Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The Ant saga continues
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Ant
Jul 25, 2012, 9:24:12 AM7/25/12
to
On 7/25/2012 5:43 AM PT, TJ typed:
> OK Ant, I just saw your post about things working more or less
> satisfactorily - for now, at least. Great!
Yes, for now... I am still suspicious. :P
> But you've lost me along the way. Please, if you could, describe which
> antenna you finally settled on, where you put it, and the cabling
> arrangement you are using. Leave out all the stuff you tried that didn't
> work, and the ideas you had that are not going to be implemented for
> whatever reason (including the stuff your parents won't allow you to try).
http://zimage.com/~ant/MiCasa2/ for the current photos. (will be
removing them later for disk spaces and bandwidth) of CM 4228HD antenna
in the front yard. Previous owners' internal coax cables are still there
and used for OTA. Two new Samsung HDTVs (20" and 55") were added to the
family room and bedroom recently. Old CRT+Zeinth converter box moved to
my folks' bedroom. Couple non-screw coax cables were replaced between
coax cable outlets and the new HDTVs, but we used those before! Old CRTV
TV uses the screw types. Attic uses General Electrics (GE) four-ways
(RMS' two way didn't make any differences from testings so it can't be
the splitters) splitter.
Did that help?
--
"Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith, keeping it awake and
moving." --Fredrick Beuchner
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
> OK Ant, I just saw your post about things working more or less
> satisfactorily - for now, at least. Great!
Yes, for now... I am still suspicious. :P
> But you've lost me along the way. Please, if you could, describe which
> antenna you finally settled on, where you put it, and the cabling
> arrangement you are using. Leave out all the stuff you tried that didn't
> work, and the ideas you had that are not going to be implemented for
> whatever reason (including the stuff your parents won't allow you to try).
http://zimage.com/~ant/MiCasa2/ for the current photos. (will be
removing them later for disk spaces and bandwidth) of CM 4228HD antenna
in the front yard. Previous owners' internal coax cables are still there
and used for OTA. Two new Samsung HDTVs (20" and 55") were added to the
family room and bedroom recently. Old CRT+Zeinth converter box moved to
my folks' bedroom. Couple non-screw coax cables were replaced between
coax cable outlets and the new HDTVs, but we used those before! Old CRTV
TV uses the screw types. Attic uses General Electrics (GE) four-ways
(RMS' two way didn't make any differences from testings so it can't be
the splitters) splitter.
Did that help?
--
"Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith, keeping it awake and
moving." --Fredrick Beuchner
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
G-squared
Jul 25, 2012, 11:21:08 PM7/25/12
to
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:24:12 AM UTC-7, Ant wrote:
<snip>
> and used for OTA. Two new Samsung HDTVs (20" and 55") were added to the
The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
G²
<snip>
> http://zimage.com/~ant/MiCasa2/ for the current photos. (will be
> removing them later for disk spaces and bandwidth) of CM 4228HD antenna
> in the front yard. Previous owners' internal coax cables are still there
> removing them later for disk spaces and bandwidth) of CM 4228HD antenna
> and used for OTA. Two new Samsung HDTVs (20" and 55") were added to the
> family room and bedroom recently. Old CRT+Zeinth converter box moved to
> my folks' bedroom. Couple non-screw coax cables were replaced between
> coax cable outlets and the new HDTVs, but we used those before! Old CRTV
> TV uses the screw types. Attic uses General Electrics (GE) four-ways
> (RMS' two way didn't make any differences from testings so it can't be
> TV uses the screw types. Attic uses General Electrics (GE) four-ways
> the splitters) splitter.
>
> Did that help?
<snip>
>
> Did that help?
The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
G²
Ant
Jul 25, 2012, 11:45:06 PM7/25/12
to
On 7/25/2012 8:21 PM PT, G-squared typed:
> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
Yes, this is in LA area (very close to OC too!). Those mentioned
channels were fine. Before we got OTA stable in the weaker rooms, KCBS2
(no locking on) and KTLA 5 (hiccups here and there) were having issues.
I just hope the current set up will be stable. I don't want to call this
done/accomplished yet after about seven months of craziness. Wait until
we have strong winds, rain, very cold temperatures, etc. Things can
change it! :P I will follow-up if there are problems again. At least
there is a strong spot without going up onto the roof and still managed
to get 90+ channels!
--
"I killed an ant, now all my relatives are afraid of me." --unknown
> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
channels were fine. Before we got OTA stable in the weaker rooms, KCBS2
(no locking on) and KTLA 5 (hiccups here and there) were having issues.
I just hope the current set up will be stable. I don't want to call this
done/accomplished yet after about seven months of craziness. Wait until
we have strong winds, rain, very cold temperatures, etc. Things can
change it! :P I will follow-up if there are problems again. At least
there is a strong spot without going up onto the roof and still managed
to get 90+ channels!
--
"I killed an ant, now all my relatives are afraid of me." --unknown
Wes Newell
Jul 26, 2012, 2:25:31 AM7/26/12
to
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:21:08 -0700, G-squared wrote:
> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA
> area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
It also picks up high vhf channels quite well. When we had a channel 5
> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA
> area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
here, the original 4228 even picked it up pretty good. The 4228HD was
redesigned to pick up high vhf better. I'm about 40+miles from the towers
and get high vhf without any problems, 8, 9, and 11. 11 also broadcast on
19, so I blocked it from the lineup.
J G Miller
Jul 26, 2012, 7:00:02 AM7/26/12
to
On Wednesday, July 25th, 2012, at 20:45:06h -0700, Ant observed:
> On 7/25/2012 8:21 PM PT, G-squared typed:
>
>> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA area.
