In my area (Lancaster PA), I receive ~20 stations.
Many of those stations are poor reception.  Either:
(a) The signal is too strong & I get multiple images.
(b) The signal is too weak, and I get static but still watchable.

Based upon feedback I've heard from Digital antenna users, many of
these stations will no longer be watchable.  (i.e. The digital decoder
will just "give up" and display a blank screen.)

Any truth to that?


I'd hate to think that, when I switch to Digital tv, I will no longer
be able to watch Lancaster tv (too strong a signal) or
Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore tv (too weak).  Sounds like analog
may have been the better system after all, since it will always produce
a watchable picture even if reception is Not ideal.

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is how it works with a cable box.  Analog cable with 'bad reception'
equals ghosting.  Digital cable with 'bad reception' equals a blank blue
screen.

With cable, the solution is to demand the problem gets fixed and keep
demanding it until the cable company finally gives up and hires an outside
company to fix the problem they are unable to fix with their own lines.

With over-the-air digital, your guess is as good as mine as to whom you
could complain to.  Basically, if lots of people in your area have the
problem, it will likely get fixed.  The fewer the number of people with the
problem, the more likely they are to just write you off completely.  So, if
you live in a canyon or on the wrong side of a big building or something,
you are screwed.

Obveeus wrote:
You can't really "fix" over-the-air reception.  It depends upon Nature
and nobody controls nature.  Result: Sometimes I can watch channel 17
even though its sixty miles away.  And sometimes I can't.  It varies
with the weather.



I just checked www.antennaweb.com ---- doesn't really answer my
question of "Will I be able to receive weak stations?"  But I did
notice some oddball things.  A lot of the analog stations don't seem to
have a digital equivalent.  In other words, they're not listed for my
17602 zipcode.

WTXF-29, WPSG-57, WPHL-17 (my only MNT affiliate), WITF-33, WHP-21,
WBAL-11, WJZ-13, WHYY-12 (pbs/classic movies channel)

So if I switch to a Digital Set, these stations will just disappear &
I'll never be able to watch them again.  That kinda sucks.  :-|

In article <1169659711.126435.101***@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote:
The answer depends a huge amount on your antenna and your receiver.

Some stations have yet to move to digital, although the clock is ticking
down on them.  However, if you get a digital set, most of them have some
limited ability to get analogue channels as well.

Note that most TV sets have lousy tuners that are designed as an afterthought,
with poor sensitivity and selectivity.  This is because everyone is expected
to have cable today.  Check out the RF section on a typical 1970 television
and a typical modern television and the degree things have regressed is
shocking.
--scott

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not true.  If you live near another 100,000 people with the same problem,
the chances are pretty good that the station will put in a bigger
transmitter to reach you or atleast some sort of relay signal boosting
transmitter in your area (subject to whatever laws apply, of course).  On
the other hand, if there are only a few hundred of you, the station really
isn't going to care and you are out of luck.

Realistically, I'm not sure this problem is any different than the coverage
for cell phones.  If enough people live in a specific area, providers will
make sure the signal gets to that area.  If not enough people live in that
area to make a tower/booster/whatever profitable, then those people are out
of luck...forever.

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

Tuners in digital TVs also still receive analog NTSC signals as well.
So, you will still receive those analog signals as long as the station
continues to transmit them.

UCLAN wrote:
But after Feb 2009, all those stations will disappear.  I won't be able
to receive them via the Digital tuner, because the signal is too weak.

Man.  Digital sucks.  I liked Analog better... fuzzy but I could still
watch Baltimore/Philly stations.

;-)

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

Wanna bet? ;)

And you know this...how? Are they transmitting their digital signal
yet? Is it stonger/weaker/the same strength as their analog signal?

Could be that no change is required, or be as simple as using a better
antenna.

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:
I would think that all those analogue stations will change to digital. You do
realize that practically no tv station broadcasting right now will just disappear?

The only concern I might think you would have is if say wanted to receive Philly
NBC and Baltimore NBC at the same time. But I also feel that they wouldn't be on
the same digital channel, like it may be different 4 digit numbers.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:32:17 -0800, ~consul
<con***@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteIf HD TV is anything like HD radio is turning out to be, what was
barely useable "fringe area" reception will totally disappear with all
digital.

Julian

Julian  <JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com> wrote:
No, it's actually not badly-designed.  Fringe performance may actually
be better than with the Japanese system, even.

