Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo (mostly)

[hTrag428]

Hi All

I am brand new here. This is my first post.

First, my location can be found here.

I have just hired a professional who has installed a tower and single 8-bay antenna pointed toward WKBW (about 122 degrees). The line is currently split at a 4-way into 4 tuners, one HDTV, one digital converter box, and two PC tuners (both ATI TV Wonder HD 650).

With that setup, I am receiving the following (in more-or-less clockwise order):

(Toronto -- 42°)
9 CFTO CTV
19 CICA TVO
20 CBLT CBC
25 CBLFT CBC French
41 CIII Global
*44 CITY Ind
*47 CFMT Omni1
*51 CJMT Omni2
*66 CKXT Sun

(Rochester -- 93°)
**45 WROC CBS

(Buffalo -- ranges from 103° to 149°)
14 WUTV Fox
32 WNLO CW
43 WNED PBS
**23 WPXJ Ion
**49 WNYO MyTV
33 WGRZ NBC
39 WIVB CBS
38 WKBW ABC
26 WNYB Ind

(Hamilton -- 108°)
11 CHCH Ind
*15 CKXT repeater Sun
36 CITS Ind

(Syracuse -- not sure of the exact direction)
**24 WSTM NBC

(Paris -- 274°)
*6 CIII repeater Global
28 CICO (CICA repeater) TVO

(Kitchener -- 288°)
13 CKCO CTV

*Stations marked with asterisks are less stable. Either they drop out a lot, or they are only coming in on one tuner and not another, or only at certain times of day. **Two asterisks means worse in that regard.

Here are the problems:

1. Huge house; huge family; many, many TV's & tuners... No way that a rotator will ever be possible.

2. I am certain that I will need at least one more antenna, more likely three more, to increase the stability of some of these signals.

3. I absolutely need either WROC Rochester (which currently comes in only at night), or WSEE Erie (which I haven't tried pointing toward yet), or both.

4. I figure, since I am spending so much money on this setup, I would also like to get 7 WBBZ Buffalo (just because it's there), but my only guess as to why I can't is the VHF frequency, although I am getting 6 from behind the antenna almost 30 miles away.

5. I cannot figure out why Sun drops out both from the CN Tower (ch 66), and from the Hamilton tower (ch 15), the latter being a clear line of site at a distance of less than 7 miles.

I have budgeted for a scaled down MATV system (although the budget is very quickly being used up) as I need to get these signals to about 25 outlets throughout the house.

So, my questions, basically, are: How many antennas can I reasonably & safely put on a mast? & How many will it take to accomplish this?

Also, should I be trying to pull Rochester in stronger, or make an attempt at Erie which is much closer?

My goal is to have each one of those stations mentioned (with the exception of Syracuse) with a strong enough signal that it can be watched reliably at least 95% of the time.

Any and all input is welcome.

Thanks

Brian

[GroundUrMast]

I'll bite on a chunk or two of this...

WROC is predicted to arrive at your location at a NM of -20.2 via a tropospheric path. WSEE is worse, -31.3 dB NM and a tropospheric path. That you have seen any hint of them so far is false encouragement, the weak signal levels (which are sure to vary widely due to the over the horizon path) plus the co-channel and adjacent channel interference all will prevent reliable reception. To improve the situation would require a taller tower... much much taller. You can re-run your TVFR at up to 500' if you're curious, but I doubt 500' would be much of an improvement.

Enormous commercial grade antennas with gain figures in the mid 20 dB range exist. But I would expect the effect of fading and interference to be greater than that gain. http://www.wade-antenna.com/Wade/uhfparabolic.pdf

Take a look at this idea... http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=820

I don't expect it to be a perfect fit for you, but in light of the dismal outlook for WROC and WSEE, would you want to pursue ideas like it?

Mixing signals from multiple antennas is done by the cable company by receiving the signal off the air, 'stripping the RF' and then using the analog or digital video and audio to modulate a new RF carrier produced in their equipment. You would be looking at $1000 or more per RF channel to do this yourself.

As a matter of practicality, would you consider two or three separate antenna systems and a distribution system that let you send feed 'A' to some outlets and feed 'B' or 'C' to other outlets? A main family room with need for all of the antenna feeds would be wired with a feed from all the antennas and an A/B/C switch would select the desired feed. http://www.mcmelectronics.com/produc...-1490-/33-1490

I would ask the tower vendor about the capacity of the tower. I have no business guessing about the tower capacity or how it's installation may affect it's rating.

