Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Where are the DX hdtv recivers? (USA, Canada & Carrabean)
"http://CBC.am/" wrote:
Where are the DX hdtv recivers? HD signals do propagate outside their intended markets, to the delight of DXers. Yet no one has created a ASTC DX reciver. To verify DX, all you need is some slow speed data -- and maybe some CC captions. There is no slow speed data in an ATSC signal. Verifying that an 8VSB/ATSC signal is present is easy: just look for the carrier at the assigned frequency. This differs from an NTSC signal in teh same channel. You could also use an autocorrelator and look for the 511 bit PN sequence. But there is no way to do anything more without getting the whole bitstream. Doug McDonald |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"http://CBC.am/" wrote: Where are the DX hdtv recivers? I should add that some DTV receivers, certainly the Samsung T-151, will give you an indication that an ATSC signal is there at a far lower C/N than is needed to decode it: 1) the green light will blink if you key in the channel 2) if you do a channel scan, it will pause several seconds at any channel where an ATSC signal is present even if it it too weak. One more test: you can also design a circuit that will sync onto the 5.375 mHz symbol clock in the demodulated baseband signal, or even in the IF signal, at far less than the C/N needed to decode it, but not as low as just seeing the carrier. This is of course useful in doing an autocorellation, or a cross corellation with the known 511 PN sequence. Doug McDonald |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
I suppose you could design a receiver to decode only the PMT (Program Map Table). This table contains the name the station has assigned to each virtual channel. At many stations this name is, or includes, the FCC-assigned call letters. At others, it may contain a slogan that includes the station's analog channel number and may conclusively identify the station. This table is relatively small (compared to enough I and P frames to build a picture, especially a picture that includes any identifying information!) so it might decode more easily than the signal itself. Computer code to decode everything is readily available free from the Gnu project. You just need to feed it the baseband signal through a suitably fast PC ADC card. DXers using the Hauppauge WinTV-D card have noted that these "text IDs" can be decoded with a signal that's too weak and/or interference-laden to yield intelligible audio/video. For example, the only verified reception of DTV via sporadic-E involved decoding of KOTA-DT's PMT. No intelligible audio or video was received. Some commercial boxes also can get channel mappings (which can help identify a station) well before they lock onto the MPEG. As Doug McDonald suggests, you can detect the *presence* of a DTV signal by looking for the carrier. It's 310KHz above the bottom of the channel - for example, 476.31MHz for a DTV station on channel 15. Unfortunately you can't tell *which* DTV station you're receiving the carrier from... Is that clear, or are there frequency offsets that can be used? [0] I realize Europe is using a different DTV standard. It seems to me the level of difficulty in getting a small transmitter to work is independent of the 8VSB/COFDM issue. -- Yes. A transmitter is easier than a receiver. You just need to feed it the MPEG encoded stuff, which is the same in Europe or the US (except of course the vertical frequency). Doug McDonald |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Doug McDonald wrote:
As Doug McDonald suggests, you can detect the *presence* of a DTV signal by looking for the carrier. It's 310KHz above the bottom of the channel - for example, 476.31MHz for a DTV station on channel 15. Unfortunately you can't tell *which* DTV station you're receiving the carrier from... Is that clear, or are there frequency offsets that can be used? A limited number of channel allocations are marked with "c" in the table. This requires their carrier to be offset by some specific value (with five significant figures which I can't remember...) from an adjacent-channel analog station. I would suppose that means their carriers may be 300 or 320KHz up depending on the offset of the analog station. There are very few such allocations - none here in the Nashville area. Yes. A transmitter is easier than a receiver. You just need to feed it the MPEG encoded stuff, which is the same in Europe or the US (except of course the vertical frequency). Their designs included the MPEG encoder. http://www.von-info.ch/hb9afo/datv_e.htm http://www.datv-agaf.de/ (latter site mostly in German. It indicates they're selling the cards for amateur applications for "slightly higher costs" than 750 euros. (roughly equivalent to $750)) If I read things properly - and I may not - these cards are capable of generating an ATSC-compatible 8VSB signal from an analog NTSC input. Probably no PSIP though which could be a problem with most receivers. They're using satellite receivers, sometimes with preamps attached, for their receivers. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message ... Where are the DX hdtv recivers? HD signals do propagate outside their intended markets, to the delight of DXers. Yet no one has created a ASTC DX reciver. Any ATSC receiver can pick up DX. All you need sometimes is a set of rabbit ears to pick up DTV stations up to 100 miles away. At least that's what some guy in New York City got when he received a Philadelphia station. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Drewdawg wrote:
