performance well below what would normally be expected.
The sources are many and varied. They're also very difficult to
identify. Quite a bit can be deduced with simple diagnostics (i.e.
ping stability, MAC layer packet loss, retransmissions) and from
determining the pattern (does it always die during meal times), but in
general, it's way beyond the capabilities of Joe Sixpack. I expect
much of the same with digital TV.

However, I'm not worried much about the RF issues. It will either
work or the customer can get cable or satellite TV. What I'm worried
about are all the added cables and incompatible technologies found on
the back of the HDTV sets and boxes. Another tangle of wires to deal
with.

Anyway, radio is magic. Maybe I should get one of those Halloween
pointed sorcerers hats with the stars and crescents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MGM_sorcererhat.jpg

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
The neat thing about going full digital? You no longer have any idea
why
the signal breaks up. PERIOD. The Customer is no longer bothered by
interference of any kind. Either it works or not. If your QSO, Phone
Call,
Mayday, Police call for backup, TV signal gets knocked off the air, you
won't have a clue why.


Actually, NOT. Even the simple bars on a cell phone tell you if
communication is possible or not.

That is all it can tell you.

The software running on an up-to-date
rig can describe the exact reason to you, if your rig interfaces to your
computer screen ...

Maybe you know of a secret diagnostic menu for my DTX9900?
If I remember correctly, all they know is RSSI and data errors. Please,
tell me if there are other indications that discern multipath, interference,
or any other reception problem without either sophisticated test equipment
or an analog indication - perhaps a color coded bar graph or channel
spectra that can react faster than the stream filling the buffer. I don't
know how ATSC handles error correction, but being a broadcast stream, I
would suppose only forward error correction is possible.

If the binary signal just clears the noise floor, and not by much mind
you (I am hesitant to quote an exact figure here) a perfect signal is
quite possible ... that is simply the nature of digital.

PACTOR yes, but I don't see that with DRM or ATSC at all. How is it that an
s9 signal isn't enough? I'm truly glad to have SSB so I can tell the other
station to resend the file again. The Universe isn't digital. Certainly
not radio. The signal, no matter what modulation scheme you use to improve
recovery of usable clipped and buffered data, is still in the realm of the
analog during transmission over the air. Ok, you might not understand that
if you are only the network guy and all your traffic worries start at the
protocol level as long as the Fiber box is energized.

don't know why anyone would claim that digital signals are not
MUCH superior to analog -- remember the old analog cell phones -- who
would ever wish to "go-back-there???"

Actually the best sounding mobile phone I ever had was my full-duplex 450
Motrac linked to a mountain top site with wide area direct dialing. No one
ever suspected I was mobile. But that was because my Analog link was better
than a voice grade phone line. Digital is great if you can find the
bandwidth, but great sacrifices and compromises have often been made in
audio quality for the sake of keeping the occupied bandwidth of the RF
channel within limits. What I am seeing on DTV, are stations that are doing
one 1080i or 720p stream on one RF channel with maybe 2 more streams of 480i
(often annoyingly compressed) OR up to 6 - 480i streams not so heavily
compressed. So I hate to disappoint you, that not all channels will be
better than analog until they find a way to do better than MPEG compression
and conversion from an NTSC source.

The move to digital cellular allowed channel re-use without having the
customer hear interference from co-channel sites so that many sites could be
used to communicate with many small handsets. Do you think that will be
much of an issue on Ham radio? Ham radio's greatest protection is in the
fact that it isn't supposed to compete with other services. No privacy is
needed or allowed either. If you copy the consumer model, you have no
amateur radio anymore. So I ask you sir, wouldn't you rather be using a
digital cell phone and leave the ham bands alone? Experimentation will
continue and things will be learned, people will contest and rag chew and
chase DX, but when ham radio for free is simple enough to compete with cell
phone services or a twisted pair, there will be a problem.

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

...
Unfortunately, you're correct. I have considerable experience dealing
with various path impairment issues using various wireless
technologies, especially Wi-Fi. User will complain that they loose
connectivity, drop connections, suffer from erratic performance, and
generally see performance well below what would normally be expected.
The sources are many and varied. They're also very difficult to
identify. Quite a bit can be deduced with simple diagnostics (i.e.
ping stability, MAC layer packet loss, retransmissions) and from
determining the pattern (does it always die during meal times), but in
general, it's way beyond the capabilities of Joe Sixpack. I expect
much of the same with digital TV.

