After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole antenna.
Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
300 ohm twin lead to build.So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
Lew
Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these? I have some extra cable sitting around and our current antenna isn't very good.
-Nathan
No, but it is simple enough to build.
1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long. 2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle. 3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half. 4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming the antenna lead wire to TV set.Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of straight pins, then attach lead to TV.
Enjoy.
Lew .
Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you need a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style Color TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old rabbit ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old out doors antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by a brand new antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna than analog as you well know.
I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change? Jim
Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower received signal strength.
Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.
I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
Because with digital TV you need more signal to get any picture at all compared to analog. If the signal is just below the threshold, you get a totally useless picture or no picture at all. With analog, the same picture would just have a bit of snow.
Having said that, the "new better digital" antennas are not different than antennas before digital. You just *may* need one with more gain to get a picture.
Shoot. I live so far out in the burbs that a folded dipole gets only a few FM radio stations. Rabbit ears get only WGN (the station, of course, and also white gaussian noise elsewise). There's a 20 year old, normal, ordinary log periodic TV antenna lying in the attic, that hasn't been used in 19.9 years. It would probably work well enough if I mounted it outside where it belongs, but it serves a useful purpose right now broadbanding the half wave
20m dipole, also inside, so it tunes enough to transmit on 40m and 15m. We've been on cable and dish since long ago, all digital for at least half that. Not everyone lives close to the city center.
Because the signal strength is much less than previously and the digital signal dies under multipath conditions that would not even be noticeable with an analog signal.
MikeWhy wrote: ...
Not everyone lives remotely close to a city fringe...
With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in a strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not, you will need a new antenna.
You would't but the frequencies WILL change.
The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.
I was wondering how they get those subchannels.
I live about 50 miles from the transmitter tower. The analog TVs were never able to get consistent signals from the UHF stations. Now, however, these stations come in quite well.
But, since nothing is broken here, there is nothing to fix (yet). Jim
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:47:59 +0100, J. Clarke wrote (in article ):
Ahhh.. that's the digital difference, it's very much an "it is or it isn't" situation from the signal stream right down to end user satisfaction.
Some sort of fractal logic at work here, perchance, the microcosm implicit in the macrocosm - the opposite of ironic?
In Britain it's become some sort of elitist game. I know plenty of people with NO worthwhile terrestrial signal unless they hang on to their five channels of analogue reception while others have a gerzillion channels of sparkling, crystal-clear worthless junk. It's going to be quite bloody when the all-noing government pulls the plug on all analogue broadcasts. Some rural areas are either going to have to go satellite or run 60-foot poles up on top of their picturesque cottages. My mother-in-law lives maybe 10 miles from a transmitter but is in a reception shadow (hilly terrain.) Like everyone else in her area, she has the digital box and an expensive new antenna rig but still watches analogue because the reception is great, channel switching is instantaneous and she is comfortable with her traditional stations and has no desire for forty channels of manga. I had a play with her set and it takes maybe 20 seconds to change from one channel to another to find out that it's something you don't want to watch.. Channel surfing is effectively impossible, and the "guide" takes just as long to scroll through.. each line takes about 20 seconds to refresh.
Everyone in the village is in a similar situation, so it's not just the senile old bat going luddite with the technik.
Progress
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand bananary and those who prefer a straight answer.....
Seems to be working just fine, especially on the UHF channels.
Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote: ...
... If you have enough signal level to have digital, that's generally true.
Otoh, when there isn't enough you have nothing w/ digital where analog was probably still just snowy/ghosty but at least visible.
So far here we're 1 for 2; the other two have delayed 'til the June witching date. When they make the switch, then I'll investigate what it'll take to get 'em all if it's within reason; 'til then I'll just do w/o the PBS. Discussion w/ their engineer wasn't promising that they thought would have a signal (and didn't really seem to give a flip, either, of course).
--
I get about 30 channels in Houston however most of the antennas are about 8 miles away "as the crow flies". Oddly with a similar antenna and with an analog TV the reception for 3 of the 5 major network stations was terrible. I added a $50 digital tuner to that TV and with the same antenna the reception was perfect.
My father lives 2 miles from me, added the digital tuner, and a $50 set of "digital" rabbit ears and the reception sucks if you stand too close or too far away. The antenna is located near the ceiling.
The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1" so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.
I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I have to turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at minimum some station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the signal completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven and clipping. A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the stations in my area.
Some digital is on UHF, some on VHF, just as some analog was on UHF and some was on VHF. Nothing new _there_.
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.