|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 13, 2015 18:58:41 GMT -5
Uncompressed HD, best part about it. Well, next to free of course. Off topic: Mind if I ask whereabouts in Delaware? Friends of ours have a house at Broadkill Beach, and another used to have a place a little further down, off Rt. 24 on the Rehoboth Bay. I've really taken a liking to the area. We always stay at the Delaware Seashore State Park at the Indian River Inlet just south of Dewey Beach and just north of Bethany Beach. They just added about 40 more brand new full hookup camp sites on the northern side of the inlet that includes a full Marina with shops and a fun bar called Hammer Heads were you can get hammered and walk back to the campsite. The campground is about a 4 minute walk to the beach. Yes, I said 4 minutes I really like that southern part of Delaware. The seafood is abundant, the peeps are super southern nice and they still have WaWa's. Agreed. When my buddy had the place on Rehoboth bay we used to take his boat over to the Rusty Rudder in Dewey for lunch and beers, good times. Now we stay at Broadkill which is wonderfully secluded. No crowds, none of that heavy traffic down through Rehoboth and you can drink on the beach.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 14, 2015 9:03:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BBB on Aug 16, 2015 8:20:18 GMT -5
Yeah, since the beach area where we stay in DE is a state park, you have to get creative with the beers. Cans in a foam wrap or bottles pored into a red solo cup keep the beach patrol from stopping to say "hello"
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 16, 2015 12:04:39 GMT -5
Yeah, since the beach area where we stay in DE is a state park, you have to get creative with the beers. Cans in a foam wrap or bottles pored into a red solo cup keep the beach patrol from stopping to say "hello" Yeah, once in a blue moon we'll wander down to Rehoboth or Henlopen so we go into stealth mode. But back at Broadkill it's a free-for-all, drinks, bonfires, fireworks and you can drive on the beach too. Good thing we're "grown-ups" and "somewhat responsible" otherwise we'd get ourselves into trouble.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 18, 2015 18:25:41 GMT -5
Just had a thought. The antenna for channel 2 is mounted on the chimney and it's only inches away from the metal chimney cap. Think the cap could be catching some signal and causing the probable multipath issues? It's only been 3-1/2 months, but I was reading today that a chimney cap could indeed be causing multipath interference, so I conducted a little experiment this evening. I removed the cap and raised the antenna, albeit slightly, here's what I found.... Baseline: Ch. 2 - level 80, quality 46. Ch. 12 - level 28, quality 0 Cap removed: Ch. 2 - level 84, quality 58. Ch. 12 - level 32, quality 0 Cap on, raised approx. 8-10": Ch. 2 - level 88, quality 62. Ch. 12 - level 35, quality 0-1 I put the cap back on because it's a must. And while I raised it I left it aimed slightly away from the towers where I needed it to get Ch. 2 in the first place. I did not want to get into that in this heat, not to mention it's almost wine-o'clock. I have approx. 8-10" more that I can raise it and once it cools down I'll go back up and attempt to re-aim it with the added height. Maybe I don't need a higher gain antenna after all.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Aug 18, 2015 19:21:39 GMT -5
Just had a thought. The antenna for channel 2 is mounted on the chimney and it's only inches away from the metal chimney cap. Think the cap could be catching some signal and causing the probable multipath issues? It's only been 3-1/2 months, but I was reading today that a chimney cap could indeed be causing multipath interference, so I conducted a little experiment this evening. I removed the cap and raised the antenna, albeit slightly, here's what I found.... Baseline: Ch. 2 - level 80, quality 46. Ch. 12 - level 28, quality 0 Cap removed: Ch. 2 - level 84, quality 58. Ch. 12 - level 32, quality 0 Cap on, raised approx. 8-10": Ch. 2 - level 88, quality 62. Ch. 12 - level 35, quality 0-1 I put the cap back on because it's a must. And while I raised it I left it aimed slightly away from the towers where I needed it to get Ch. 2 in the first place. I did not want to get into that in this heat, not to mention it's almost wine-o'clock. I have approx. 8-10" more that I can raise it and once it cools down I'll go back up and attempt to re-aim it with the added height. Maybe I don't need a higher gain antenna after all. Like with any other antenna, height is might. The higher you can raise it, the better your signal reception will be.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 18, 2015 20:02:25 GMT -5
I read on a DTV forum that vhf low, where ch 2 is, should be a minimum 6' away from metal objects. That's not possible with this set up, but hopefully it'll be high enough so that I can aim it directly at the towers. I believe that will get me reception on ch.12, or at least get rid of the pixelation on ch. 2 at certain times of the day.