However, I'm not worried much about the RF issues. It will either
work or the customer can get cable or satellite TV. What I'm worried
about are all the added cables and incompatible technologies found on
the back of the HDTV sets and boxes. Another tangle of wires to deal
with.

Anyway, radio is magic. Maybe I should get one of those Halloween
pointed sorcerers hats with the stars and crescents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MGM_sorcererhat.jpg


Yep, only buy wireless routers/switches here which allow connection to
"off board" antennas ... (i.e., external antennas)

IMHO, and humble experience, reflections only worsen with a raise in
frequency ... others mileage may vary ... and EVERYTHING you own, which
is metal/conductive, is a wavelength+ at Ghz!

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

JB wrote:


That is all it can tell you.


Think about it man! What more do you need ... I mean, I really can not
elaborate here, do you have children? Have them explain "it" to you ...

Maybe you know of a secret diagnostic menu for my DTX9900?
If I remember correctly, all they know is RSSI and data errors. Please,
tell me if there are other indications that discern multipath, interference,
or any other reception problem without either sophisticated test equipment
or an analog indication - perhaps a color coded bar graph or channel
spectra that can react faster than the stream filling the buffer. I don't
know how ATSC handles error correction, but being a broadcast stream, I
would suppose only forward error correction is possible.

Most, if not all, you have stated is really quite unnecessary, or
certainly should be, to a REAL amateur ... think about it, what error
correction have you ever had with your analog equipment. What error
messages did your Drake ever give you, your Hallicrafters, your Gonset,
your Johnson (no pun intended on your "natural gear", lol!), etc., etc.
.... however, count on MUCH MORE from digital equipment!

PACTOR yes, but I don't see that with DRM or ATSC at all. How is it that an
s9 signal isn't enough? I'm truly glad to have SSB so I can tell the other
station to resend the file again. The Universe isn't digital. Certainly
not radio. The signal, no matter what modulation scheme you use to improve
recovery of usable clipped and buffered data, is still in the realm of the
analog during transmission over the air. Ok, you might not understand that
if you are only the network guy and all your traffic worries start at the
protocol level as long as the Fiber box is energized.

Yanno', this "all" is getting too long, I feel like I am replying to an
idiot--now that isn't happening, is it?

Yanno', it sounds as if you have problems alright, I am beginning
digital equipment will neither make them better or worse--however, your
perception(s) may deceive you--think about a psychiatrist!


Actually the best sounding mobile phone I ever had was my full-duplex 450
Motrac linked to a mountain top site with wide area direct dialing. No one
ever suspected I was mobile. But that was because my Analog link was better
than a voice grade phone line. Digital is great if you can find the
bandwidth, but great sacrifices and compromises have often been made in
audio quality for the sake of keeping the occupied bandwidth of the RF
channel within limits. What I am seeing on DTV, are stations that are doing
one 1080i or 720p stream on one RF channel with maybe 2 more streams of 480i
(often annoyingly compressed) OR up to 6 - 480i streams not so heavily
compressed. So I hate to disappoint you, that not all channels will be
better than analog until they find a way to do better than MPEG compression
and conversion from an NTSC source.


Wow, the brass pounders would just love you ... let me see, you remind
me of "Art Bell -- Stuck In Times" ... hmmm, that is the title of that
book, isn't it? ROFLOL

Your arguments suck ... you jam technical details into matters where
your eyes would serve as proof enough ... are you taking your meds? Are
you doing so on schedule?

MP3, MPEG, etc., etc. provides a MINOR increase in preformance (well,
not really, but it is a not a point worth arguing, consider this a "bone
tossing") at the cost of paying patent holders -- believe me,
audio/video is SO SLOW Ogg Vorbis is much more than "TOO QUICK" for
available systems/processors ... sad-sad-pitiful-look

Yanno', as a teenager, I would only wear Levis, it is called "Brand Name
Addiction" ... I am a recovered addict ... I can't claim a twelve-step
program for my recovery, but hey ... LOL

The move to digital cellular allowed channel re-use without having the
customer hear interference from co-channel sites so that many sites could be
used to communicate with many small handsets. Do you think that will be
much of an issue on Ham radio? Ham radio's greatest protection is in the
fact that it isn't supposed to compete with other services. No privacy is
needed or allowed either. If you copy the consumer model, you have no
amateur radio anymore. So I ask you sir, wouldn't you rather be using a
digital cell phone and leave the ham bands alone? Experimentation will
continue and things will be learned, people will contest and rag chew and
chase DX, but when ham radio for free is simple enough to compete with cell
phone services or a twisted pair, there will be a problem.