>> What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
>
> Yes, this is in LA area (very close to OC too!). Those mentioned
> channels were fine. Before we got OTA stable in the weaker rooms, KCBS2
> (no locking on) and KTLA 5 (hiccups here and there) were having issues.
KCBS-TV is broadcast on UHF channel 43
KTLA-TV is broadcast on UHF channel 31
The TV stations still being broadcast on VHF channels in the
Los Angeles metropolitan are, as far as I can find,
VHF channel 7 KABC-TV (ABC) 27.2 kW 978 m
[transitional was UHF channel 53]
VHF channel 8 KFLA-LD (Ind) 300 W 933 m
[transitional was UHF channel 52]
VHF channel 9 KCAL-TV (Ind) 25 kW 977 m
[transitional was UHF channel 43]
VHF channel 10 KIIO-LD (PBJ) 160 W 27 m
VHF channel 11 KTTV (FOX) 115 kW 920 m
[transitional was UHF channel 65]
VHF channel 13 KCOP-TV (MyTV) 120 kW 905 m
[transitional was UHF channel 66]
So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W
and from a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
PS There is also KSFV-CA on VHF channel 6 in the San Fernando
Valley which has applied to move to Los Angeles and transmit
at 3 kW at 30.5 m
<http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=1320231>
> On 7/25/2012 8:21 PM PT, G-squared typed:
>
>> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA area.
>> What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
>
> Yes, this is in LA area (very close to OC too!). Those mentioned
> channels were fine. Before we got OTA stable in the weaker rooms, KCBS2
> (no locking on) and KTLA 5 (hiccups here and there) were having issues.
KTLA-TV is broadcast on UHF channel 31
The TV stations still being broadcast on VHF channels in the
Los Angeles metropolitan are, as far as I can find,
VHF channel 7 KABC-TV (ABC) 27.2 kW 978 m
[transitional was UHF channel 53]
VHF channel 8 KFLA-LD (Ind) 300 W 933 m
[transitional was UHF channel 52]
VHF channel 9 KCAL-TV (Ind) 25 kW 977 m
[transitional was UHF channel 43]
VHF channel 10 KIIO-LD (PBJ) 160 W 27 m
VHF channel 11 KTTV (FOX) 115 kW 920 m
[transitional was UHF channel 65]
VHF channel 13 KCOP-TV (MyTV) 120 kW 905 m
[transitional was UHF channel 66]
So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W
and from a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
PS There is also KSFV-CA on VHF channel 6 in the San Fernando
Valley which has applied to move to Los Angeles and transmit
at 3 kW at 30.5 m
<http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=1320231>
Ant
Jul 26, 2012, 8:12:14 AM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/2012 4:00 AM PT, J G Miller typed:
> So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
> transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W
> and from a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
>
> PS There is also KSFV-CA on VHF channel 6 in the San Fernando
> Valley which has applied to move to Los Angeles and transmit
> at 3 kW at 30.5 m
>
> <http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=1320231>
I don't care for those two channels. That is way far too. Even my old
house doesn't get those.
--
"When you have seen one ant, one bird, one tree, you have not seen them
all." --Edward O. Wilson, 1992
> So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
> transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W
> and from a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
>
> PS There is also KSFV-CA on VHF channel 6 in the San Fernando
> Valley which has applied to move to Los Angeles and transmit
> at 3 kW at 30.5 m
>
> <http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=1320231>
house doesn't get those.
--
"When you have seen one ant, one bird, one tree, you have not seen them
all." --Edward O. Wilson, 1992
Ant
Jul 26, 2012, 8:13:01 AM7/26/12
to
On 7/25/2012 11:25 PM PT, Wes Newell typed:
Why did you block 11?
--
"Better (to be) an ant's head than a lion's tail." --Armenian and Maltese
--
"Better (to be) an ant's head than a lion's tail." --Armenian and Maltese
J G Miller
Jul 26, 2012, 8:22:35 AM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26th, 2012, at 05:12:14h -0700, Ant observed:
> That is way far too.
I think you have misunderstood.
In no way was I suggesting that you would receive KSFV-CA
from San Fernando Valley, but that if their application to move
to Los Angeles is approved and they do eventually move, that
sometime in the future (maybe 2014 at the earliest) that this
will be another station which is transmitted in Los Angeles.
> Even my old house doesn't get those.
And what about the next lowest power station KFLA-LD ?
The point is not whether or not you want to watch them,
but whether or not your scans actually pick them up,
indicating how good is performance on VHF Band III of
your antenna.
> That is way far too.
In no way was I suggesting that you would receive KSFV-CA
from San Fernando Valley, but that if their application to move
to Los Angeles is approved and they do eventually move, that
sometime in the future (maybe 2014 at the earliest) that this
will be another station which is transmitted in Los Angeles.
> Even my old house doesn't get those.
The point is not whether or not you want to watch them,
but whether or not your scans actually pick them up,
indicating how good is performance on VHF Band III of
your antenna.
Ant
Jul 26, 2012, 9:40:09 AM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/2012 5:22 AM PT, J G Miller typed:
> In no way was I suggesting that you would receive KSFV-CA
> from San Fernando Valley, but that if their application to move
> to Los Angeles is approved and they do eventually move, that
> sometime in the future (maybe 2014 at the earliest) that this
> will be another station which is transmitted in Los Angeles.
Ah OK! My bad then.
>> Even my old house doesn't get those.
>
> And what about the next lowest power station KFLA-LD ?
I am pretty sure I didn't get that one at the new house's location. I
checked TitanTV.com's web site to see what is shown on Saturdays if they
reshow the same series/shows like last Saturday afternoon and evening.
They did not match from what I remember/recall when I did channel
surfings recently.
> The point is not whether or not you want to watch them,
> but whether or not your scans actually pick them up,
> indicating how good is performance on VHF Band III of
> your antenna.
