I don't think I read that one. In another group, maybe cross-posted here, we recently talked about joining two antennas, but I don't the other topic came up.
Did anyone mention that by using an antenna amp, that is almost certainly uni-directional, that won't happen?
Even without that, I find it hard to believe the puny signal that comes out of a cable box will radiate even to next door from an antenna. Do you remember the Subject of that thread?
Read his post again. "Bad thing about it will not give all the channels, just the standard TV that is already free on the analog TV that is going away on cable."
I have no experience with this, but maybe there's a TV setting for standard definition signals that would improve the picture with the current receiver.
Channels 2-13 are the same for air and cable. Cable channels 14-64 and 95-99 (IIRC) are different. Cable channels 65+ overlap UHF broadcast channels 14+.
A color TV is capable of displaying a black and white picture. It checks for the color signal and works in black and white if there is none, using a circuit which I seem to remember being called a "color killer".
"compatible color" would be needed when an old black and white TV gets a color signal.
IDK what "compatible color" means. The color broadcasting system was designed so that a color broadcast would display as black and white on the millions of bw sets out there at the time. The color part was a compatible addition to what was already there.
This is a general warning and says NOTHING about antennas as a source of leakage, and thus it says nothing about using an antenna amp to block the cable signal from going up to the antenna.
As I asked before, in that prior thread, did anyone think to suggest an antenna amp? Did you?
The only examples the FCC url gives are here "Cable signal leaks can be caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated cables." Backfeeding into antennas doesn't even make the list.
I saw that. I don't think that was any reason not to reply as I did, and I don't think you or most people here would have let that stop you from replying either.
Like the OP in a thread is the only one posters write for. Like this OP can't have a problem with Direct and want to go back. Like this OP can't have family who might still be in the same situation he was in.
It was a marketing term coined by the cable industry to add a "Compatible Color Technology Fee" to America's cable bill. Today, the surcharge has morphed into the "HD Technology Fee".
We'll soon have a "Ultra Compressed 4K HD Technology Fee".
"Cable signal leaks occur when the RF signals transmitted within a cable system are not properly contained within the cable plant. Cable signal leaks can be caused by loose connectors, damaged plant and cracked or unterminated cables."
And I cited the FCC based on your recommendation to just use a splitter to combine the antenna and cable:
"maybe you can just connect both the cable and the antenna with a $2-5 splitter (a joiner connected backwards) and I think their signals are on separate frequencies that won't interfere with each other. "
After listing loose connectors, cracked, un-terminated cables, you think the FCC has to specifically say "don't connect an antenna to the cable"?
Just how stupid are you?
I didn't comment on your suggestion to use an antenna amplifier for isolation. I didn't see the need to, because as I pointed out, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist. The poster doesn't have a problem. He reported that he no longer even has cable, he's switched to DirectTV.
As I recall, yes it was discussed at length. But then we also had someone that had an actual problem then too.
Well, obviously you are that stupid.
You didn't see me replying though, did you? I didn't see anyone else replying to solve his non-existent problem either.
And you're still the village idiot. Maybe you could learn to trim posts?
Sorry to tell you, but yes, you need a new receiver and possibly more to get the full HD picture. You may want to contact your satellite supplier to get fixed up properly.
Upgrading sat. receiver may be easiest solution. Or there is other method like using A/V receiver with video upscaling capability. It is a matter of additional cost to get the benefit of full HD viewing.
I almost said it right. Compatible color meant that the signal of a color program could be understood by black & white sets and shown in black and white , and that the signal of a black & white program could be understood by a color set and displayed in black & white.
When parts of the world, probably Europe, got color tv they didn't have the enormous number of black & white sets and IIRC they used a different method for color that wasn't compatible with black & white, but other than that, it had advantages over the method used for color in the US.
Bearing in mind what Mark said, it might be better to use a multiplexer than a splitter. Despite the fancy 4-syllable name, they're very cheap too. As well as the antenna amp, of course.
C>>
Yeah, that was there, for sure. By golly, I remember reading it! I even remember quoting it!!!
Absolutely. That's an entirely different beast from loose or cracked, which are physical defects. Unteminated is a third kind of beast.
Smarter than you, it seems.
Baloney. Then why did you comment on the rest of it?
Why did you write "The FCC says otherwise:
formatting link
" If the antenna amp is moot now, what the FCC is just as moot.
By golly, he did.
Do you remember what the problem was?
You're not only stupid, you love to bicker. What a combination.
Don't know exactly what you mean by "the 3 RCA AA/V jacks". You could be describing either 3 {composite video/stereo audio} input sets or 1 {component video/stereo audio} input set. In order of increasing video quality: a. composite (single RCA connector, usually yellow),
b. S-video (small round with 4 pins and a rectangular key to help orient the plug to mate with an s-video socket),
c. component video (3 video cables using RCA connectors, usually blue, green, and violet or red). Some manufacturers use proprietary names rather than "component" to describe this protocol. For example, Toshiba calls it "colorstream".
Connecting cables for each system should be coaxial to minimize signal loss and/or noise from nearby sources of radio frequency noise. Do not use unshielded speaker cables with RCA connectors as substitutes. All 3 video protocols require separate cables with RCA connectors to carry the audio; and when stereo, usually a red/white or black/white pair.
d. As I understand it, HDMI doesn't provide better video quality than component video for conventional (720 or 1080) HD video. I'm not an expert and don't know if that's also the case for 4K video. HDMI connections also provide a stereo audio signal and the ability for two HDMI equipped devices to at least partially control each other, simplifying hookup and increasing user convenience.
Choose the best video signal protocol that is common between your satellite receiver's output choices and your TV's input choices. Unless the satellite receiver or a TV has a defective circuit (or a connecting cable is defective), you should see better video quality using any of the video protocols other than composite video. Although it shouldn't be an issue, I've found that signal quality is sometimes degraded if more than one protocol is used concurrently between the input and output devices (to make quick A-B) comparisons. It's better to disconnect/connect the other protocol's cables, and then switch the input source on the TV. Also, if a configuration option, make sure that your output device is sending a video quality protocol that the TV can use. For example, if the TV can only process up to 1080i, and the satellite receiver (or DVD player, etc.) can be set to deliver either
1080i or 1080p, make sure that they are not set to deliver 1080p. If the TV can only process 720 resolution, no input device should be set to deliver 1080, etc. etc. TVs usually automatically process whatever signal quality they are capable of receiving - depending on their specific circuitry. Many input devices that you connect to a TV do have user-selected settings to choose the output quality (in addition to the multiple jacks on the back) and you want to choose the best quality that your specific TV can use. By the way the "p" (for "progressive") protocol provides double the resolution of the "i" (for "interlaced") protocol.
Obviously not if you can't fathom that if a loose connector or cracked cable can radiate the cable signal to the neighborhood, then connecting an antenna would be even worse. I guess it's for guys like you that they have to put the 6 pages of warnings on power tools and appliances. They could say, "Warning, this tool has sharp pointed edges", but if they didn't tell you to not put it in your eye, you couldn't figure that out. And then after you put your eye out, you'd sue them, saying it's all their fault, they should have.
Because you recommended combining the cable system with an antenna using a $2 splitter. I commented on why that's a bad idea.
No it's not, it still applies to your first recommendation, which was to use a $2 splitter. And while adding an antenna amp will prevent the antenna from radiating the cable signals, it too is a bad idea because there typically are shared frequencies between cable and OTA. So, while it won't spew signals, it probably won't work either. But you're right that's a moot point, because the poster clearly stated his issue was in the past and he had REPLACED CABLE WITH DIRECT TV.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.