Picking up audio-only digital TV channels
Patty Winter
up a few audio channels from KTNC. Is that the expected behavior
when one is on the fringe of a digital TV station's reception
area, and that station has some audio-only channels?
BTW, the ones that showed up in my scan are 42-16, 18, 19, and 20.
Only 18 and 20 actually have any audio on them, at least at the
moment. The listings on their website only show three video channels
(1, 2, and 3--big surprise). So I don't know what they're airing on
the audio channels. Currently, one sounds like maybe a book being
read, and one is doing music.
Patty
leansto...@democrat.com
Some stations have audio only feeds in addition to video+audio feeds.
Patty Winter
In article <3e956182-f213-4842...@e25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
leansto...@democrat.com <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
>On Apr 24, 9:36 am, pat...@sonic.net (Patty Winter) wrote:
[extraneous quotage deleted]
>> I mentioned in the KCNS/KTNC thread that I'm only able to pick
>> up a few audio channels from KTNC. Is that the expected behavior
>> when one is on the fringe of a digital TV station's reception
>> area, and that station has some audio-only channels?
>
>Some stations have audio only feeds in addition to video+audio feeds.
Ummm, yes. That's why I asked whether this could happen with the
audio-only channels.
Patty
Kevin McMurtrie
pat...@sonic.net (Patty Winter) wrote:
From my tuner, only KAXT is transmitting audio streams. KCNS and KTNC
show only three video channels each.
Virtual ATSC channels are a disaster. A tuner can't support overlapping
channel assignments and changing channel assignments at the same time.
You might have to wipe the listing clean and start over.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam
SidewaysLogic
Hi Patty,
I think you are watching KAXT (Physical channel 42 -- virtual channel
1) from Santa Clara, they have the highest rate of utilization on any
broadcaster. 12 Video channels, and 8 audio... Here is the line up,
all low quality video!
1.1 theCoolTV
1.2 Quê Hương - Vietnamese
1.3 Tiempos Finales - Spanish
1.4 Cool Music Network
1.5 Diya TV - Indian (South Asian)
1.6 Viet Today - Vietnamese
1.7 My Family TV
1.8 i2TV
1.9 KCTV
1.10 Coastal Television Network
1.11 Jewelry Television
1.12 PeanutTV - Local Real Estate
1.13 QH Radio (Radio on TV)
1.14 C Music (Radio on TV)
1.15 La Voz (Radio on TV)
1.16 TBD (Radio on TV)
1.17 TDB (Radio on TV)
1.18 TDB (Radio on TV)
1.19 TBD (Radio on TV)
1.20 TBD (Radio on TV)
SidewaysLogic
> In article <3e956182-f213-4842-bb8f-28a24d0b5...@e25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> leanstothel...@democrat.com <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 24, 9:36 am, pat...@sonic.net (Patty Winter) wrote:
>
> [extraneous quotage deleted]
>
> >> I mentioned in the KCNS/KTNC thread that I'm only able to pick
> >> up a few audio channels from KTNC. Is that the expected behavior
> >> when one is on the fringe of a digital TV station's reception
> >> area, and that station has some audio-only channels?
>
> >Some stations have audio only feeds in addition to video+audio feeds.
>
> Ummm, yes. That's why I asked whether this could happen with the
> audio-only channels.
>
> Patty
The Audio is much easier to decode than the Video, so I would expect
to get video drop outs before audio. It's actually much better that
way also, a station with video dropouts is watchable, a station with
audio dropouts cannot be watched (IMHO).
Richard Russo
> I mentioned in the KCNS/KTNC thread that I'm only able to pick up a few
> audio channels from KTNC. Is that the expected behavior when one is on
> the fringe of a digital TV station's reception area, and that station
> has some audio-only channels?
>
That seems unusual. My understanding is that the audio only channels are
encoded in the same way as channels with video; so the fringe reception
effects should be the same. However, maybe your receiever can do more
error correction on audio than video, and is willing to accept a lower
quality signal for audio?