I will check again to confirm if I remember. ;) I am pretty sure I
didn't see it. I do remember picking up San Diego's ABC station a few
times with CM-4228HD antenna. I think it was on channel 10.x (KGTV).
Also, the two new Samsung HDTVs picked a couple analog channels but they
were really weak, snowy, and sometimes in B&W. IIRC, they showed
soccer/football and I think in Spanish language. I think that was on
channel 12 and don't remember the other one (21 or 27?). I don't care
for those too. :P
--
"Let him who boasts the knowledge of actually existing things, first
tell us of the nature of the ant." --Saint Basil quote from his letter
XVI written against Eunomius the Heretic
> In no way was I suggesting that you would receive KSFV-CA
> from San Fernando Valley, but that if their application to move
> to Los Angeles is approved and they do eventually move, that
> sometime in the future (maybe 2014 at the earliest) that this
> will be another station which is transmitted in Los Angeles.
>> Even my old house doesn't get those.
>
> And what about the next lowest power station KFLA-LD ?
checked TitanTV.com's web site to see what is shown on Saturdays if they
reshow the same series/shows like last Saturday afternoon and evening.
They did not match from what I remember/recall when I did channel
surfings recently.
> The point is not whether or not you want to watch them,
> but whether or not your scans actually pick them up,
> indicating how good is performance on VHF Band III of
> your antenna.
didn't see it. I do remember picking up San Diego's ABC station a few
times with CM-4228HD antenna. I think it was on channel 10.x (KGTV).
Also, the two new Samsung HDTVs picked a couple analog channels but they
were really weak, snowy, and sometimes in B&W. IIRC, they showed
soccer/football and I think in Spanish language. I think that was on
channel 12 and don't remember the other one (21 or 27?). I don't care
for those too. :P
--
"Let him who boasts the knowledge of actually existing things, first
tell us of the nature of the ant." --Saint Basil quote from his letter
XVI written against Eunomius the Heretic
J G Miller
Jul 26, 2012, 11:52:41 AM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26th, 2012, at 06:40:09h -0700, Ant explained:
> I am pretty sure I didn't get that one at the new house's location.
Well I would have been surprised (pleasantly) if you did.
So how is the reception of the next, next lowest station
KCAL-TV, VHF channel 9.
Do you get it on a scan, and is it stable?
> I do remember picking up San Diego's ABC station a few
> times with CM-4228HD antenna. I think it was on channel 10.x (KGTV).
Well if you get a good signal for that, it would obliterate the
low power KIIO-LD, whose transmitter mast may possibly just be
on top of some building, probably obscured at your location.
> Also, the two new Samsung HDTVs picked a couple analog channels but they
> were really weak, snowy, and sometimes in B&W. IIRC, they showed
> soccer/football and I think in Spanish language.
Well they could be either some local low power station which
has not switched to digital, or possibly some Mexican TV stations.
> I think that was on channel 12
The most likely Mexican TV station for that would be
VHF channel 12 XEWT Tu Canal Tijuana, Baja California 325 kW
> I am pretty sure I didn't get that one at the new house's location.
So how is the reception of the next, next lowest station
KCAL-TV, VHF channel 9.
Do you get it on a scan, and is it stable?
> I do remember picking up San Diego's ABC station a few
> times with CM-4228HD antenna. I think it was on channel 10.x (KGTV).
low power KIIO-LD, whose transmitter mast may possibly just be
on top of some building, probably obscured at your location.
> Also, the two new Samsung HDTVs picked a couple analog channels but they
> were really weak, snowy, and sometimes in B&W. IIRC, they showed
> soccer/football and I think in Spanish language.
has not switched to digital, or possibly some Mexican TV stations.
> I think that was on channel 12
VHF channel 12 XEWT Tu Canal Tijuana, Baja California 325 kW
Ant
Jul 26, 2012, 11:55:19 PM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/2012 8:52 AM PT, J G Miller typed:
>> I am pretty sure I didn't get that one at the new house's location.
>
> Well I would have been surprised (pleasantly) if you did.
>
> So how is the reception of the next, next lowest station
> KCAL-TV, VHF channel 9.
>
> Do you get it on a scan, and is it stable?
Yes, stable and working since Saturday's late evening. We'll see if it
and others remain in the future. ;)
>> I do remember picking up San Diego's ABC station a few
>> times with CM-4228HD antenna. I think it was on channel 10.x (KGTV).
>
> Well if you get a good signal for that, it would obliterate the
> low power KIIO-LD, whose transmitter mast may possibly just be
> on top of some building, probably obscured at your location.
It comes and goes IIRC. I don't care for that station either, but I am
fine it is there. :D I chuckled seeing two Good Morning America feeds in
one morning a month ago or so when I was testing OTA in the strong
family room. I can't remember if that one was with CM or RCA antenna though.
>> Also, the two new Samsung HDTVs picked a couple analog channels but they
>> were really weak, snowy, and sometimes in B&W. IIRC, they showed
>> soccer/football and I think in Spanish language.
>
> Well they could be either some local low power station which
> has not switched to digital, or possibly some Mexican TV stations.
Yeah.
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d134986774edc54 show
a short list of analog stations. I am surprised there are still several
and a bunch of them are on channel 6. I do know one of the channel 6s is
snowy and just shows a static flower image with music on my CRT TV in
the old/previous/original house. I never see that one in the new house
(assuming it is not the same station).
>> I think that was on channel 12
>
> The most likely Mexican TV station for that would be
>
> VHF channel 12 XEWT Tu Canal Tijuana, Baja California 325 kW
Hmm, tvfool.com says K12QV that is about 51 miles away 72/60 degrees in
San Bernardino, CA.
