What is the BEST DTV converter?

Page 1 of 2  
When I got my first DTV converters, shortly after the coupons were released, I had little choice in the brand or model. I was lucky to find them in the stores before the coupons expired. I just had an elderly relative get her coupons, and she asked me to help her with this. I connected one of my converters to her tv, and she said that it works fine and to get her one of them. Because she lives a distance from me, I told her to just keep that converter and I'd use her coupon to get myself another one. I still got another converter like that, but I decided that I'd get myself the BEST converter. My question is which is the BEST? These days the stores are stocked with them, so I may as well shop for the one I want. I'm in a fringe area and need one that will really pull in the stations, whereas this relative is in a city and dont need the boost.
The one I had was the Apex. It works, but I bet there are better ones.
What do you recommend?
Thanks
LM
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 5, 3:55 am, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

Goggle reviews there are a few online even consumer reports review has a link online and maybe 15 are reviewed. What I see is the best are not in stores but online. The reviews mainly cover picture quality and use. Tivax, Channel master are two I am thinking of . If I knew how to post links I would do it. Reception is not covered there but is at other seller review sites. A new antenna is something to consider.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 5, 4:55�am, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

My opinion is that they are all probably close in quality. No matter which brand you get, you should still get a better picture due to it being Digital as compared to the old analog signal. Knowing this, how reliable can the "reviews" be?
I agree with Ransley about getting a better antenna if you need more "boost". The bigger the antenna, the better.
Hank <~~~thinks that size matters
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read consumer reports review, the picture quality they rate in 3 groups goes from normal to DVD quality, the Dvd quality are only sold online
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ransley wrote: ...

But there's nothing to indicate what it is that is the root cause of the difference or any way to infer the signal input sensitivity or other factors related to fringe area reception are the reason for being "better"...
I've seen no reviews that even mention such issues peripherally, what more directly.
--
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I found one online, its a site that sells different units, i will try to find it but changing search wording may do it at google, like, digital converter reviews, DTV box reviews, converter box reviews. One site has reception tests and I am sure the more expensive box was best Tivax, Channel Master, any they make antennas anyway.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 5, 5:50 am, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

They better take coupons online or why did they issue them. Thanks I will experiment doing a link.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

This will put the address of the site in the message, but to make of it a link, surround the address with angle brackets ("<...>"). Doing so forces the insertion of link code.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You guys are doing it the hard way.
1. Put cursor on the address bar and click left button. The address will change color 2. Click right mouse button and run cursor down to "copy" in the drop down menu. 3. Put cursor where you want the link in your message: Click right mouse button and choose "paste" from the drop down menu.
The link will now be there and no need to add anything to it. Only takes 4 mouse clicks
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:28:03 -0800 (PST), Harry K

Putting <> around a link will prevent it from wrapping and being broken.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/5/2009 6:33 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Not necessary, at least with my browser (Thunderbird): I just copied and pasted the link below:
http://antiwar.com
Does this appear as a clickable link to you? No need for "<>" or other magical characters. Just paste the damn URL in.
--
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won\'t use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:52:40 -0800, David Nebenzahl

The <> are used for long links to prevent them from wrapping and breaking. The <> forces the link all on one line, regardless of word wrap settings on individual browsers or newsreaders.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/5/2009 10:59 AM snipped-for-privacy@dog.com spake thus:

Totally unnecessary if one uses a non-brain-damaged news/mail client like Thunderbird, which doesn't molest long lines containing URLs like Outhouse Express does.
--
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won\'t use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:20:12 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Well, if you are only posting the link for yourself, then that makes perfect sense. If you are posting it for others, who may have a wide variety of different ways of reading usenet, then it's an entirely different matter. What YOU use for a newsreader is of no consequence.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/5/2009 11:25 AM snipped-for-privacy@dog.com spake thus:

Not sure about that. Here's why: the problem with posting links with OE is that it breaks links *in the posted message*. Thunderbird doesn't do this (I see you're using Forte Agent, and I assume Forte doesn't do this either). But what about reading messages? I don't know for sure, but my guess is that a properly-posted (i.e., non-broken) URL will read correctly even in a brain-damaged program like OE. In other words, if I post a long link, like this:
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_WW/CorrosionProtection/Home/Products/Catalog/SteelPipeCoatings/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECFTDQSPK6_nid=PQS9CR5Z5Fbe13QRJVC6DLgl
users who are reading this with OE should still be able to click on the link.
Is this correct? or does OE break links even when reading them?
--
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won\'t use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Outlook Express does not, contrary to your assertion, mangle long URLs.
I use OE. Have you ever seen one of my links "mangled?" Here's one, does it look (or act) botched in any way?
(Amazon.com product link shortened)33872790&sr=8-18
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not only does it _not_ look munged, it works just fine. I just tried it and I am using OE.
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:55:30 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

There are a lot of user reviews at Amazon. There and elsewhere, my impression is that the Zenith DTT901
((Amazon.com product link shortened)) is well-regarded for sensitivity.
G
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

If you want a good picture DO NOT USE the built in rf modulator. Use the composite video/left/right or s-vid connector if you have a set that accepts these.
choices to make: does it allow using just one remote control? sound mute/volume from dtvc remote? search new stations, without loosing already found? one button to change display- mailbox,full,etc? "favs" channels, but allows direct entry of all? "info" program directory - only channel viewed? " and next up? stores/shows all channels? more than 1 day? s-vid output?
each box handles these features in it's own ways, and none will have all that you want. the choices are personal preferences. the manuals poorly explain the features and interactions. good luck. find a few friends and borrow their boxes for a few days before you buy.
-- larry / dallas
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/5/2009 10:31 AM larry spake thus:

That jibes with my experience w/the Zenith DTT901. Picture quality using RF was marginal, maybe not as good as regular analog: composite video quality is much, much better.
--
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won\'t use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.