SidewaysLogic
While the Audio and Video are on the same stream, the Video data is
about 10x as much as the audio data. The audio uses AC-3 compression,
and the Video uses MPEG-2. While they are both lossy DCT (Discrete
Cosine Transform) compression, the Video compression is much more
complicated to encode/decode, and consequently I would expect video to
drop out first, however to the average person, video dropouts can be
tolerated, but not audio, so I would think it would be the audio that
forces most people not to watch a station before the poor video
quality does.
Patty Winter
In article <a88d87bd-e971-418f...@k40g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
SidewaysLogic <sidewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 9:36 am, pat...@sonic.net (Patty Winter) wrote:
>>
>> > I mentioned in the KCNS/KTNC thread that I'm only able to pick
>> > up a few audio channels from KTNC. Is that the expected behavior
>> > when one is on the fringe of a digital TV station's reception
>> > area, and that station has some audio-only channels?
>
>1) from Santa Clara
Yes, someone else pointed that out to me in email. As he mentioned,
the whole RF/PSIP channel identification system can go haywire, and
in this case, some of the subchannels on RF channel 42/PSIP channel
1 were also showing up on PSIP channel 42. I verified that the two
active audio channels on 42 were the same as their equivalents on 1.
However...how come I'm not getting ALL of KAXT's channels on PSIP 42?
Are they perhaps sending incorrect PSIP information only for those few
audio channels?
Patty
Alan
>Yes, someone else pointed that out to me in email. As he mentioned,
>the whole RF/PSIP channel identification system can go haywire, and
>in this case, some of the subchannels on RF channel 42/PSIP channel
>1 were also showing up on PSIP channel 42. I verified that the two
>active audio channels on 42 were the same as their equivalents on 1.
>
>However...how come I'm not getting ALL of KAXT's channels on PSIP 42?
>Are they perhaps sending incorrect PSIP information only for those few
>audio channels?
I think your guess that they have those channels incorrect is possible,
but my first guess would be that the software in yoru receiver is confused.
It might need a full rescan.
Actually, it could be both -- it could be that the transmitted signal was
wrong at first, your receiver captured it, then they corrected their signal
but your receiver remembers that those channels existed.
I don't have particularly high opinions of the software in these boxes.
(Or the ones at the transmit end.)
Alan
leansto...@democrat.com
It is one big data stream (payload) that needs to be parsed. This
isn't like you are picking out a bit of spectrum.
What this boils down to is how is the FEC designed. You are implying
somehow it is on a per stream basis, when IIRC the FEC is for the
entire stream.
spamtrap1888
> However...how come I'm not getting ALL of KAXT's channels on PSIP 42?
> Are they perhaps sending incorrect PSIP information only for those few
> audio channels?
>
Could this effect be particular to your tuner? I'm not seeing it
either on my Sony TV or my Samsung converter -- all the channels
appear to be on "Channel 1."
John T
> I think your guess that they have those channels incorrect is possible,
> but my first guess would be that the software in yoru receiver is
confused.
> It might need a full rescan.
We have a couple of "problem child" receivers at our station that
freak out if anything appears different from their last scan. The
biggest problem is when something has to be reset on the transmit side
so the stream disappears. When it returns, these receivers want to add
the streams as though they were new- assigning their own sub channel
numbers internally! Other receivers, OTOH, seem to handle changes
rather gracefully, or at least only require a power-cycle to update
the internal database.
One thing I despise about most DTV receivers and boxes is that there
is no way to direct-tune an RF channel in ATSC mode. They default to
NTSC, or won't do it at all. I *hate* that! I may know of a channel
and want to see if it is receivable, but *noooo!* The engineers have
decided that if it isn't picked up on first scan, it doesn't exist.
Also, not being able to re-scan for additions, instead of doing a full
scan. Crazy. I have a feeling the designers never had to watch DTV in
an unstable signal area. That, and they're presuming a really good
outdoor antenna.
>
> I don't have particularly high opinions of the software in these boxes.
> (Or the ones at the transmit end.)
>
I deal with both, and you are absolutely right to hold a low opinion.
The same is often true of encoders-- unnecessarily complicated setup,
and no "basic" setup for those who are not doing something exotic. I
thought this was the age of "drag and drop!"