I wonder if there are any TV guides that still list analog stations.
--
[Laser pulsing] "Bah. It's as easy as crushing an ant! You know, the..."
[grunting] "Wh-wh-whoa! Hey, take my wallet and leave me alone!" --Mr.
Burns from The Simpsons (Fraudcast News; FABF16/FABF18 episode)
>> I am pretty sure I didn't get that one at the new house's location.
>
> Well I would have been surprised (pleasantly) if you did.
>
> So how is the reception of the next, next lowest station
> KCAL-TV, VHF channel 9.
>
> Do you get it on a scan, and is it stable?
and others remain in the future. ;)
>> I do remember picking up San Diego's ABC station a few
>> times with CM-4228HD antenna. I think it was on channel 10.x (KGTV).
>
> Well if you get a good signal for that, it would obliterate the
> low power KIIO-LD, whose transmitter mast may possibly just be
> on top of some building, probably obscured at your location.
fine it is there. :D I chuckled seeing two Good Morning America feeds in
one morning a month ago or so when I was testing OTA in the strong
family room. I can't remember if that one was with CM or RCA antenna though.
>> Also, the two new Samsung HDTVs picked a couple analog channels but they
>> were really weak, snowy, and sometimes in B&W. IIRC, they showed
>> soccer/football and I think in Spanish language.
>
> Well they could be either some local low power station which
> has not switched to digital, or possibly some Mexican TV stations.
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d134986774edc54 show
a short list of analog stations. I am surprised there are still several
and a bunch of them are on channel 6. I do know one of the channel 6s is
snowy and just shows a static flower image with music on my CRT TV in
the old/previous/original house. I never see that one in the new house
(assuming it is not the same station).
>> I think that was on channel 12
>
> The most likely Mexican TV station for that would be
>
> VHF channel 12 XEWT Tu Canal Tijuana, Baja California 325 kW
San Bernardino, CA.
I wonder if there are any TV guides that still list analog stations.
--
[Laser pulsing] "Bah. It's as easy as crushing an ant! You know, the..."
[grunting] "Wh-wh-whoa! Hey, take my wallet and leave me alone!" --Mr.
Burns from The Simpsons (Fraudcast News; FABF16/FABF18 episode)
Wes Newell
Jul 27, 2012, 2:07:57 AM7/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:00:02 +0000, J G Miller wrote:
> So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
> transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W and from
> a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
No, That's not a good test. All the LD stations have very limited
> So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
> transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W and from
> a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
broadcast ranges, and don't even cover much of the LA area.
This will show how bad it is.
http://www.rabbitears.info/contour.php?appid=1438352&map=Y&contour=Y&pop=N&incpop=&excpop=&lprw=N&head=N&asrn=&extras=&cir=&circen=34.2319444444%2C-118.072222222
Wes Newell
Jul 27, 2012, 2:18:34 AM7/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:13:01 -0700, Ant wrote:
> On 7/25/2012 11:25 PM PT, Wes Newell typed:
>
>>> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA
>>> area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
>>
>> It also picks up high vhf channels quite well. When we had a channel 5
>> here, the original 4228 even picked it up pretty good. The 4228HD was
>> redesigned to pick up high vhf better. I'm about 40+miles from the
>> towers and get high vhf without any problems, 8, 9, and 11. 11 also
>> broadcast on 19, so I blocked it from the lineup.
>
> Why did you block 11?
Because it was the exact same broadcast and I didn't want both showing up
> On 7/25/2012 11:25 PM PT, Wes Newell typed:
>
>>> The CM 4228HD a fine antenna for UHF but I thought you were in the LA
>>> area. What do you do about channels 7,9,11 and 13?
>>
>> It also picks up high vhf channels quite well. When we had a channel 5
>> here, the original 4228 even picked it up pretty good. The 4228HD was
>> redesigned to pick up high vhf better. I'm about 40+miles from the
>> towers and get high vhf without any problems, 8, 9, and 11. 11 also
>> broadcast on 19, so I blocked it from the lineup.
>
> Why did you block 11?
in my guide and I get a stronger signal from uhf 19. And UHF is not as
susceptible to interferences.
Ant
Jul 27, 2012, 3:18:12 AM7/27/12
to
On 7/26/2012 11:18 PM PT, Wes Newell typed:
>>> It also picks up high vhf channels quite well. When we had a channel 5
>>> here, the original 4228 even picked it up pretty good. The 4228HD was
>>> redesigned to pick up high vhf better. I'm about 40+miles from the
>>> towers and get high vhf without any problems, 8, 9, and 11. 11 also
>>> broadcast on 19, so I blocked it from the lineup.
>>
>> Why did you block 11?
>
> Because it was the exact same broadcast and I didn't want both showing up
> in my guide and I get a stronger signal from uhf 19. And UHF is not as
> susceptible to interferences.
Ah interesting. Two different stations then.
--
"Ants live safely till they have gotten wings." --unknown
>>> It also picks up high vhf channels quite well. When we had a channel 5
>>> here, the original 4228 even picked it up pretty good. The 4228HD was
>>> redesigned to pick up high vhf better. I'm about 40+miles from the
>>> towers and get high vhf without any problems, 8, 9, and 11. 11 also
>>> broadcast on 19, so I blocked it from the lineup.
>>
>> Why did you block 11?
>
> Because it was the exact same broadcast and I didn't want both showing up
> in my guide and I get a stronger signal from uhf 19. And UHF is not as
> susceptible to interferences.
--
"Ants live safely till they have gotten wings." --unknown
J G Miller
Jul 27, 2012, 5:45:02 AM7/27/12
to
On Friday, July 27th, 2012, at 06:07:57h +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:00:02 +0000, J G Miller wrote:
>
>> So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
>> transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W and from
>> a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
>
> No, That's not a good test.