[mtownsend]

Originally Posted by hTrag428

I have just hired a professional who has installed a tower and single 8-bay antenna pointed toward WKBW (about 122 degrees). The line is currently split at a 4-way into 4 tuners, one HDTV, one digital converter box, and two PC tuners (both ATI TV Wonder HD 650).

Do you know the make/model of the 8-bay antenna?

Does the installation include a pre-amp? If so, make/model? Since your signal feed is split to many destinations, a pre-amp is highly recommended if you don't already have one.

1. Huge house; huge family; many, many TV's & tuners... No way that a rotator will ever be possible.

There's a good chance you'll get mostly what you want since the off-axis channels are pretty close and strong. You can probably get most of the Toronto stations even when you're antenna is not pointed directly at them.

However, the one caveat is that if there are some Toronto channels that are not 100% reliable, you'll need to turn the antenna to fix it. Without a rotator, you don't have the ability to fine tune the reception when necessary.

2. I am certain that I will need at least one more antenna, more likely three more, to increase the stability of some of these signals.

It will be very difficult to get stability on the really weak channels. Every time you double the number of antennas, you get an additional 3 dB of gain under ideal circumstances. In reality, you will probably not get quite that much.

Even if you manage to get an additional 3 or 6 dB of signal, your reception will probably still be in-and-out on channels that are starting out at -20 dB NM.

3. I absolutely need either WROC Rochester (which currently comes in only at night), or WSEE Erie (which I haven't tried pointing toward yet), or both.

These are both CBS affiliates and are very weak. Is there a reason that WIVB does not satisfy your need for CBS?

WROC and WSEE are so weak that I would normally not recommend going after channels this far down in the noise. Also, WSEE is in another direction, so not having a rotator means this channel is not really an option.

4. I figure, since I am spending so much money on this setup, I would also like to get 7 WBBZ Buffalo (just because it's there), but my only guess as to why I can't is the VHF frequency, although I am getting 6 from behind the antenna almost 30 miles away.

This is probably a realistic goal. Your 8-bay antenna is really a UHF-only antenna (even if the antenna manufacturer claims otherwise). If you add a true VHF antenna to your setup, I think you have a good shot at picking up channel 7.

When combining VHF and UHF antennas, you need to make sure to use a diplexor as opposed to a run-of-the-mill combiner. Some pre-amps with separate UHF/VHF inputs have the built-in equivalent of a diplexor. If you already have a pre-amp that does not have this feature, then you can use a separate diplexor like the Pico Macom UVSJ to merge the antenna signals before going into the pre-amp.

5. I cannot figure out why Sun drops out both from the CN Tower (ch 66), and from the Hamilton tower (ch 15), the latter being a clear line of site at a distance of less than 7 miles.

You might want to try contacting the station. They might be experimenting with new equipment, antennas, data formats, etc.

As an experiment, you can have multiple TVs/tuners on the same channel at the same time to see if the dropouts happen simultaneously across different makes/models of tuners. If you see multiple TVs dropping out at exactly the same time, there may be a problem with the signal or data format coming out of the transmitter.

I have budgeted for a scaled down MATV system (although the budget is very quickly being used up) as I need to get these signals to about 25 outlets throughout the house.

It sounds like you need both a pre-amp (near the antenna) as well as a few distribution amps (indoors in a convenient place to fan-out your network).

So, my questions, basically, are: How many antennas can I reasonably & safely put on a mast? & How many will it take to accomplish this?

Depends on the mast and types of antennas/equipment loaded on it.

However, I don't think your issues is so much about how many antennas you need. As stated above, I think it will be really really hard to get enough antennas to pull in those weak stations (below -20 dB NM) reliably.

If you limit yourself to the channels are at a more realistic range, then it should be possible to work out the proper combination of pre-amp and distribution amps to get those signals to all your end-points with minimal signal degradation.

Also, should I be trying to pull Rochester in stronger, or make an attempt at Erie which is much closer?

They are both too weak to be considered for reliable reception. Most Rochester stations are coming in at -20 something dB NM. Most Erie stations are coming in at -30 something dB NM. Either location might show up from time to time, but it is unlikely that you'd be able to get continuous reliable reception under these conditions.