On a side note, I forgot how good a show Emergency! was. They put some serious money into production with the stunts and special effects. The boy likes watching it with me. CHiPs, too.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Aug 18, 2015 20:52:12 GMT -5
I read on a DTV forum that vhf low, where ch 2 is, should be a minimum 6' away from metal objects. That's not possible with this set up, but hopefully it'll be high enough so that I can aim it directly at the towers. I believe that will get me reception on ch.12, or at least get rid of the pixelation on ch. 2 at certain times of the day. On a side note, I forgot how good a show Emergency! was. They put some serious money into production with the stunts and special effects. The boy likes watching it with me. CHiPs, too. You want to keep any antenna at least 1/4 wavelength away from metal objects which can detune or distort the pattern of the antenna. 6' is a little over 1/4 wave at 54 Mhz (channel 2), so that advice is probably good. At UHF frequencies, you can be less than a foot away and be good.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 19, 2015 6:56:42 GMT -5
I need a wooden chimney cap.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Aug 19, 2015 15:45:34 GMT -5
I need a wooden chimney cap. Or a fiberglass one......
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 19, 2015 17:49:50 GMT -5
I just discovered the lights in the kitchen ceiling fan kill the signal quality on ch. 2, must be LED. I'll take care of those when the wifey is done making tomato sauce.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Aug 19, 2015 21:15:48 GMT -5
... or maybe tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Sept 1, 2015 8:17:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Sept 11, 2015 8:12:58 GMT -5
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Sept 11, 2015 12:13:24 GMT -5
You can't be surprised by this. With TV customers looking to dump premium cable services, in favor of streaming internet content, cable TV providers are still the best source for high speed internet service. So as its TV content services decline, the demand for internet bandwidth will increase. So they will make back lost CATV revenue with tiered internet services. You want unlimited transfers and maximum speed? You're going to pay extra for it. Otherwise get ready for speed and GB limits to be applied across the board from every CATV internet provider, as well as from Telco ISP's. I also don't see "super wifi" as a viable alternative service, from a business perspective. SOMEONE has to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance. So it will be likely that it will be offered on a pay subscription basis. It will likely be cheaper than CATV ISP's, but it won't have the bandwidth. So, like they say, you get what you pay for..... and pay you will.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Sept 11, 2015 16:26:44 GMT -5
You can't be surprised by this. With TV customers looking to dump premium cable services, in favor of streaming internet content, cable TV providers are still the best source for high speed internet service. So as its TV content services decline, the demand for internet bandwidth will increase. So they will make back lost CATV revenue with tiered internet services. You want unlimited transfers and maximum speed? You're going to pay extra for it. Otherwise get ready for speed and GB limits to be applied across the board from every CATV internet provider, as well as from Telco ISP's. I also don't see "super wifi" as a viable alternative service, from a business perspective. SOMEONE has to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance. So it will be likely that it will be offered on a pay subscription basis. It will likely be cheaper than CATV ISP's, but it won't have the bandwidth. So, like they say, you get what you pay for..... and pay you will. No, not surprised at all, I was expecting it. The confirmation is a bummer.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Sept 12, 2015 8:28:40 GMT -5
You can't be surprised by this. With TV customers looking to dump premium cable services, in favor of streaming internet content, cable TV providers are still the best source for high speed internet service. So as its TV content services decline, the demand for internet bandwidth will increase. So they will make back lost CATV revenue with tiered internet services. You want unlimited transfers and maximum speed? You're going to pay extra for it. Otherwise get ready for speed and GB limits to be applied across the board from every CATV internet provider, as well as from Telco ISP's. I also don't see "super wifi" as a viable alternative service, from a business perspective. SOMEONE has to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance. So it will be likely that it will be offered on a pay subscription basis. It will likely be cheaper than CATV ISP's, but it won't have the bandwidth. So, like they say, you get what you pay for..... and pay you will. No, not surprised at all, I was expecting it. The confirmation is a bummer. Technologies may change, but the quest to make money from them does not..........