Depends on what you are testing. The intended purpose of this
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:00:02 +0000, J G Miller wrote:
>
>> So the real test is, how good is your reception of KIIO-LD which
>> transmits on the lowest power of all of these, at a mere 160 W and from
>> a rather short mast height of only 27 m ?
>
> No, That's not a good test.
test was in determining how good the antenna was in picking up
stations whose signal is most likely to be very weak.
Patty Winter
Jul 27, 2012, 12:25:59 PM7/27/12
to
In article <i7mdnWpKe9Yv3Y_N...@earthlink.com>,
Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>On 7/26/2012 11:18 PM PT, Wes Newell typed:
>
>On 7/26/2012 11:18 PM PT, Wes Newell typed:
>
>>>> I'm about 40+miles from the
>>>> towers and get high vhf without any problems, 8, 9, and 11. 11 also
>>>> broadcast on 19, so I blocked it from the lineup.
>>>
>>> Why did you block 11?
>>
>> Because it was the exact same broadcast and I didn't want both showing up
>> in my guide and I get a stronger signal from uhf 19.
>
>>>> towers and get high vhf without any problems, 8, 9, and 11. 11 also
>>>> broadcast on 19, so I blocked it from the lineup.
>>>
>>> Why did you block 11?
>>
>> Because it was the exact same broadcast and I didn't want both showing up
>> in my guide and I get a stronger signal from uhf 19.
>
>Ah interesting. Two different stations then.
No, as Wes said, it two different transmitters of a single station--the
one that identifies itself as "channel 11". (I don't know where Wes lives
so I can't determine the callsign of that station.)
Patty
Wes Newell
Jul 27, 2012, 2:22:15 PM7/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:25:59 +0000, Patty Winter wrote:
> No, as Wes said, it two different transmitters of a single station--the
> one that identifies itself as "channel 11". (I don't know where Wes
> lives so I can't determine the callsign of that station.)
http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php
> No, as Wes said, it two different transmitters of a single station--the
> one that identifies itself as "channel 11". (I don't know where Wes
> lives so I can't determine the callsign of that station.)
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
KTVT
Display Physical
Channel Channel(s)
11 19, 11
Ant
Jul 29, 2012, 9:29:32 PM7/29/12
to
Just for kicks and had OTA stuff in my head, I tried that unused RCA
ANT751 antenna in my old house's upstair room to see how it was compared
to my DB2 bowtie antenna. I got up to 109 channels according to my old
computer's HDTV tuners, but it didn't give me KCBS2, KCOP13, and KCET28.
This is facing the correct side of the giant hills/small mountains and
under 20 miles. I had to adjust it a bit and got all the ones I care for
and got about 85 channels (similiar to my old DB2 bowtie antenna) in the
closet and with half of the antenna parts not deployed/expanded (too
big/wide!). I am sure I can get way more channels and stability up on
the roof and outside, and fully deployed/expanded and using a newer HDTV
tuner (e.g., DTV Pal DVR). I was just curious as a nerd/geek! ;)
--
"... human societies send their young men to war, weaver-ant societies
send their old ladies." --Wilson and Holldobler
ANT751 antenna in my old house's upstair room to see how it was compared
to my DB2 bowtie antenna. I got up to 109 channels according to my old
computer's HDTV tuners, but it didn't give me KCBS2, KCOP13, and KCET28.
This is facing the correct side of the giant hills/small mountains and
under 20 miles. I had to adjust it a bit and got all the ones I care for
and got about 85 channels (similiar to my old DB2 bowtie antenna) in the
closet and with half of the antenna parts not deployed/expanded (too
big/wide!). I am sure I can get way more channels and stability up on
the roof and outside, and fully deployed/expanded and using a newer HDTV
tuner (e.g., DTV Pal DVR). I was just curious as a nerd/geek! ;)
--
"... human societies send their young men to war, weaver-ant societies
send their old ladies." --Wilson and Holldobler
Ant
Aug 4, 2012, 7:52:48 PM8/4/12
to
I'm back again, but with good and bad news... I went back this to the
new place early morning. OTA was still good with an overcast cold
weather (nice change from the crazy hot summer weather lately), it was
about 90 to 100 channels (similiar like before). It was also when cable
technicians came over to hook up cable stuff (yes that $89.99 bundled
promotion for a year) in case OTA doesn't work in the future. We can
always remove products and features if needed.
The bad news is my room and folks' master bedroom had to be sarcified
for cable and lose OTA since my folks did not want to add another cable
line. It would also be a lot of work (technician only had about 1.5
hours before the next appointment). I tried to argue that I still wanted
OTA, but I lost awesome OTA battle. :( The other two rooms were not
touched for its OTA. While setting up the cable line in my room from the
attic (disconnected one from a splitter for OTA), the cable technician
found another hidden dusty splitter in my room behind the cable outlet
cover. Woah. We totally missed that during that OTA madness! It was
splitted into my room and the master bedroom. That's crazy.
After he set it up, I went to test the OTA rooms and they even got more
channels (120 and 122 each room! That was the highest ever!)!! Wow.
Bummer I will be on cable TV. I am so spoiled by the free price and
picture clarity with OTA. Cable digital isn't impressive on a new 22"
HDTV. Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
(didn't even give me HDMI cables!). Oh well, my folks will be paying for
the crazy high cable prices and enjoying their OTA channels. :( At least
Internet is still fast with its standard 10/1. That's all I care for. ;)
--
Quote of the Week: "Ants die in sugar." --Malawi
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
new place early morning. OTA was still good with an overcast cold
weather (nice change from the crazy hot summer weather lately), it was
about 90 to 100 channels (similiar like before). It was also when cable
technicians came over to hook up cable stuff (yes that $89.99 bundled
promotion for a year) in case OTA doesn't work in the future. We can
always remove products and features if needed.