Comparing analog to digital is almost an exact example to some idiot
attempting the comparison of a stone knife (obsidian actually) to a
LASER Scalpel ... I just don't know how to state that with more force
and certainty ... perhaps someone will get through to you at some future
date ... all you look like to me is an ignoramus with little knowledge
.... and living in "yesterday" -- sad really, very sad ...

If you ever awaken from that "tomb of stupidness" you are entombed in, I
bet you will be one embarrassed guy!

I'd say, you are just a "Stupid Brass Pounder" and an "arrl wannabe" ...
but then, I am guessing--I have no real psychic abilities ... ROFLOL, AGAIN!

Thanks for the laughs ...

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice
picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital
signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Digital: No lock and no indication of trying to lock (which is provided on
some receivers)

Analog: Recognizable signal, possibly with sound, probably with no color
and so much snow as to be unwatchable.

For the analog experiance, I am relying on bench tests I did with a TV
servicing generator. For baseline, I advanced the RF amplitude just to the
point where I had a snow-free picture. Next, I added 10 dB attenuators and
noted the results with each addition.

One: observable snow, no big deal
Two: Objectionable snow, this ain't good
Three: horrible snow, I can't watch this.
Four: Is there even a picture?

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:

...
Digital: No lock and no indication of trying to lock (which is provided on
some receivers)

Analog: Recognizable signal, possibly with sound, probably with no color
and so much snow as to be unwatchable.

For the analog experiance, I am relying on bench tests I did with a TV
servicing generator. For baseline, I advanced the RF amplitude just to the
point where I had a snow-free picture. Next, I added 10 dB attenuators and
noted the results with each addition.

One: observable snow, no big deal
Two: Objectionable snow, this ain't good
Three: horrible snow, I can't watch this.
Four: Is there even a picture?

Sal:

Forgive me, please; but, for a minute there, your words provided me with
a psychic vision ... grin

All these "youngsters" growing up around the internet and DVDs and MP3s,
expect perfect communications. Perhaps their homes did not even possess
a broadcast capable TV!

And, to them, the "quality of TV signal" we grew up with is horrifying,
indeed, too scary and mentally damaging to view!

Maybe it will just take them a bit of time to go through their denial
and be able to look upon such "ugly-ness" as a snowy picture with,
really, only usable audio as being "OK", and finally allow us to view
it? (I know, they will probably see us as being able to view childporn
in allowing such visual images to ACTUALLY enter our eyes! DEEP-FROWN
) HUGE-chuckle, and a grin

Perhaps then, they will finally allow such a digital signal though to
the circuitry? Ya' never know, ya' just never know ... blank-stare

Anyway ... this is a much more valid argument than that of an analog
signal EVER being more desirable to a digital one ...

Regards,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:25:35 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

IMHO, and humble experience, reflections only worsen with a raise in
frequency ... others mileage may vary ... and EVERYTHING you own, which
is metal/conductive, is a wavelength+ at Ghz!

If the US had gone with the DVB-T COFDM standard, instead of the ATSC
8VSB standard, we would have much better immunity to reflections.

OFDM is fairly immune to reflections, which appears as frequency
selective fading. If a few carriers end up cancelling with a
reflection, then COFDM still has 1700 or more carriers that continue
to pass data. With FEC, most of the data gets through. Something
like this:
http://www.navtechsystems.co.uk/services/micro_links/cofdm_dig_theory.html

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:18:39 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

All these "youngsters" growing up around the internet and DVDs and MP3s,
expect perfect communications. Perhaps their homes did not even possess
a broadcast capable TV!