My goal is to have each one of those stations mentioned (with the exception of Syracuse) with a strong enough signal that it can be watched reliably at least 95% of the time.

Some channels you just won't get reliably. For the distant stations, you are relying on signals that must "bend" over the horizon. There's very little signal available, and the amount you get will vary with weather and seasonal changes. Other broadcasters may be using the same or adjacent channels too, causing interference that will make it even more difficult for you to get the signals you want.

[John Candle]

http://www.slingbox.com

[hTrag428]

Thank you for the input. I have a lot to digest here.

At the risk of sounding like a 'glass-half-empty' kind of guy:

The HomeRun looks like a great toy, but it doesn't address the issue that it would seem that you are implying it would, that being the fact that I cannot get the two channels that carry my favourite show*. If I cannot receive those channels, sharing them over the home network is not an option.

Same with the SlingBox. Another great toy, but I am not concerned with watching TV while I am away, I am concerned with watching it while I am home. And once again, if I cannot receive the channels, the point becomes moot.

*Incidentally, said show is carried on CBLT and WKBW, but neither one carries it in HD, both cut portions of it out, and the latter even goes so far as to crop it to 4:3.

All of that being said, maybe I will settle for getting all of the Buffalo stations reliably. The three that are not currently reliable are:
7 WBBZ
23 WPXJ
49 WNYO

I can easily get the flaky Toronto stations by adding a 4-bay in that direction (or probably even a 2-bay). Also, three of the four (Toronto stations) that tend to drop out are going to be moved up to the CN Tower (from their current place atop the BMO tower), so that might not be an issue at all. The fourth station, Sun, seems to be a lot more stable than it was even a couple of days ago, so we'll see.

Once again thanks for all of the input.

Brian

[hTrag428]

Oh, and I forgot to add:

The current setup includes a preamp. TinLee model MA-25UV-77 (I'm going by memory, so that might not be exact). The make and model of the antenna I do not know, but the guy who did the install provided it, and he is (from all I've heard) one of the best in the business.

It was never stated, or even implied, that the antenna would pick up any VHF channels. I am very pleased that it picks up what it does on that band. That is simply icing on the cake.

Thanks

Brian

[GroundUrMast]

I can't guaranty you reliable reception of any of the Buffalo stations. I simply don't see a way to get reliable reception of WROC or WSEE with the signal available at you location. WBBZ, real channel 7 is made difficult by co-channel interference from CIII and weak signal over a two edge path. WNYO is even weaker but has the channel to itself. WPXJ is weaker yet and also faces co-channel interference. The best consumer grade antenna I could think to try would be the Antennas Direct XG-91, UHF and the Winegard YA-1713 or Antennacraft Y10713 high-VHF.

All of the Buffalo signals will require extreme measures... A potential use for the SiliconDust product includes placing the device at a location with better receiving conditions. This would require relatively high bandwidth internet access at both the remote site and your location. OTA ATSC transmits at over 19 Mb/s, an HD program can be sent at over 16 Mb/s, so for live viewing you would need a internet link capable of 20 Mb/s throughput. A remotely located HTPC would give you access to HD programs. If only modest internet access speed is available, recorded programs can still be transferred for later viewing. This would also require a HTPC at you location. Again, I realize this calls for more than modest OTA, IP networking and PC skill sets.

[hTrag428]

The whole idea behind OTA (OK, maybe not the whole idea, but a good part of it) is to save money over cable bills. If I have to pay for a high-speed internet connection (and presumably, rent) at a satellite location, it kind of defeats the purpose. I'd be much further ahead subscribing to HD cable. And, yes, I can certainly see the difference between HD OTA and HD cable, but not enough to justify the cost of one over the other.

Incidentally, this all got started because my cable company stopped transmitting clear QAM and encrypted everything. That made it no longer possible to record any of my favourite shows in HD (or digital SD). But then, 6 months later, that wasn't enough for them, and they informed us that we will need to purchase a box for every TV &/or tuner connected to the system. The boxes run between $100 (SD) & $200 (HD) to purchase, for a setup cost of between $2500 & $5500; a setup that would still not allow any recording of HD. This money, I thought, would be far better put toward an OTA system.