The bad news is my room and folks' master bedroom had to be sarcified
for cable and lose OTA since my folks did not want to add another cable
line. It would also be a lot of work (technician only had about 1.5
hours before the next appointment). I tried to argue that I still wanted
OTA, but I lost awesome OTA battle. :( The other two rooms were not
touched for its OTA. While setting up the cable line in my room from the
attic (disconnected one from a splitter for OTA), the cable technician
found another hidden dusty splitter in my room behind the cable outlet
cover. Woah. We totally missed that during that OTA madness! It was
splitted into my room and the master bedroom. That's crazy.
After he set it up, I went to test the OTA rooms and they even got more
channels (120 and 122 each room! That was the highest ever!)!! Wow.
Bummer I will be on cable TV. I am so spoiled by the free price and
picture clarity with OTA. Cable digital isn't impressive on a new 22"
HDTV. Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
(didn't even give me HDMI cables!). Oh well, my folks will be paying for
the crazy high cable prices and enjoying their OTA channels. :( At least
Internet is still fast with its standard 10/1. That's all I care for. ;)
--
Quote of the Week: "Ants die in sugar." --Malawi
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
Gene E. Bloch
Aug 4, 2012, 9:30:49 PM8/4/12
to
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:52:48 -0500, Ant wrote:
> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
Yep.
> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
Didn't give you component cables either.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Ant
Aug 4, 2012, 10:11:05 PM8/4/12
to
On 8/4/2012 6:30 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
>
> Yep.
>
> Didn't give you component cables either.
Are those good as HDMI? Man, I am so spoiled by HDMI. Heh. Even my old
father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
--
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
>
> Yep.
>
> Didn't give you component cables either.
father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
--
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
Gene E. Bloch
Aug 4, 2012, 11:24:19 PM8/4/12
to
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:11:05 -0700, Ant wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 6:30 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
>
>>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
>>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Didn't give you component cables either.
>
> Are those good as HDMI? Man, I am so spoiled by HDMI. Heh. Even my old
> father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
> either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
To my eye, they are as good as HDMI. Some others might be more
> On 8/4/2012 6:30 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
>
>>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
>>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Didn't give you component cables either.
>
> Are those good as HDMI? Man, I am so spoiled by HDMI. Heh. Even my old
> father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
> either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
discerning, but anyway, it's pretty close.
Ant
Aug 4, 2012, 11:52:57 PM8/4/12
to
On 8/4/2012 8:24 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
> To my eye, they are as good as HDMI. Some others might be more
> discerning, but anyway, it's pretty close.
Ah interesting. I never use both of them. Just VGA, DVI, and composites
video cables. :)
--
o/~ All the little ants are marching, red and black antennae waving...
they all do it the same... they all do it the same... way... o/~ --Ants
Marching song by Dave Matthews Band
> To my eye, they are as good as HDMI. Some others might be more
> discerning, but anyway, it's pretty close.
video cables. :)
--
o/~ All the little ants are marching, red and black antennae waving...
they all do it the same... they all do it the same... way... o/~ --Ants
Marching song by Dave Matthews Band
clover
Aug 5, 2012, 12:09:04 AM8/5/12
to Gene E. Bloch
via the Web. YouTube for the AC and whatever the Brits have conjured
for the Olys on http://www.bbc.co.uk/2012/, which is immeasurably better
than what NBC has wrought - beside being commercial free and event
selective!!!! The 55" Vizio 1080p240, on which 'we' generally watch
together, just does its thing with any image and I don't pay much mind
except to occasionally think to myself, isn't that a lovely picture?
And I've shown others, with some weird sense of pride, how magnificent
the coverage's images of both have been - giving much of the credit to
Larry Ellison, the BBC, and YouTube. This morning, while sitting at one
of the 32" 720p60 displays to read email and check other e-things, I
connected to the Brit's Oly site and was aghast at the picture quality.
I dashed (kathump kathump kathump) to the other room to see whether it
played similarly on the 240Hz unit - the site has replay capabilities -
and found the picture just as magnificent as ever. This was a first,
for me, to see just how much the 240Hz logic enhances PQ.
Oh! both are connected to their PC sources by HDMI. But, frankly, we
use component on the aged 42" 1080p60 and also often marvel at its PQ
from HDTV and BD sources.
Yet, a friend I've mentioned recently here, who's regressed from HDTV to
analog admires the PQ of his 32" Sony tube even though the component
connection would only work with his DVD player and, quite oddly, not
with his cableco set-top. I don't share his satisfaction, but . . . I
don't have to watch the picture except when he asks for help;-)
Patty Winter
Aug 5, 2012, 2:04:36 AM8/5/12
to
In article <501DF1E0...@invalid.nul>, clover <clo...@invalid.nul> wrote:
>
>I've been watching the America's Cup prelims and some of the Olympics
>via the Web. YouTube for the AC and whatever the Brits have conjured
>for the Olys on http://www.bbc.co.uk/2012/, which is immeasurably better
>than what NBC has wrought - beside being commercial free and event
>selective!!!!
second spot as you're starting the feed). And you can watch any event
you want, in real time. I watched the swimming earlier today just fine.
Patty
Remysun
Aug 5, 2012, 3:07:25 AM8/5/12
to
On Aug 5, 2:04 am, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> NBC's online feeds are also commercial free (after an initial 15-30
> second spot as you're starting the feed). And you can watch any event
> you want, in real time. I watched the swimming earlier today just fine.
I wouldn't call it ad free, I get plenty of interruptions, and
> NBC's online feeds are also commercial free (after an initial 15-30
> second spot as you're starting the feed). And you can watch any event
> you want, in real time. I watched the swimming earlier today just fine.
sometimes the feed locked up. But when it works it's wonderful.