Yep, it's a problem. I have two working record players and some vinyl
left over from my mis-spent youth. When the kids complain about
assorted digital audio oddities, I play a 78 rpm record for them. The
usual reaction is "What that hiss" or maybe "did you really listen to
that"? A few of the older kids have seen VCR quality, which they seem
to tolerate. However, the same kids will go ballistic if there are
any artifacts on their shinny new HDTV screen, their MP3 player
trashes a tune, or their streaming audio/video skips a beat. We have
raise a generation of connoisseurs.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
The neat thing about going full digital? You no longer have any idea why
the signal breaks up. PERIOD. The Customer is no longer bothered by
interference of any kind. Either it works or not. If your QSO, Phone
Call,
Mayday, Police call for backup, TV signal gets knocked off the air, you
won't have a clue why.


Actually, NOT. Even the simple bars on a cell phone tell you if
communication is possible or not. The software running on an up-to-date
rig can describe the exact reason to you, if your rig interfaces to your
computer screen ... not to mention broadcast HDTV is in its' infancy,
taking its' first baby-steps ... even if you give the avg. American TV
viewer this information, do you think he would know what to do about it?
For "those dummies" you will pretty much have to have the software handle
the problems ... or make simple recommendations, perhaps "MOVE THE ANTENNA
DUMMY", or "RAISE THE ANTENNA DUMMY", or "BUY A DECENT EXTERNAL ANTENNA
DUMMY", or "POSSIBLE SIGNAL REFLECTIONS ARE OCCURING, MOVE/REPOSITION THE
ANTENNA DUMMY", etc. ROFLOL!

I have experimented with Easy Pal Digi SSTV and DRM it is neat but I can
rarely get the S/N high enough for a complete transfer. Text is more
reliable, but it is hard for me to put my faith in a signal that sounds
clean and strong to my ear but with no result. I could have passed
several
photos on MMSSTV with half the S/N and knew well what they were.
Sometimes
getting the information through is more important than waiting for
conditions to get better to get it perfect.


If the binary signal just clears the noise floor, and not by much mind you
(I am hesitant to quote an exact figure here) a perfect signal is quite
possible ... that is simply the nature of digital.

I just don't know why anyone would claim that digital signals are not MUCH
superior to analog -- remember the old analog cell phones -- who would
ever wish to "go-back-there???" ... the only software I have used with
HF/VHF/UHF digital processing is open source ... I immediately made
modifications to the decoding/coding scheme (Ogg Vorbis), "packet hold
time" and size of the buffers and implemented my own CRC checking (faster
algorithm) ... however, others must get a copy of it from me and we both
share it or no communications are possible. I see amateur software in the
same light I see amateur antennas -- build your own or have another
amateur elmer/tutor/instruct/assist/share-with-you ... it is just
traditional and the true spirit of amateur radio ...

I don't mind being a network admin. but being a radio op isn't quite dead
yet.


I actually worked at the college I attended in the 1990's when I returned
to go "full into computers" (my previous degree was as in electronic
engineering), and before I began an intern position in my field of study.
My last few months, before receiving my diploma, the actually created a
new position for me, "Student Programmer", I was actually quite proud of
it--even though the "big boys" seen it as a joke! LOL Being both a
programmer and a network admin. assistant made the job seem like "money
for nothing", what other sys admins seen as major problems and were on the
phone to Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC) over, for the VAX, I usually had
fixed by the time the techs got there ... made me rather "hated", really
... however, most finally came around and asked for the perl-scripts and C
programs I used to automate every task I could find! ... common computer
users worshiped us ... "some of us" let this go to their heads ...

picture breaks up and quits. At other times the same station will give
a
solid 3 or 4 bars.This happens on all channels. Perhaps atmospheric
movement? Lots of dust here in the desert. Any other ideas?


As I have said, I am anxious for it to be deployed in my area ... I am
already looking into "digital to analog conversion boxes" which I can
download the firmware from to "reverse engineer" and then flash open
source firmware into ... either by hook or by crook. grin

Only God can control atmospheric conditions (but then, there is HARRP and
other such projects which do SEEM to alter them), and who can stop that
neighbor from erecting that steel storage shed, building that wrought iron
fence, installing those bars on his windows, operating that ham rig from
his stealth antenna grin, etc? :-(

Yes, ducting and "ghosting" of the signal(s) due to reflections, etc.--I
can see these as being a REAL problem. From your description(s), sounds
like "they" just took the exact-same
technology/encoding/decoding-schemes and implemented them onto broadcast


Regards,
JS

------------

My following comments are totally off topic and are the mutterings of an old
curmudgeon. You have been warned.