Any ATSC receiver can pick up DX. All you need sometimes is a set of rabbit ears to pick up DTV stations up to 100 miles away. At least that's what some guy in New York City got when he received a Philadelphia station. Yep, very true indeed. Last summer I ROUTINELY watched WRTV (Ch 25) in Indy from 108 miles away. But ... it's a maximized power station on a tall tower, and there is the very wide Wabash valley right where the earth's crest is. The other Indy stations are much more rarely visible, and, surprise surprise, I've never seen the one I really want, Channel 9 (CBS). Doug McDonald |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Doug McDonald wrote:
Drewdawg wrote: Any ATSC receiver can pick up DX. All you need sometimes is a set of rabbit ears to pick up DTV stations up to 100 miles away. At least that's what some guy in New York City got when he received a Philadelphia station. Yep, very true indeed. Last summer I ROUTINELY watched WRTV (Ch 25) in Indy from 108 miles away. But ... it's a maximized power station on a tall tower, and there is the very wide Wabash valley right where the earth's crest is. The other Indy stations are much more rarely visible, and, surprise surprise, I've never seen the one I really want, Channel 9 (CBS). One item of note: I live on the east side of Indy, significantly farther than 10miles from the antenna farm. Channel 9 is BY FAR the easiest of the 5-6 (or more) DTV channels for me to receive. The simple indoor rabbit ears for myi Hi-VHF reception seem to require no augmentation for optimum performance (while the reception of the UHF stations is either slightly or significantly more problematical.) Luckily, Ch9 isn't being starved by using a 2kW or other nonsensical power level. Frankly, if the transmitter was 100kW or somesuch, it would be incredibly fantastically easy to receive :-). Note: my current set-up does indeed use a preamp on the dipole, but because of the diplexer that I use to combine with the UHF reception, and I only use a 13dB gain (good quality) preamp to mitigate the subsequent losses. Ch9 was the first signal that I received with my DTC100 survey receiver, and it was almost impossible to fail to receive. It is amazing for a 19kW transmitter, that the signal is easy to receive. However, the relatively lower frequency and high true gain of simple dipoles at the Ch9 frequency seems to help. (I know that you know this, but others might not realize: It is easy to be seduced by the 'high gain' of UHF antenna designs, but non-RF types need to understand that the gain is specified relative to an isotopic or dipole -- and at high frequencies, the gathering capability of such antennas is significantly reduced, because of the smaller area.) Ch8/Ch9 is (by far) the best source for HDTV in Indy, but the other stations are getting better. John |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
John Dyson wrote:
eceive. It is amazing for a 19kW transmitter, that the signal is easy to receive. However, the relatively lower frequency and high true gain of simple dipoles at the Ch9 frequency seems to help. (I know that you know this, but others might not realize: It is easy to be seduced by the 'high gain' of UHF antenna designs, but non-RF types need to understand that the gain is specified relative to an isotopic or dipole -- and at high frequencies, the gathering capability of such antennas is significantly reduced, because of the smaller area.) Ch8/Ch9 is (by far) the best source for HDTV in Indy, but the other stations are getting better. It's not the best for us in the far field, however. This is because its extremely easy for us to get an antenna with huge gain on the UHF channels, one that is about the same size as a Ch. 9 dipole. To get the same gain with Ch. 9 requires the same design antenna, hence a truly gigantic one. If it were 1 MW or even 316 kW, it would be easy. Doug McDonald |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
jury-rigging radio antenna for HDTV use? | Antenna | |||
Canada, wildlife enforcement frequencies ??? | Scanner | |||
Aurora : canada, finland only | Dx | |||
Aurora : canada, finland only | Dx | |||
Radio Amateurs of Canada - Morse Code Survey Results Published | Policy |