IBOC-FM degrades to analogue in fringe areas, in part because the actual
digital carrier bandwidth is so low in order to shoehorn it on top of an
existing FM allocation.  That's not the case for the DTV.  Compare actual
coverage area between IBOC-FM and the Eureka-147 digital radio systems in
use in Europe, for instance.  Good coverage _is_ possible.

IBOC-AM has serious problems in both fringe areas and in town, because
it was designed by idiots who were given impossible requirements.  If it
doesn't destroy the AM band completely I'll be surprised.
--scott

On 2007-01-26 klu***@panix.com(ScottDorsey) said:
Already has for the most part, not that there's much there
worth listening to these days.

FOlks who depend on such former blowtorches as wwl NEw
ORleans when the weather gets weird along the gulf coast now
find they can't get good reception of wwl thanks to the iboc
stuff.

I miss the days when you could still get national sporting
events such as teh world SEries and superbowl on the radio.
SInce KMOX no longer is the flagship for the CArdinals
baseball team even getting cardinals games sucks, and I
should be able to hera them from near MEmphis.
Best outlet's a source on 1010 khz here in TEnnessee that is
poor at best, whetehr on the little ferrite loop am antenna
or on my hf ham radio rig with some wire in the air.  IT's
listenable for the game in the afternoon, but toward evening
...
IN Des MOines who should be good, at one time I can remember
riding down the road in this part of the world listening to
them just before sundown but these days even it's got a
poorer signal thanks to close by qrm from iboc.
DUmb idea mandated by bean counters to try to sell more crap
and maximize their short term bottom line at the expense of
all else.



Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for
dinner.  Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, consul wrote
(in article <epbb5h$7a***@gist.usc.edu>):

What?

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

Ty Ford wrote:
I meant that PhillyNBC would be fer example, 5014 and BaltimoreNBC would be
6813, the channels that it is broadcasted on. Or would the NBC for any given are
would only be one, which would not register any other, like a cell phone tower.

~consul wrote:

Was this written by Yogi Berra?

~consul wrote:
Uh.  What?  According to the FCC website, when 2009 arrives, Baltimore-
nbc will be channel 11.  Same as now.  And Philly-nbc will be channel
2.  Same as now.

Where did you come up with that 5012 and 6813 crap?
That's not even close to accurate.

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteI was giving examples of what the digital channel would be. For example, in Los
Angeles analogue NBC is 4. The digital NBC is a 4 digit number.

If there are two competing digital NBC signals in one area, like what you may
have in your area, it will have two different numbers for you to plug in, same
as you do now for analogue.

~consul wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteNo it isn't.
KNBC analog = 4
KNBC digital = 36

There's no four-digit number there.  I think you're either really
confused, or else we're not discussing the same topic.  (I am
discussing over-the-air reception with an antenna, not satellite, nor
cable.)


Here's the current situation for me:
Lancaster - nbc = 8
Baltimore - nbc = 11
Philadelphia - nbc = 10

All three of these channels overlap one another in my hometown
(southern lancaster county), and all showing the same NBC content. 
That statement will still be true, even after the switch to digital. 
I'll still be able to see all three of them, as long as the antenna is
properly adjusted.





















Show quoteHide quote

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, I meant to say 3 numbers, like when I plug in for KDOC, a PBS stations
it's 56.1, and that is entering 4 units, the numbers and the period. For NBC,
04.1 works as well as 36.

The 4 digit, despite whatever a digital tuner shortcuts uses, is using a 4 digit
dialing, so it can accommodate many more distinct digital channels.

At least as how I saw it.

But on that note, I was not disagreeing with you before. I was just saying that
no matter what you had before in analogue, you would still get those options in
digital.

If the signal was too weak, then one would bug the station broadcaster for a
stronger signal, which they may or may not, as they would have to factor in the
costs for the more power consumption vs any appreciable justification in the
budget due to advertisements.

My cell tower example was that in one location, you could have multiple signals
broadcasting in the same area w/o overlap.

~consul wrote:
Unless the signal is marginal.  A marginal analog signal (like 17 in
philly) can still be watched, despite the degradation to black & white
and blurry.

In contrast, a marginal digital signal won't show anything.

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

As you have been told, there is NO iron clad reason that a station that
transmits a marginal analog signal will also deliver a marginal digital
signal. Apples and oranges. The ONLY way to determine whether or not you
will receive a signal that is above your tuner's digital threshold is
to TRY. Many stations have even petitioned the FCC to transmit at an
increased power when forced to go all digital. You may be fretting over
nothing.