Patty Winter
Aug 5, 2012, 10:18:23 AM8/5/12
to
In article <a6a93492-c524-47f8...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
that. Maybe NBC has a different deal with your cable company??
As for feed problems, I can't speak for your ISP and computer, but
I figure that Michael Phelps' final race must have put the highest
load on NBC's servers in the games so far, yet it was smooth as silk
for me.
Patty
da...@home.today
Aug 5, 2012, 11:49:28 AM8/5/12
to
<SNIP>
resolved some of their earlier issues. NBC has had a ton of complaints
on their streaming of the Olympics. While it could be the op's ISP/computer,
just because it was as smooth as silk for you, it would be incorrect to
assume, imply or suggest the problem was not with NBC.
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v4.0 Final
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
>As for feed problems, I can't speak for your ISP and computer, but
>I figure that Michael Phelps' final race must have put the highest
>load on NBC's servers in the games so far, yet it was smooth as silk
>for me.
>Patty
Personally, I can't speak to the issue as I don't have cable. Maybe NBC
>I figure that Michael Phelps' final race must have put the highest
>load on NBC's servers in the games so far, yet it was smooth as silk
>for me.
>Patty
resolved some of their earlier issues. NBC has had a ton of complaints
on their streaming of the Olympics. While it could be the op's ISP/computer,
just because it was as smooth as silk for you, it would be incorrect to
assume, imply or suggest the problem was not with NBC.
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v4.0 Final
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
Patty Winter
Aug 5, 2012, 3:45:51 PM8/5/12
to
In article <cCwTr.16599$lA2....@newsfe07.iad>, <da...@home.today> wrote:
>
>Personally, I can't speak to the issue as I don't have cable. Maybe NBC
>resolved some of their earlier issues. NBC has had a ton of complaints
>on their streaming of the Olympics. While it could be the op's ISP/computer,
>just because it was as smooth as silk for you, it would be incorrect to
>assume, imply or suggest the problem was not with NBC.
tried it!
Patty
HankG
Aug 5, 2012, 4:23:29 PM8/5/12
to
"Ant" <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote in message
news:U6Gdnb0J9p1NKIDN...@earthlink.com...
setup? omni-directional, rotary, amplifier? Also, I'd like to know where
you are located to receive that number of channels. When I got my HDTV, I
only found about 40 channels and am in a major metropolitan area
(Philly/South Jersey). I don't know if all brands of TVs work the same way,
but my options were (1) scan for channels, and (2) add channels. I was only
able to maximize my number by doing a scan, followed by multiple 'adds' with
manually turning my indoor antenna a few degrees before each 'add'.
It also seemed odd that the tech 'scanned' for new OTA channels after
completing his work.
Ant
Aug 5, 2012, 6:43:02 PM8/5/12
to
Yeah, you're WAY late to the fun online discussion party even since it
has been around since December 2011. Look for my very long "Does this
mean I will have to get cable/satellite TV for this possible new house?"
newsgroup thread.
Basically, it is in Los Angeles/L.A., was blocked by giant hills/small
mountains, on the wrong side of them to face the transmitters clearly,
parents refused to put a powerful antenna on the roof, attic didn't work
well, finally got a good antenna and spot, having with low OTA signal
strengths in some rooms since these were already set up by the previous
owners, etc. ;)
No, I scanned for OTA on the other coax cable feeds that were not
connected to Time Warner Cable (TWC) yesterday. I just wanted to see if
they still worked after the cable guy set up cable services with one of
the cables to the far away rooms. OTA still worked and were a lot better
than before. I sure miss OTA. I might have to build a custom PC in the
room with OTA and reuse my old 2005 HDTV tuner cards and just do
networking with my recordings. :D
> I must have just come into this thread. I'm curious: what is your antenna
> setup? omni-directional, rotary, amplifier? Also, I'd like to know where
> you are located to receive that number of channels. When I got my HDTV, I
> only found about 40 channels and am in a major metropolitan area
> (Philly/South Jersey). I don't know if all brands of TVs work the same way,
> but my options were (1) scan for channels, and (2) add channels. I was only
> able to maximize my number by doing a scan, followed by multiple 'adds' with
> manually turning my indoor antenna a few degrees before each 'add'.
>
> It also seemed odd that the tech 'scanned' for new OTA channels after
> completing his work.
--
"While an ant was wandering under the shade of the tree of Phæton, a
drop of amber enveloped the tiny insect; thus she, who in life was
disregarded, became precious by death." --Martial, Epigrams (c. 80-104
AD), Book VI, Epistle 15.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
has been around since December 2011. Look for my very long "Does this
mean I will have to get cable/satellite TV for this possible new house?"
newsgroup thread.
Basically, it is in Los Angeles/L.A., was blocked by giant hills/small
mountains, on the wrong side of them to face the transmitters clearly,
parents refused to put a powerful antenna on the roof, attic didn't work
well, finally got a good antenna and spot, having with low OTA signal
strengths in some rooms since these were already set up by the previous
owners, etc. ;)
No, I scanned for OTA on the other coax cable feeds that were not
connected to Time Warner Cable (TWC) yesterday. I just wanted to see if
they still worked after the cable guy set up cable services with one of
the cables to the far away rooms. OTA still worked and were a lot better
than before. I sure miss OTA. I might have to build a custom PC in the
room with OTA and reuse my old 2005 HDTV tuner cards and just do
networking with my recordings. :D
> I must have just come into this thread. I'm curious: what is your antenna
> setup? omni-directional, rotary, amplifier? Also, I'd like to know where
> you are located to receive that number of channels. When I got my HDTV, I
> only found about 40 channels and am in a major metropolitan area
> (Philly/South Jersey). I don't know if all brands of TVs work the same way,
> but my options were (1) scan for channels, and (2) add channels. I was only
> able to maximize my number by doing a scan, followed by multiple 'adds' with
> manually turning my indoor antenna a few degrees before each 'add'.