I think part of the problem is that many of the programmers who design
interfaces understand their technology plenty well, but don't have a
good understanding of the broadcaster's or consumer's needs. Usually
what you get is either too many choices or none at all. Bah!
JT
--
David Kaye
>One thing I despise about most DTV receivers and boxes is that there
>is no way to direct-tune an RF channel in ATSC mode. They default to
>NTSC, or won't do it at all. I *hate* that!
Oh, for the days when electronics were designed by people who actually used
them. I remember reading about the extraordinary lengths RCA went to in
designing their TVs and phonographs. Lots of consumer testing, lots of design
changes before the final product.
Now it seems that someone designs a chip and someone slaps together an
interface for it, and nobody much cares whether the thing functions well or
not. A friend has a car radio that will not allow the clock to be set except
to scan through every minute of the entire 12 hours. (Thankfully it's not a
24 hour clock.)
Patty Winter
In article <ip2rg4$bd$1...@usenet.stanford.edu>,
Alan <nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <4db4a609$0$10522$742e...@news.sonic.net> Patty Winter
><pat...@wintertime.com> writes:
>
>>However...how come I'm not getting ALL of KAXT's channels on PSIP 42?
>>Are they perhaps sending incorrect PSIP information only for those few
>>audio channels?
>
> I think your guess that they have those channels incorrect is possible,
>but my first guess would be that the software in yoru receiver is confused.
>It might need a full rescan.
Yeah, I probably should have done that a while ago. I can't remember the
last time I did. That did the trick; all the 42 channels are now gone.
> Actually, it could be both -- it could be that the transmitted signal was
>wrong at first, your receiver captured it, then they corrected their signal
>but your receiver remembers that those channels existed.
That's probably exactly what happened.
> I don't have particularly high opinions of the software in these boxes.
>(Or the ones at the transmit end.)
:-)
Patty
Kevin McMurtrie
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
I think broadcasters demanded that their heavily branded channel numbers
not change, regardless of all consequences. Now channel numbers are
arbitrary, useless, and often conflicting in ways that cause tuner
malfunction.
Mark Roberts
|
| One thing I despise about most DTV receivers and boxes is that there
| is no way to direct-tune an RF channel in ATSC mode. They default to
| NTSC, or won't do it at all. I *hate* that! I may know of a channel
| and want to see if it is receivable, but *noooo!* The engineers have
| decided that if it isn't picked up on first scan, it doesn't exist.
| Also, not being able to re-scan for additions, instead of doing a full
| scan. Crazy. I have a feeling the designers never had to watch DTV in
| an unstable signal area. That, and they're presuming a really good
| outdoor antenna.
| I think part of the problem is that many of the programmers who design
| interfaces understand their technology plenty well, but don't have a
| good understanding of the broadcaster's or consumer's needs. Usually
| what you get is either too many choices or none at all. Bah!
More than likely, there's the assumption that most people are going
to get a feed from cable or satellite boxes, so the over-the-air
reception is an auxiliary function at most. So they don't pay very
much attention to it.
I am in agreement with you -- it's especially obnoxious to have to
do a re-scan just to add a channel. When I try to receive channels
over the air, I'm just using indoor rabbit ears. I learned over the
weekend that KRON finally swapped the virtual channels of its SD
and HD signals -- HD is now 4.1, SD is 4.2, instead of the other
way around. The set could pick up the signals but they were
mislabeled. So I rescanned. But at that point, KNTV was not coming
in so well, so it missed it. Punching in "11.1" on the remote just
caused a refusal to change the channel. Punching in "11" tuned in a
blank channel. So I had to move the rabbit ears again and rescan.
It took three attempts before it got KNTV, whose digital signal
seems especially troublesome at my location (the San Bruno
stuff on UHF comes in fine).
All of that said, though, how many people are even going to do
that? Most are going to go through their cable box or satellite
receiver. In essence, the tuning job is outsourced to another
device. It's not a (clears throat) "core competency".
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Patty Winter
In article <91o7lm...@mid.individual.net>,
Mark Roberts <markrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I am in agreement with you -- it's especially obnoxious to have to
>do a re-scan just to add a channel.
It's interesting (not to mention frustrating!) how different the
various ATSC tuners and converters are in their behavior. For example,
my cheapie (free after government rebate) converter does offer channel
updates as well as full rescans.
