![Reply](images/buttons/reply.gif) |
27-Oct-2014, 3:36 PM
|
#1
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8
|
varied reception problems
Hi;
I used to get great TV reception from my roof antenna (on a a 'cable-ready' HDTV purchased a few years ago), as well as from rabbit-ears on an old analogue TV with a HDTV converter box, until FCC required general transmission upgrade which was made.
Since the upgrade, I have a number of reception problems with which I hope you can help.
I should mention that I live near the Hudson River, and close to a very large bridge (Verrazano).
My report is located at:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...d24366ec475690
Specific problems as follows.
1) The rooftop antenna with the HDTV fails to get adequate signal on channels 66.1, 13.1, and 50.1, for which there is good signal strength present on my HDTV converter box/ analogue TV. On those channels which I receive clearly, there is never any intermittent loss of strength or interference present.
2) On my old analogue TV, I receive all local network channels (including the ones mentioned above), but every time a boat travels on the river ~150 ft. below me I get interference or complete signal loss.
I'm using a Radio Shack "amplified" rabbit ears, with a Zenith converter box.
Any suggestions to help these problems?
Thanks for your attention.
|
|
|
27-Oct-2014, 8:03 PM
|
#2
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Delmar, NY
Posts: 1,236
|
The signals in your location are too strong for you to use an amplified antenna. Find your old unamplified rabbit ears.
Your rooftop antenna cannot be aimed at the signals from the Empire State Building and 50.1 and 66.1 at the same time. I'd assume that it would work if it were aimed toward New Jersey instead of Manhatten. I don't know why 13.1 isn't working.
|
|
|
28-Oct-2014, 3:36 AM
|
#3
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower Guy
The signals in your location are too strong for you to use an amplified antenna. Find your old unamplified rabbit ears.
Your rooftop antenna cannot be aimed at the signals from the Empire State Building and 50.1 and 66.1 at the same time. I'd assume that it would work if it were aimed toward New Jersey instead of Manhatten. I don't know why 13.1 isn't working.
|
Just wondering about the 'strong' signals, since even with amplifier off, I get the same audio & video interference whenever boats pass by, whether they be small tugboats or massive cruise ships. The larger the ship, the greater the interference. Is this due to signal strength, or other types of interference?
Also, do you think that 13.1 may improve if they ever switch broadcast to the Freedom Tower?
|
|
|
28-Oct-2014, 9:37 AM
|
#4
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Medford MA USA
Posts: 371
|
The passing cars/planes/boats phenomenon is pretty common. If my antenna is mounted near ground level, the signal breaks up every time a cah drives past on my street (seldom here). Certainly the large passing metal object changes the propagation of radio waves (and TV) locally, but the exact nature of the change I'm not sure. I'd guess the big metal object is reflective and it creates multipath interference. Might help to put your antenna higher, like on the peak of your roof.
|
|
|
28-Oct-2014, 12:44 PM
|
#5
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgr
The passing cars/planes/boats phenomenon is pretty common. If my antenna is mounted near ground level, the signal breaks up every time a cah drives past on my street (seldom here). Certainly the large passing metal object changes the propagation of radio waves (and TV) locally, but the exact nature of the change I'm not sure. I'd guess the big metal object is reflective and it creates multipath interference. Might help to put your antenna higher, like on the peak of your roof.
|
Unfortunately, my roof antenna (the one that doesn't receive 13.1) is already about 175 ft above sea level (although the Queen Mary 2, and other cruise ships, are about 200 ft tall). Also, as I already live on an upper floor, my indoor antenna is about 160 ft above sea level. Perhaps the brick walls of my building and other nearby buildings add interference to the signals.
I'm most puzzled by the signal degradation that this new HD technology has resulted in, since once they had upgraded the standard broadcast signal some 15 years ago (I'm not technically savvy, but I think they added some kind of 'rotary' signal transmission in order to minimize interference at that time), the channel reception used to be perfect.
At least, luckily, I don't seem to get interference from cars, of which there are many.
Sounds as if there's no hope other than to use the cable-tv rapists, with their "thousands of channels and nothing to watch" pricing policies.
|
|
|
28-Oct-2014, 1:59 PM
|
#6
|
KD3WB
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantis43
Unfortunately, my roof antenna (the one that doesn't receive 13.1) is already about 175 ft above sea level (although the Queen Mary 2, and other cruise ships, are about 200 ft tall). Also, as I already live on an upper floor, my indoor antenna is about 160 ft above sea level. Perhaps the brick walls of my building and other nearby buildings add interference to the signals.
I'm most puzzled by the signal degradation that this new HD technology has resulted in, since once they had upgraded the standard broadcast signal some 15 years ago (I'm not technically savvy, but I think they added some kind of 'rotary' signal transmission in order to minimize interference at that time), the channel reception used to be perfect.
At least, luckily, I don't seem to get interference from cars, of which there are many.
Sounds as if there's no hope other than to use the cable-tv rapists, with their "thousands of channels and nothing to watch" pricing policies.
|
You should have a high-VHF capable antenna pointed at 31 degrees magnetic for WNET, although your signals are so strong that you might do better with an omnidirectional one. Your current antenna may be in a dead spot where the ground reflection is cancelling the primary signal. You might try moving the antenna a few feet toward or away from the station.
|
|
|
28-Oct-2014, 4:59 PM
|
#7
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Myers
You should have a high-VHF capable antenna pointed at 31 degrees magnetic for WNET, although your signals are so strong that you might do better with an omnidirectional one. Your current antenna may be in a dead spot where the ground reflection is cancelling the primary signal. You might try moving the antenna a few feet toward or away from the station.
|
I'll have to check into the "high-VHF" business, but the antenna that doesn't receive WNET is the roof antenna, which wasn't in a dead spot prior to the updated digital HDTV signals. Would this matter?
|
|
|
28-Oct-2014, 6:15 PM
|
#8
|
KD3WB
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantis43
I'll have to check into the "high-VHF" business, but the antenna that doesn't receive WNET is the roof antenna, which wasn't in a dead spot prior to the updated digital HDTV signals. Would this matter?
|
According to Wikipedia, WNET transmitted its digital signal on real channel 61 before the 2009 transition and real channel 13 afterwards.
Incidentally, 31 degrees magnetic is approximately NNE, if you want to try re-aiming first.
Last edited by Ben Myers; 28-Oct-2014 at 6:18 PM.
|
|
|
28-Oct-2014, 8:48 PM
|
#9
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8
|
Thanks; Shall do.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|