What the hell happened to the word "saw"? I seen this, or I seen that.
Folks, that isn't correct. How can you get through four years of college
without using the "saw", except for when referring to a woodworking tool?

It is - "I saw that". Not, "I seen that". For crying out loud!!! G

Ed Cregger

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:


That is all it can tell you.


Think about it man! What more do you need ... I mean, I really can not
elaborate here, do you have children? Have them explain "it" to you ...

You mean to say that if your radio says you can't talk on it, that should be
enough?
Are you a Mac salesman?

Maybe you know of a secret diagnostic menu for my DTX9900?
If I remember correctly, all they know is RSSI and data errors. Please,
tell me if there are other indications that discern multipath,
interference,
or any other reception problem without either sophisticated test
equipment
or an analog indication - perhaps a color coded bar graph or channel
spectra that can react faster than the stream filling the buffer. I
don't
know how ATSC handles error correction, but being a broadcast stream, I
would suppose only forward error correction is possible.

Most, if not all, you have stated is really quite unnecessary, or
certainly should be, to a REAL amateur ... think about it, what error
correction have you ever had with your analog equipment. What error
messages did your Drake ever give you, your Hallicrafters, your Gonset,
your Johnson (no pun intended on your "natural gear", lol!), etc., etc.
... however, count on MUCH MORE from digital equipment!

Error correction all happens in the analog computer AKA radio operator.

PACTOR yes, but I don't see that with DRM or ATSC at all. How is it
that an
s9 signal isn't enough? I'm truly glad to have SSB so I can tell the
other
station to resend the file again. The Universe isn't digital.
Certainly
not radio. The signal, no matter what modulation scheme you use to
improve
recovery of usable clipped and buffered data, is still in the realm of
the
analog during transmission over the air. Ok, you might not understand
that
if you are only the network guy and all your traffic worries start at
the
protocol level as long as the Fiber box is energized.

Yanno', this "all" is getting too long, I feel like I am replying to an
idiot--now that isn't happening, is it?

This is what happens when your religion is shaken.

Yanno', it sounds as if you have problems alright, I am beginning
digital equipment will neither make them better or worse--however, your
perception(s) may deceive you--think about a psychiatrist!


Actually the best sounding mobile phone I ever had was my full-duplex
450
Motrac linked to a mountain top site with wide area direct dialing. No
one
ever suspected I was mobile. But that was because my Analog link was
better
than a voice grade phone line. Digital is great if you can find the
bandwidth, but great sacrifices and compromises have often been made in
audio quality for the sake of keeping the occupied bandwidth of the RF
channel within limits. What I am seeing on DTV, are stations that are
doing
one 1080i or 720p stream on one RF channel with maybe 2 more streams of
480i
(often annoyingly compressed) OR up to 6 - 480i streams not so heavily
compressed. So I hate to disappoint you, that not all channels will be
better than analog until they find a way to do better than MPEG
compression
and conversion from an NTSC source.


Wow, the brass pounders would just love you ... let me see, you remind
me of "Art Bell -- Stuck In Times" ... hmmm, that is the title of that
book, isn't it? ROFLOL

Your arguments suck ... you jam technical details into matters where
your eyes would serve as proof enough ... are you taking your meds? Are
you doing so on schedule?

MP3, MPEG, etc., etc. provides a MINOR increase in preformance (well,
not really, but it is a not a point worth arguing, consider this a "bone
tossing") at the cost of paying patent holders -- believe me,
audio/video is SO SLOW Ogg Vorbis is much more than "TOO QUICK" for
available systems/processors ... sad-sad-pitiful-look

So make them change it! I didn't make the standards.

Yanno', as a teenager, I would only wear Levis, it is called "Brand Name
Addiction" ... I am a recovered addict ... I can't claim a twelve-step
program for my recovery, but hey ... LOL

I am the opposite. I never buy Levis or McDonalds. I have sales resistance
to junk.