Yep...and if/when failure occurs, make the move to cable.

If that is true, it is a strong indication that the potential problem (no
usable over the air signal at all for some fringe areas when the world goes
digital) is very real.  It might be premature to panic, but it is also
assinine to spew off a series of 'this is a troll' posts as some have done.

Show quote Hide quote I'm on the other side of the world, and (no doubt) using a different
digital setup, but generally we are finding that digital is more reliable 
than analog in a fringe-reception area for some free-to-air.
Contrary to some advice given in this thread, it helps to have a decent
aerial, and new low-loss cable between the aerial and the tuner.
Both signals are coming from the same location. We have a fringe of trees
between us and the transmitter (30km away). Can't chop 'em down - 30m
high and someone else's property. When the trees are wet the free-to-air
disappears but not the digital. On the other hand, if there is a massive
rainstorm between us and the transmitter, then it all disappears :-)

Obveeus wrote:

KCBS or KNBC in Los Angeles (I forget which one) years ago issued a
brief to the FCC indicating that they had calculated a 40% drop in
their market if forced to transmit a digital signal from their current
transmitter site at their licensed power. I followed this story for
many months, but lost track of it. I assumed that the FCC saw things
the station's way. I can receive the analog signals of both KCBS and
KNBC (not well) from my coastal North San Diego County location. Not
yet set up to try for their digital signals.

The problem is real as a whole, but on an individual basis it is just
speculation.

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote...
Show quoteHide quoteI expect that digital television will be significantly worse
(i.e. nonexistent) compared to analog for marginal and DX
(long-distance) reception.

While there is some advantage to digital in terms of ability
to recover the data in less-than-ideal conditions, I suspect
that they will set the threshold pretty high (meaning only
good, strong, local stations) to avoid customer complaints.
DX performance has never been a "deliverable" for main-
stream consumer vendors.

Enjoy your DX while we are in the last days of analog
terrestrial broadcasting. It will be dead in a few years.
The FCC is already auctioning off the bandwidth to other
services.

Richard Crowley wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteIt was for radio stations WSM and KVOO.

The region I am in now gets roughly 25 HD channels, on a
rooftop antenna. That's actually an improvement over
NTSC, unless you put up a big mast to beat curvature.

Les Cargill wrote:
Hmmm.  How many do you get with the Analog tuner?

I'm using nothing exotic - just a setup antenna.  And I can receive 15
analog stations.  According to antennaweb, that number will drop to
only 5 when Digital takes over.

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteSomewhat less - say 18 or so.

Show quoteHide quote

A different, but more relevant subject to this forum is HIDEF Radio,
http://www.hidefradio.com/ , the Ibiquity scheme.

While Ibiquity it is beneficial to car radio reception, it's really a
complete scam to compare it in any way to CD quality. And in stationary
installations conventional FM is still better, because the digital artifacts
of Ibiquity at the low bitrates are objectionable.

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

Soundhaspriority wrote:

To what forum? This thread - as well as your response - was
cross posted to FOUR newsgroups, three of which were video
related. If you consider the Dolby 5.1 being transmitted with
many digital TV stations, it's an audio subject as well.

Quite right. My apologies. Would you like me to restrict '"Ibiquity" to
rec.audio.pro?

Regards,
Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

Soundhaspriority wrote:
Whoever named that site made a mistake.
HD radio = Hybrid Digital radio.  *not* hi-def.

As for the actual quality, FM is only broadcasting at 128 kbits/second
or even 96 kbps.  How is that any way considered "good"???  128 sucks
and to my ears sounds worse than analog FM.

Soundhaspriority wrote:
Whoever named that site made a mistake.
HD radio = Hybrid Digital radio.  *not* hi-def.

As for the actual quality, FM is only broadcasting at 128 kbits/second
or even 96 kbps.  How is that any way considered "good"???   128 sucks
and to my ears sounds worse than analog FM.

I'm all for upgrading to new standards if they are an improvement (like
hi def tv), but this Hybrid Digital scheme will either be Worse, or
Identical in quality, to what we have now!!!!  What a ripoff for the
american consumers.

On 25 Jan 2007 06:46:05 -0800, fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

I'm not sure what it really stands for but it is obviously a ploy to
get consumers think it is hi-def when in fact it is not.