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Sept 24, 2015 8:32:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by firehydrant562 on Sept 25, 2015 13:07:15 GMT -5
In our area the phone company also offers internet service. Not only is it cheaper than Comcast (cable) but it is faster. I don't miss Comcast at all.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Oct 9, 2015 12:17:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Nov 10, 2015 10:31:54 GMT -5
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 10, 2015 11:56:14 GMT -5
And yet, according to some scuttlebutt that I've been hearing, there are supposedly plans to force TV broadcasters off the air, in the RF version of eminent domain, to make room for cell/internet/data services. I can't seem to find anything recent on this. But this new found rebirth of OTA TV might be a push back to those plans
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Nov 10, 2015 12:14:29 GMT -5
And yet, according to some scuttlebutt that I've been hearing, there are supposedly plans to force TV broadcasters off the air, in the RF version of eminent domain, to make room for cell/internet/data services. I can't seem to find anything recent on this. But this new found rebirth of OTA TV might be a push back to those plans I heard something of the sort on the news recently, and by the sound of it I may be loosing some of my OTA chanels. Bastids! philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/10/25/seeking-spectrum-fcc-tries-to-entice-tv-stations-to-go-dark/
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 10, 2015 18:19:49 GMT -5
And yet, according to some scuttlebutt that I've been hearing, there are supposedly plans to force TV broadcasters off the air, in the RF version of eminent domain, to make room for cell/internet/data services. I can't seem to find anything recent on this. But this new found rebirth of OTA TV might be a push back to those plans I heard something of the sort on the news recently, and by the sound of it I may be loosing some of my OTA chanels. Bastids! philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/10/25/seeking-spectrum-fcc-tries-to-entice-tv-stations-to-go-dark/Much of this is being based on the (old) notion that most people now receive their TV programming via either cable, satellite, or streaming off of the internet, and that OTA reception is a very small fraction of what it once was. But I think if they surveyed again, they would find that the number of OTA viewers is growing, as more and more people give up on the high cost of cable and sat programming. So I have to wonder how this may affect any efforts to "sweet talk" broadcasters tp sell out......
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Nov 10, 2015 18:39:12 GMT -5
Much of this is being based on the (old) notion that most people now receive their TV programming via either cable, satellite, or streaming off of the internet, and that OTA reception is a very small fraction of what it once was. But I think if they surveyed again, they would find that the number of OTA viewers is growing, as more and more people give up on the high cost of cable and sat programming. So I have to wonder how this may affect any efforts to "sweet talk" broadcasters tp sell out...... Seems a bit suspect to me. Cable and satellite companies start loosing customers to OTA so Uncle Charlie steps in. As usual, follow the money.
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,245
|
Post by Sandbagger on Nov 10, 2015 21:26:02 GMT -5
Much of this is being based on the (old) notion that most people now receive their TV programming via either cable, satellite, or streaming off of the internet, and that OTA reception is a very small fraction of what it once was. But I think if they surveyed again, they would find that the number of OTA viewers is growing, as more and more people give up on the high cost of cable and sat programming. So I have to wonder how this may affect any efforts to "sweet talk" broadcasters tp sell out...... Seems a bit suspect to me. Cable and satellite companies start loosing customers to OTA so Uncle Charlie steps in. As usual, follow the money. The cynic in me says the same thing. Government resources have always been for sale to the highest bidder......
|
|
|
Post by BBB on Nov 12, 2015 9:57:48 GMT -5
I picked up another Chrome Cast dongle at cash converters for $20. With wireless broadband available, any android device running at least 4.4 can "tab" cast to a TV with the dongle attached to an HDMI port. That mirrors the screen of the android device on the TV screen. Earlier versions android devices can still "cast" any video service, like YouTube, to the TV screen. This all happens in HD. For the last several weeks I've been viewing YouTube how-to videos instead of the Fios set top box. Mr Carlson's Lab in particular. I dig it but he puts my wife to sleep within 2 minutes
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Nov 13, 2015 21:26:39 GMT -5
I've been meaning to upgrade my vhf/UHF combo antenna for some time now. I wanted a Channel Master CM5018 based on my needs and its size, but I didn't like the $129 price tag. Well kids, persistence pays off. I found a used one, 1 month old that had been installed in an attic, for $55. I pick it up Sunday afternoon... www.channelmaster.com/Masterpiece_Digital_HDTV_Antenna_p/cm-5018.htm
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Nov 27, 2015 14:07:52 GMT -5
Installed the Channel Master today. Big improvement on channel 2, yay! Hardly any improvement on channel 12, meh. No biggie, I can still get all PBS content on the Roku and I can get WNJS out of Trenton, albeit spotty and only after dark.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyMan on Dec 2, 2015 19:01:18 GMT -5
I wired in the TV in our master bedroom a while back. Tonight I decided to see what effect the CB would have on my reception. A 2.5 watt carrier on channel 20 completely wiped out channel 2, and I mean completely, no audio necessary. The next lowest, channel 6 was unaffected even with audio. I didn't check any others, they're all on UHF so I assume they wouldn't be effected unless I hit the gas. Of course the Imax and my UHF antenna are on the same mast...
|
|