>
> It also seemed odd that the tech 'scanned' for new OTA channels after
> completing his work.
"While an ant was wandering under the shade of the tree of Phæton, a
drop of amber enveloped the tiny insect; thus she, who in life was
disregarded, became precious by death." --Martial, Epigrams (c. 80-104
AD), Book VI, Epistle 15.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
Steve Fenwick
Aug 6, 2012, 1:56:26 AM8/6/12
to
In article <501DF1E0...@invalid.nul>, clover <clo...@invalid.nul>
wrote:
wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 8:24 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:11:05 -0700, Ant wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/4/2012 6:30 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
> >>
> >>>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
> >>>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
> >>>
> >>> Yep.
> >>>
> >>> Didn't give you component cables either.
> >>
> >> Are those good as HDMI? Man, I am so spoiled by HDMI. Heh. Even my old
> >> father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
> >> either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
> >
> > To my eye, they are as good as HDMI. Some others might be more
> > discerning, but anyway, it's pretty close.
> >
>
> I've been watching the America's Cup prelims and some of the Olympics
> via the Web. YouTube for the AC and whatever the Brits have conjured
> for the Olys on http://www.bbc.co.uk/2012/, which is immeasurably better
> than what NBC has wrought - beside being commercial free and event
> selective!!!!
I'm curious--you're in the UK and using iPlayer, or somewhere else using
> > On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:11:05 -0700, Ant wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/4/2012 6:30 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
> >>
> >>>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
> >>>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
> >>>
> >>> Yep.
> >>>
> >>> Didn't give you component cables either.
> >>
> >> Are those good as HDMI? Man, I am so spoiled by HDMI. Heh. Even my old
> >> father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
> >> either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
> >
> > To my eye, they are as good as HDMI. Some others might be more
> > discerning, but anyway, it's pretty close.
> >
>
> I've been watching the America's Cup prelims and some of the Olympics
> via the Web. YouTube for the AC and whatever the Brits have conjured
> for the Olys on http://www.bbc.co.uk/2012/, which is immeasurably better
> than what NBC has wrought - beside being commercial free and event
> selective!!!!
iPlayer via a VPN service, or something else?
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
clover
Aug 6, 2012, 7:38:11 PM8/6/12
to Steve Fenwick
On 8/5/2012 10:56 PM, Steve Fenwick wrote:
> In article <501DF1E0...@invalid.nul>, clover <clo...@invalid.nul>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/2012 8:24 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:11:05 -0700, Ant wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/4/2012 6:30 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
>>>>>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't give you component cables either.
>>>>
>>>> Are those good as HDMI? Man, I am so spoiled by HDMI. Heh. Even my old
>>>> father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
>>>> either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
>>>
>>> To my eye, they are as good as HDMI. Some others might be more
>>> discerning, but anyway, it's pretty close.
>>>
>>
>> I've been watching the America's Cup prelims and some of the Olympics
>> via the Web. YouTube for the AC and whatever the Brits have conjured
>> for the Olys on http://www.bbc.co.uk/2012/, which is immeasurably better
>> than what NBC has wrought - beside being commercial free and event
>> selective!!!!
>
> I'm curious--you're in the UK and using iPlayer, or somewhere else using
> iPlayer via a VPN service, or something else?
>
> Steve
>
SoCal, using giganews vpn. Also handy when NBC is airing the America's
> In article <501DF1E0...@invalid.nul>, clover <clo...@invalid.nul>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/2012 8:24 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:11:05 -0700, Ant wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/4/2012 6:30 PM PT, Gene E. Bloch typed:
>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe it is the composite cables that the technician used
>>>>>> (didn't even give me HDMI cables!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't give you component cables either.
>>>>
>>>> Are those good as HDMI? Man, I am so spoiled by HDMI. Heh. Even my old
>>>> father could notice the blurriness. I told him that was normal from
>>>> either the composite cables, cable's compression, or both! :P
>>>
>>> To my eye, they are as good as HDMI. Some others might be more
>>> discerning, but anyway, it's pretty close.
>>>
>>
>> I've been watching the America's Cup prelims and some of the Olympics
>> via the Web. YouTube for the AC and whatever the Brits have conjured
>> for the Olys on http://www.bbc.co.uk/2012/, which is immeasurably better
>> than what NBC has wrought - beside being commercial free and event
>> selective!!!!
>
> I'm curious--you're in the UK and using iPlayer, or somewhere else using
> iPlayer via a VPN service, or something else?
>
> Steve
>
Cup, as their contracts apparently enjoin the AC from showing the races
on YouTube domestically in competition to them. The BBC does not
require iPlayer to view their webcasts. NBC, on another hand, has made
their webcasts a little tighter, by requiring cableco subscription to
the channels broadcasting Oly events. No biggie as all those channels
are in our community's TWC basic tier.
What I like about the BBC's web stuff, is that as soon as an event
begins, in a multi-event stream, it's bookmarked in the stream. Thus,
any stream that I join 'live' or archived has an immediate index to each
individual event already aired in that stream. This may also be true of
NBC's webcasts, but I chose the BBC to get a different slant (or bias)
on the coverage. By the way, congrats to the Brits for performing so
well at home and in such a broad array of events. The seesaw medal
contest between the two wealthiest nations is, somehow, less exiting.
Although, considering the national debt, we may have to turn the U.S.
medals over to China during the closing ceremonies!!!
0 new messages