It is 96, not 128 but it sounds better than 128 kbps mp3 IMO.  When
stations use multiple program streams on the same channel however they
must divide the 96 up. like 64, 32, or 32, 32, 32.  A 64kbps HD
channel sounds almost as good as 96 on but 32 sucks big time.

Julian

Julian wrote:
Heh.  Better-sounding crap is still crap.  To my ears, music does not
become "transparent" until it hits 256 kbps.  And in some cases, 340
kbps.  Anything below that, and I can hear digital artifacts.

No 96kbps radio is going to fool me into thinking it's "cd
quality" (what Hybrid Digital proponents claim).  Why can't they just
leave radio alone?  It was fine the way it was with the analog FM and
AM Stereo

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

It depends on your antenna. The digital signal will not "fade out"
as does an analog signal. It will either be there, or it won't - with
a rather nasty period of "pixelization" or "freeze-frame" at the
weakest possible signal point (before it completely disappears.)

Your digital TV will also receive those analog signals.

UCLAN wrote:
Even after the February 2009 shut-off date?  Then my favorite
Philly/Baltimore/Wilmington stations will disappear.

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote:
I seriously doubt that.  They will be making the digital transition as
well.

Now, YOUR question is how much additional signal strength will you need to
receive these stations properly, compared with what you need to see their
analogue carriers today.  A secondary question is whether you can get that
additional strength with an improved antenna or taller mast.
--scott

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Not on my set.  60 miles is okay for analog viewing, but will be too
far for digital reception.  (According to antennaweb.org.)



I guess?  I wouldn't even know how to begin answering that question.
Especially since I don't control the power output at TV Hill,
Baltimore.



antennaweb.org seems to think 'no'.
17602 is my zip if you want to doublecheck.

I'm rather disappointed with this whole affair.  I currently get 15
analog stations (and with nothing more than a settop antenna).  After
2009's digital transition, that will drop to only 4-5 stations.  I'm
starting to feel anger towards the FCC for this debacle.

Show quoteHide quote

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteHow does antennaweb.org know?  They have no idea what kind of antenna
system you have.  I don't either.

That's the question you need to answer and until you can answer that
question, you don't have any clue what to expect.

You don't control the power output at the transmit site, but you DO control
the antenna gain, pattern, and height on your end.

How does it know?

So get a decent antenna system and throw out the set top antenna.  Remember
that you can count on 10 dB for every 10 feet you raise the antenna in a
typical environment.  Add on to that the antenna gain, and you will be
amazed at how much a real antenna system actually buys you in terms of
signal strength at the input to the tuner.

60 miles is nothing.  Hell, I regularly listen to FM radio from Washington
DC, 200 miles away over flat terrain with high ground conductivity.  I
just have a good antenna.
--scott

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:
  If I may put up a late post here: baloney. There are many people who
get digital stations at 70, 80 or even 100+ miles if they live at a high
enough elevation. Digital broadcasting - with the right antenna setup -
is far better than analog for people who live at the outer fringe.

  Almost all digital stations are currently broadcasting on UHF because
analog takes up most of the VHF slots. Many stations, including ones
currently broadcasting their analog channel at low VHF channels 2 to 6,
will stay at UHF for their digital signal after the analog shutdown in
2009. Many upper VHF 7 to 13 stations will switch their digital signal
to their current VHF channel in 2009.

  So the key to digital reception is a good UHF antenna and in many
areas, capability to receive the upper VHF channels as well. You can
find the list of the channel selections after the analog shutdown at the
FCC website (http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/).

  Antennaweb.org for whatever reason is VERY conservative on digital
reception. When entering your zip or the whole address, click on the
options link and enter an antenna height of 100 or 200 feet. I have to
enter 150' for my street address to get a close match of the digital
stations I get with a medium range antenna in my attic. If the antenna
was on the roof, I would get several more stations.

  One issue in many smaller markets and rural areas is that many
stations are still at low power on the digital signal. Low power
stations and translators are still almost all only analog. As the
shutdown approaches, many of the low power stations and translators will
do "flash-cut" conversion - that is, kill the analog signal and go full
digital.

  Get a recent generation digital ATSC tuner, a good antenna, and
presto, you are usually in business. I get 17 digital stations over the
air out to 50 miles with a $25+ Channel Master 4221 4 Bay UHF antenna
and have another 3 I could get if I wanted to bother with a rotator (but
these are SD only minor stations). On analog, many of the more distant
stations are noisy with poor pictures.