To start getting into HomeRuns &/or SlingBoxes, I would need to add/upgrade computers as well. (Not so much with the HomeRun, but with about 15 computers in the house, not one has either the minimum hardware or software requirements (let alone both) for the SlingBox.)

So, I think I am going to try adding antennae. I don't want to second-guess my professional installer (and haven't had the chance for a subsequent consultation), but maybe an XG91 pointed at 108°, halfway between 23 at 103° and 49 at 113°, could get me a better signal on those two. Then I can point a YA1713 or Y10713 at 127° to pick up 7. The latter will likely give me 11 & 13, and possibly even 9. And I'll add a small 4 bay pointed toward the CN Tower (42°) to get those, if needed.

I am sure that mixing the three or four incoming lines will not cost another $2000, but even if it does, I'm still ahead of the game.

I certainly do intend to add a couple of HomeRuns at some point, but that'll be easy once everything else is settled.

I don't know why the Buffalo stations (other than 23) would require extreme measures, as they all came in fine all these years when everything was analogue. (I'm going back now several years when I lived at home with the folks.) I also do not know why there would be co-channel interference between CIII & WBBZ, as there never was between CIII and WKBW in the analogue days.

Again, I feel like I'm coming across all negative, when I don't really feel that way at all. I am most appreciative of all the experience here on the forum as I learn all about this stuff.

Just as an aside, we used to get 57 analogue channels from my parents' house (including 13 on the 12 VHF channels), so that gives you an idea as to our experience with co-channels and adjacent-channels. My parents never subscribed to cable until long after I left the nest (and not until TSN picked up the Ti-Cats).

Thanks again. I'll keep you posted on my progress.

Brian

[GroundUrMast]

I don't think you're sounding negative... I worry that I've been.

For relatively few $'s worth of antenna, you'll be able to determine how much signal is available from Buffalo.

Hopefully, you'll be able to report back success.

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by hTrag428

...

I don't know why the Buffalo stations (other than 23) would require extreme measures, as they all came in fine all these years when everything was analogue. (I'm going back now several years when I lived at home with the folks.) I also do not know why there would be co-channel interference between CIII & WBBZ, as there never was between CIII and WKBW in the analogue days.

...

Just as an aside, we used to get 57 analogue channels from my parents' house (including every one of the twelve VHF channels), so that gives you an idea as to our experience with co-channels and adjacent-channels. My parents never subscribed to cable until long after I left the nest (and not until TSN picked up the Ti-Cats).

Thanks again. I'll keep you posted on my progress.

Brian

Virtually all of your questions are answered in your TV Fool Radar Plot. Most digital broadcasts are on the UHF band which has shorter range than VHF. For US broadcasters, digital UHF is legally restricted to lower radiated power than analog UHF. Digital VHF is also legally restricted to lower radiated power than analog VHF.

As John Candle has urged about 15,257 times, you need to understand the difference between virtual channels and real channels. This is a much bigger issue with US broadcasters than Canadian broadcasters. But it is an isuse with Canadian broadcasters. In the case of WBBZ, it displays at Channel 67.1, but is actually broadcasts on Real Channel 7. CIII-DT 7 displays Virtual Channel 7.1 and broadcasts on Real Channel 7, the same as WBBZ. However, these are both distant stations from your location. However, you cannot receive receive CIII-DT 7 (RF 7) except under unusual atmospheric conditions. You should have no desire to because where you live, CIII-DT 6 (RF 6) has a strong signal in the green. CIII-DT 41 (RF 65) is not quite as strong, but is easier for you to receive than CIII DT 7.

The world of digital broadcast television is here. There is nothing to be gained by mourning the past and cursing the present. Members of this forum will help you get the most out of this new broadcast world. You know as well as I do that those 57 channels that you used to get were not 57 unique programming streams. In the USA, multicasting enabled by digital broadcasting provides more more programming streams than we ever dreamed of when I was a boy. In my home state, it was unusual for a town to have more than three TV stations back in the day. Today, many individual TV stations broadcast three or more subchannels. I don't want to go back. After you learn how to take advantage of what is available to you, you will not want to go back either.

[hTrag428]

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Virtually all of your questions are answered in your TV Fool Radar Plot. Most digital broadcasts are on the UHF band which has shorter range than VHF. For US broadcasters, digital UHF is legally restricted to lower radiated power than analog UHF. Digital VHF is also legally restricted to lower radiated power than analog VHF.