> I learned over the
>weekend that KRON finally swapped the virtual channels of its SD
>and HD signals -- HD is now 4.1, SD is 4.2, instead of the other
>way around.
Yes, I noticed that when I did a full rescan the other day to get
rid of the spurious channels on PSIP 42.
>It took three attempts before it got KNTV, whose digital signal
>seems especially troublesome at my location (the San Bruno
>stuff on UHF comes in fine).
BTW, anyone heard anything about getting a better KGO signal in
the South Bay? It's no big deal, since I can always watch another
station in case of emergency, but I'm just curious. I can usually
get it if I move the rabbit ears the right way, but it was being
fussy when I did the rescan, so I gave up.
Patty
John T
>
>
> BTW, anyone heard anything about getting a better KGO signal in
> the South Bay? It's no big deal, since I can always watch another
> station in case of emergency, but I'm just curious. I can usually
> get it if I move the rabbit ears the right way, but it was being
> fussy when I did the rescan, so I gave up.
>
Last I remember seeing in the FCC database was an application to put a
translator on either Monument Peak or Mt. Alison on RF ch. 35, but it
would PSIP ID as ch. 7. I don't know what the current status is.
We have a similar outlet in Chico. The main ch. 28 is on the Sutter
Buttes serving the valley from Sacramento to Chico. The translator is
RF ch. 11 at Cohassett, serving Chico and part of the area between
there and Redding. People see one or the other as ch. 28, and those
with a well designed decoder/tuner might be able to direct tune either/or.
JT
Alan
Given the mess that showed up on the receivers I use when the folks at
KAXT showed up on 42.x conflicting with an existing station, this can only
lose.
Yes, the FCC should require that stations protect the virtual channels
as they protect the actual RF signals from overlap. Of course, that will
create more conflicts to resolve. It would be far simpler if the stations
were to be required to use their actual RF channel for the PSIP channel
number. Then you would have automatic protection against conflicting
PSIP channels.
I say again, this concept of having a "repeater" using the same PSIP
but on a different channel is a bad one, and it *WILL* screw up some
receivers. (Note my previous comment on the quality of the software in
this equipment.)
Alan
John T
> I say again, this concept of having a "repeater" using the same PSIP
> receivers. (Note my previous comment on the quality of the software in
> this equipment.)
>
No argument here. Where the signals overlap, there is no way to
differentiate between the two on a practical, usable level. The saving
grace is that both transmitters have identical programming.
My little $40 ATSC-only decoder, on the other hand, lets me direct
tune any channel, and I can program channels on and off from the table
of RF channel. I don't have to let the scan decide everything for me.
JT
--
spamtrap1888
> Yes, the FCC should require that stations protect the virtual channels
> as they protect the actual RF signals from overlap. Of course, that will
> create more conflicts to resolve. It would be far simpler if the stations
> were to be required to use their actual RF channel for the PSIP channel
> number. Then you would have automatic protection against conflicting
> PSIP channels.
KRON4 would suffer more than it already does from lack of (major)
network affiliation. And ABC is channel 7 in most major markets.
>
> I say again, this concept of having a "repeater" using the same PSIP
> but on a different channel is a bad one, and it *WILL* screw up some
> receivers. (Note my previous comment on the quality of the software in
> this equipment.)
>
Satellite receivers get software updates as long as they're on and
pointing at the bird. I wonder if tuner software could be updated over
broadcast stations.
Alan
>On Apr 27, 11:15=A0pm, nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu (Alan) wrote:
>> =A0 I say again, this concept of having a "repeater" using the same PSIP
>> but on a different channel is a bad one, and it *WILL* screw up some
>> receivers. =A0(Note my previous comment on the quality of the software in
>> this equipment.)
>
>Satellite receivers get software updates as long as they're on and
>pointing at the bird. I wonder if tuner software could be updated over
>broadcast stations.
Only if suddenly all tuners were built with the same hardware.
Presently they use different processors, with different i/o interfaces to
different tuner hardware.
The chances that they all execute a single machine language binary is
zero.
Not gonna happen.
Alan