The move to digital cellular allowed channel re-use without having the
customer hear interference from co-channel sites so that many sites
could be
used to communicate with many small handsets. Do you think that will be
much of an issue on Ham radio? Ham radio's greatest protection is in
the
fact that it isn't supposed to compete with other services. No privacy
is
needed or allowed either. If you copy the consumer model, you have no
amateur radio anymore. So I ask you sir, wouldn't you rather be using a
digital cell phone and leave the ham bands alone? Experimentation will
continue and things will be learned, people will contest and rag chew
and
chase DX, but when ham radio for free is simple enough to compete with
cell
phone services or a twisted pair, there will be a problem.


Comparing analog to digital is almost an exact example to


some idiot
attempting the comparison of a stone knife (obsidian actually) to a
LASER Scalpel ...
Who is making the comparison of a stone knife to a LASER Scalpel??

I just don't know how to state that with more force
and certainty ... perhaps someone will get through to you at some future
date ... all you look like to me is an ignoramus with little knowledge
... and living in "yesterday" -- sad really, very sad ...

If you ever awaken from that "tomb of stupidness" you are entombed in, I
bet you will be one embarrassed guy!

I'd say, you are just a "Stupid Brass Pounder" and an "arrl wannabe" ...
but then, I am guessing--I have no real psychic abilities ... ROFLOL,
AGAIN!

Thanks for the laughs ...

Regards,
JS

You have to look objectively at the advantages and disadvantages of both
unless your goal is to do away with the radio operator specifically, and
perhaps ham radio too. No license should be required at all to buy an "RF
data box complete with antenna and battery" then all we would need to do is
load our software and plug in the USB cable. If there aren't enough bars,
then we would need to "DO SOMETHING STUPID" or wait until there are enough
bars. Or just get bored and QSY to the Internet. I got it now... Viva la
revolucion! Won't get fooled again. Perhaps if you do away with all the
hams when you do away with ham radio, no one will remember how fun it was.

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

Ed Cregger wrote:

...
------------

My following comments are totally off topic and are the mutterings of an old
curmudgeon. You have been warned.

What the hell happened to the word "saw"? I seen this, or I seen that.
Folks, that isn't correct. How can you get through four years of college
without using the "saw", except for when referring to a woodworking tool?

It is - "I saw that". Not, "I seen that". For crying out loud!!! G

Ed Cregger



Sorry Ed, last time I seen my saw it was in the garage. Yanno', I'll
check, I bet it is still there! ;-)

Warm regards, and a chuckle,
JS

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:
By the old TASO standards, you need over 40 dB s/n to get a nice
picture,
which requires a lot more peak RF power. By comparison, the digital
signal
needs only about 17 dB s/n.

What happens at a 12 dB s/n for both? That's probably
what happened here during Hurricane Ike.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Digital: No lock and no indication of trying to lock (which is provided
on
some receivers)

Analog: Recognizable signal, possibly with sound, probably with no color
and so much snow as to be unwatchable.

For the analog experiance, I am relying on bench tests I did with a TV
servicing generator. For baseline, I advanced the RF amplitude just to
the
point where I had a snow-free picture. Next, I added 10 dB attenuators and
noted the results with each addition.

One: observable snow, no big deal
Two: Objectionable snow, this ain't good
Three: horrible snow, I can't watch this.
Four: Is there even a picture?

This is my experience too. 36 db S/N gives you a decent picture, 55-60db
S/N gives you a good fade margin for analog and a perfect picture (if
convergence and purity are capable)

For digital, 30 db S/N gives you a "perfect" picture if it is 1080i, or no
better and maybe worse if it is only 480i but you still need at least 50 db
S/N for fade margin or everything will break up when there is a 5-20 db
fade. At least with the Analog signal, you will still have audio during
deep fades.

Smith makes sense in light of consumers who only complain about what they
see. Most people won't be doing TV DXing. Tough luck for those who do.
There is a real big point about all the extra connectors as the
entertainment system grows. Lots of people needed to have someone hook it
up for them, and now complain about having to punch too many buttons on too
many remotes to get their picture and sound.

As a ham, I like to be able to do things the kids and consumers might not
want to be bothered with. If only ARRL would consider this concept. Ham
radio will never be a mainstream consumer product unless it ceases to be ham
radio completely.

Chart of HDTV freqs?
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:32:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
-snip- However, the same kids will go ballistic if there are
any artifacts on their shinny new HDTV screen, their MP3 player
trashes a tune, or their streaming audio/video skips a beat.

We have raise a generation of connoisseurs.

s/connoisseurs/whiners/