  Digital ATSC broadcasting, once we finally get ALL the stations at
full power is easily superior to analog NTSC in getting distant stations.

  Alan F

On 1/24/2007, fred_h_had***@yahoo.com posted this:
A minor correction here. The multiple images are not due to a strong
signal but to a multipath signal. Because of "reflectors" in your area
(i.e., things such as tall buildings that literally reflect the TV
signal), you are getting the signal directly from the station's antenna
and also getting one or more reflected signals. Of course, the
reflected signals, since they are coming to you over a longer path,
take longer to get to your receiving antenna and show up therefore as a
ghost of the first signal.

The presence of signals coming to you over two or more paths is the
reason the phenomenon is called "multipath", naturally.

I always enjoy it when the most noticeable reflection is from an
airplane flying nearby - the ghost can vary in strength and timing,
making for a kind of dance on the screen. I've got a touch of
masochism, I guess.

<SNIP>

My experience, derived from 4+ years of watching DTT in the UK, is that the
digital service is generally superior to analogue; and this despite the low
ERPs emitted by digital transmitters in the currrent digital / analogue
hybrid situation. I expect the service to improve when the analogue
transmitters are switched off and the digital transmitters can output at
full power.

....Peter

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Show quoteHide quote

Peter Kendell wrote:

What helps that, when it's received half-powered??

I mean, you need extra power at home, to receive something at all. How
much Power do you need more????????

When the digital TV were effective as the digital usenet is, I would
say nothing, but so it is just a waste of energy and in my Eyes a more
worse quality as well....
even if it were better (which is impossible with digital tech, so far
the CPU is not becoming infinite fast)... the argument stays: "analog
is cheaper and quite well!". More 'Modern'... etc.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:32:14 -0500, fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote
(in article <1169656334.409479.230***@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>):

Show quoteHide quoteThere is no such thing as a digital antenna for Digital TV. That's all hype.

Digital TV does mute (blank) when multipath confuses the receiver front end.
I get that here in Baltimore with my HDTV receiver where I'm about 8 miles
from TV Hill. 

I went to a set of rabbit ears to reduce the amount of RF getting to the
receiver and that fixed the problem. Rabbit ear placement is critical and it
took a bit of experimentation to get the right spot.

Try rabbit ears for the local OTA stuff.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

Ty Ford wrote:
(1) I never used the words "digital antenna".  I used the phrase
"digital tuner" which refers to the new ATSC standard.

(2) There is such a thing as digital tv.  It uses 1s and 0s to
represent the picture (like a DVD), instead of the old analog format
invented in the 1940s.



That sucks.  I fear the same will be true with Lancaster where I'm only
about 5 miles from the WGAL-8 transmitter.

Vice-versa, I won't be able to watch any Baltimore stations (as I do
now), because the digital signal will be too weak.  60 miles is no big
deal for an analog tuner, but the digital tuner won't accept it.



I'll keep that in mind!  Thanks..  :-)

In article <1169737231.681000.75***@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

Show quoteHide quote1930s, I suspect. The BBC had regular TV broadcasts starting in 1936,
with 405 lines. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/405_line

-- tim

Tim Streater  <tim.strea***@dante.org.uk> wrote:
405 line standard is gone.  The American NTSC standard wasn't really
finalized until 1939, and it was used for the World's Fair broadcasts.

However, the current timing and waveform dates back to 1954, when the
frame rate and blanking were altered a little bit in order to make room
for the color subcarrier.  A TV set from 1939 will have no problem getting
modern analogue TV broadcasts, however there is no guarantee that a modern
TV set, taken back to 1939, would properly lock on to the broadcasts then.

The British 405 line standard may predate NTSC by a little bit.  For some
info on that, go to www.405alive.com.
--scott

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you see ghosts when you watch the analogue channel?  If you don't see
ghosts, multipath is a non-issue.  If you DO see ghosts, fix your antenna
system so you don't.

60 miles can be a lot or a little, depending on where those 60 miles are.
You need to know actual signal strength at the antenna terminals before
you can make any estimate about what to expect.
--scott

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:00:40 -0500, fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote
(in article <1169737231.681000.75***@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

Show quoteHide quoteI wasn't being conteniouos.I was explaining.
I know. You know I know.

Maybe, maybe not. Yes, so far long range may be a problem for DTV. For me,
the rabbit ears allow less RF into the set. That seems to help.

No Prob.