As John Candle has urged about 15,257 times, you need to understand the difference between virtual channels and real channels. This is a much bigger issue with US broadcasters than Canadian broadcasters. But it is an isuse with Canadian broadcasters. In the case of WBBZ, it displays at Channel 67.1, but is actually broadcasts on Real Channel 7. CIII-DT 7 displays Virtual Channel 7.1 and broadcasts on Real Channel 7, the same as WBBZ. However, these are both distant stations from your location. However, you cannot receive receive CIII-DT 7 (RF 7) except under unusual atmospheric conditions. You should have no desire to because where you live, CIII-DT 6 (RF 6) has a strong signal in the green. CIII-DT 41 (RF 65) is not quite as strong, but is easier for you to receive than CIII DT 7.

The world of digital broadcast television is here. There is nothing to be gained by mourning the past and cursing the present. Members of this forum will help you get the most out of this new broadcast world. You know as well as I do that those 57 channels that you used to get were not 57 unique programming streams. In the USA, multicasting enabled by digital broadcasting provides more more programming streams than we ever dreamed of when I was a boy. In my home state, it was unusual for a town to have more than three TV stations back in the day. Today, many individual TV stations broadcast three or more subchannels. I don't want to go back. After you learn how to take advantage of what is available to you, you will not want to go back either.

First, I don't want to go back. I am not mourning the past. I much (much, much, much) prefer the digital broadcasts to the analogue. However, on any one given station, especially considering it takes about one tenth the signal strength to cover the same area in digital as analogue, if we could pick up the analogue signal, the laws of the FCC, CRTC, IC etc. shouldn't preclude the digital signal from covering the same area. That is cause for lamenting.

Second, I completely understand the difference between real and virtual channels. I have never referred to WBBZ as channel 67. It is channel 7, broadcasting on hi-VHF, the same frequency that WKBW broadcast on before the digital switchover.

I also know the difference between UHF & VHF. I always received stations from the Buffalo area on RF 23, 29 & 49 (among others). 29 is now on 14. 49 hasn't changed. I am not sure that what is currently on 23 is what was then on 23. I have already stated that I used to get WKBW on 7, and now WBBZ is on 7.

And third... How the heck do you know what was on those 57 channels? Back in the day, almost every one of the Candian stations among them was independent. Even the US network affiliates had enough local programming to warrant tuning into a different ABC (for instance) at a different time for a different show. I know that channel 35 from Erie didn't always carry the same shows as channel 4 from Buffalo (both CBS affiliates). And still doesn't!!!

As a matter of fact, we had many many more unique programming streams than the 36 that I can pick up now (that's 36 subchannels in total on 27 real frequencies, of which three are identical signals to another three, and one is identical to another at all times except the local news hour twice per day). At that time, CKVR in Barrie and CFPL in London (two stations which I can no longer pick up, at least on my current setup) were both independent. Now they are both CTV Two. If we wanted to see the 'local' news, we could choose between Buffalo, Hamilton, Toronto, Youngstown (Ohio), Erie PA, Kitchener, and sometimes, even Detroit. We probably could have gotten a lot more if there were not so many co-channels. The only channel on which we could reliably get two stations was 12, either from Erie PA or from Peterborough (the latter I am still picking up on analogue with my UHF antenna pointed toward Buffalo), and less than three miles from the transmitter for channel 11 (CHCH) -- so, as I said, we knew all about adjacent channel interference.

So, if I am lamenting, it is only that the signals have been pulled back sufficiently enough that distant stations are no longer available for the asking.

As I said in an earlier post, I cannot watch my favourite show in HD because, although it is broadcast on 4 different stations (plus three other analogue repeaters of CBC), I can no longer get either of the two that broadcast it that way.
</rant>

Brian

[hTrag428]

Reading back my previous post, I realize that I was probably spoiled by the immense depth and breadth of choices back before everything became owned by the big conglomerates. Having gone from 57 analogue OTA channels to 64 cable channels didn't seem like much difference. Coming back to 36 OTA channels certainly does.

Sorry if I'm asking too much.

Brian

ETA: Just for funzies, I entered the co-ordinates where I lived with the folks, and this is what came up. I wonder how much has really changed in 20 years?