Ty



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

The digital tuner may need a better antenna. It doesn't know that you
have learned to accept fuzzy, snowy video. I simply bought a better
set-top indoor antenna, and get great reception from stations 60-70
miles away. Their digital counterparts? Don't know yet. Many stations
have petitioned the FCC for tower site changes or transmitter power
upgrades for their digital transmissions. Bottom line is you don't
know if you'll receive them until you try.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:54:35 -0500, UCLAN wrote
(in article <hG9uh.2688$4W5.***@newsfe10.phx>):

That's right. ::Envisioning the return of the big-ass Yagi::

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

<fred_h_had***@yahoo.com> wrote:


The analogue television format was invented in 1925 by J.L.Baird.

By 1936 the BBC was broadcasting analogue televison in the format we
currently use;  it had been developed by a team which included
A.D.Blumlein, the inventor of stereo disc recording.

Adrian Tuddenham <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not really.  That was the 405-line standard which is no longer in use
in the UK.  The current frame rate, synch standard, and channel
allocations in the UK didn't come about until the change to color,
unlike in the US where we are still using a modification of the original
1939 standard.

For a while you could buy TV sets in the UK which were switchable between
405 and 625 line standards and the amount of rube goldberg stuff required
to do that was amazing.
--scott

klu***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

The UK changed to 625 line quite some time before PAL hut the
air. This was more due to EU than anything else.

Multi standard sets are the ONLY ones you can sell in EU.

For extra cookies:

What was the first official BBC colour broadcast?

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
--  See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm  ----

In article <87tzyeq92o.***@k9.prep.synonet.com>,
Paul Repacholi <p***@prep.synonet.com> wrote:

Yes in the '60s.

Not sure what you mean by this, the EU didn't exist then.

And this is what allows me to watch NTSC tapes here. The VCR converts it
to pseudo-PAL colour, and the TV syncs to 60Hz, 525 lines.

Oh go on, tell us! You know you want to!

-- tim

Tim Streater <tim.strea***@dante.org.uk> writes:

"The Black and White Minstral's Show"

What else they cry!!

BTW, a friend was running a TV station in Latvia pre WWII.

In article <87ps8wim9s.***@k9.prep.synonet.com>,
Paul Repacholi <p***@prep.synonet.com> wrote:

"The first [British colour] programme was a four-hour live broadcast of
day 6 of the Wimbledon Tennis Championship"

timepixdc wrote:

Hi!


I guess that broadcast you tell about, was smoother and more fluent
than today Dig. Flat-Vision.


;-)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

In article <1hsipfp.1v1hhqrz8j5hyN%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid>, poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
His version was mechanical, the TV system that you and i have used for the
last 75 + years is electronic teleision which was invented ny Philo T
Farnsworth. Bairds electronic Tv didnt work as good and the bbc liscenced
Philo's tech.

Read this chapter from the book

The Boy Who Invented Television
A Story of Inspiration, Persistence, and Quiet Passion
by Paul Schatzkin


http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-part08.html



Show quoteHide quote

GMAN wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteAlso:

Tube: The Invention of Television
by David E. Fisher, Marshall Jon Fisher

In article <45b96cb9$0$8925$4c368***@roadrunner.com>, uh***@nope.com wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteUm, did you even read the chapter i linked to?

Show quote Hide quote The basic principle to enable all transmissions of pictures by electrical
means was developed by the Russo-German Student Nipkov around the turn of
the previous century.

He developed the idea of dividing the image into lines, scanned one by one
and transmitted sequentially.

Baird would have got nowhere without the Nipkov disc and the photosensitive
cell. However in Nipkov's time there were only 'electrics', no electronics
to amplify the weak signals.

Max.

In article <1169656334.409479.230***@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
fred_h_had***@yahoo.com wrote:

Here you need a directed antenna able to sort out multiple reception.

This is generally true: Digital is better as it can restore the original
signal, IF and only if the signal to noise ratio is above a certain
level. Below it will degrade rapidly, and it is in this area that analog
is better.

Marc

Computer won't recognize Panasonic PV-GS400
how to grab raw dv from camcorder to XP
TV to MiniDV tape?
Safe to buy a used GL2
Record to your hard drive and burn to DVD in one camcorder
Sony TRV57 shows red dot instead of "REC"
Sony TRV57 shows red dot instead of "REC"
How to create a short clip from a .VOD file?
Help: View Video In?
New Vegas update released - 7.0d