🚀 go-pugleaf

On 26/01/2012 3:57 AM, DonH wrote:
> Yeah, taking the plunge from the old cathode ray tube set to the new liquid
> crystal display model, and thus from analogue to digital, in the process.
>     The coaxial cable is now male-to-male (in keeping with modern trends),
> and plugs into "RF" on the new TV - whatever RF means.
>      Auto-tune the channels?  Alright.  Only trouble is : no DTV-ABC
> (2,22,23,24) even if all other channels work perfectly.  But ABC is there,
> on ATV.
>      Perhaps the ABC operates on a lower, and/or weaker, Megahertz waveband?
>      What band does it operate on?  No clue, not like in the old radio days
> when such data was needed to find the station using a variable condenser.
>       Phoned the makers of the TV set, who said to use "Restore Factory
> Defaults" (in case I'd stuffed things up?).  Guess, what?  Same reception
> result.
>       Maybe need a better aerial...?  Costs too much?
>
>
You need an antenna with a developed "digital" section

costs very little if you install your self

http://www.matchmaster.com.au/Antenna-Selection-Guide

-- 









X-No-Archive: Yes

Need a better antenna and new cable. Digital TV in the capital cities also uses ch 11 and 12 (225MHz) and your antenna probably has poor reception above 10 (211MHz). Reception at ch2 (67MHz) is no longer necessary, so some new vhf 'digital only' antennas no longer cover Band I and Band II, only Band III (Ch's 6-12). 

Mine has 18 elements on Band III giving much better performance compared to the old 'Metro' antenna that wasted elements trying to be a very broadband antenna.

The older cable has probably deteriorated over the decades and its loss has perhaps doubled by now, so replacing it is suggested too.

>      Perhaps the ABC operates on a lower, and/or weaker, Megahertz waveband?
>      What band does it operate on?  No clue, not like in the old radio days
> when such data was needed to find the station using a variable condenser.
>       Phoned the makers of the TV set, who said to use "Restore Factory
> Defaults" (in case I'd stuffed things up?).  Guess, what?  Same reception
> result.
I had the same problem and upon contacting the ABC reception advice line I 
was informed that many older aerials dont support the right frequencies for 
ABC digital.

"Jonathan Wilson" <jfwfreo@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message 
news:4f20897a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>      Perhaps the ABC operates on a lower, and/or weaker, Megahertz 
>> waveband?
>>      What band does it operate on?  No clue, not like in the old radio 
>> days
>> when such data was needed to find the station using a variable condenser.
>>       Phoned the makers of the TV set, who said to use "Restore Factory
>> Defaults" (in case I'd stuffed things up?).  Guess, what?  Same reception
>> result.
> I had the same problem and upon contacting the ABC reception advice line I 
> was informed that many older aerials dont support the right frequencies 
> for ABC digital.

# So, I'm forced to get a new TV antenna just to get the ABC?
   At present, I can receive (and quite clearly) - channels: 
1,3,7,9,10,11,12,30,32,33,34,44,70, 71,72,73,74,90,99 on DTV; and five 
channels on ATV (ABC, 7,9,10, SBS).
   Hence, while I only watch ABC for the news, it may be goodbye ABC come 
Dec 2013, when analogue disappears.
   Can't the ABC switch its output to some higher frequency (Mhz), or is it 
stuck with an inferior bandwidth?
   Meanwhile, the Govt doles out set-top boxes to seniors - and, problem 
solved? 

"Brad" <google2@vk2qq.com> wrote in message 
news:14039231.940.1327530436664.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prdh15...
Need a better antenna and new cable. Digital TV in the capital cities also 
uses ch 11 and 12 (225MHz) and your antenna probably has poor reception 
above 10 (211MHz). Reception at ch2 (67MHz) is no longer necessary, so some 
new vhf 'digital only' antennas no longer cover Band I and Band II, only 
Band III (Ch's 6-12).

Mine has 18 elements on Band III giving much better performance compared to 
the old 'Metro' antenna that wasted elements trying to be a very broadband 
antenna.

The older cable has probably deteriorated over the decades and its loss has 
perhaps doubled by now, so replacing it is suggested too.

# From what I can gather from Internet, the following are DTV transmission 
frequencies (Mhz):
   ABC  = 226.5
   Ch 7   = 177.5
   Ch 9   = 191.5
   Ch 10 = 219.5
   SBS   = 564.5
  I assume this represents both audio and video output, or is an average of 
the two? 

On 27/01/2012 3:01 AM, DonH wrote:
> "Jonathan Wilson"<jfwfreo@tpgi.com.au>  wrote in message
> news:4f20897a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>       Perhaps the ABC operates on a lower, and/or weaker, Megahertz
>>> waveband?
>>>       What band does it operate on?  No clue, not like in the old radio
>>> days
>>> when such data was needed to find the station using a variable condenser.
>>>        Phoned the makers of the TV set, who said to use "Restore Factory
>>> Defaults" (in case I'd stuffed things up?).  Guess, what?  Same reception
>>> result.
>> I had the same problem and upon contacting the ABC reception advice line I
>> was informed that many older aerials dont support the right frequencies
>> for ABC digital.
>
> # So, I'm forced to get a new TV antenna just to get the ABC?
>     At present, I can receive (and quite clearly) - channels:
> 1,3,7,9,10,11,12,30,32,33,34,44,70, 71,72,73,74,90,99 on DTV; and five
> channels on ATV (ABC, 7,9,10, SBS).
>     Hence, while I only watch ABC for the news, it may be goodbye ABC come
> Dec 2013, when analogue disappears.
>     Can't the ABC switch its output to some higher frequency (Mhz), or is it
> stuck with an inferior bandwidth?
>     Meanwhile, the Govt doles out set-top boxes to seniors - and, problem
> solved?
>
>
You have the abc in several formats however a new antenna will be 
required to find those missing , you have plenty so just do it

-- 









X-No-Archive: Yes

On 27.01.12 03:31, DonH wrote:
> "Jonathan Wilson"<jfwfreo@tpgi.com.au>  wrote in message
> news:4f20897a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>       Perhaps the ABC operates on a lower, and/or weaker, Megahertz
>>> waveband?
>>>       What band does it operate on?  No clue, not like in the old radio
>>> days
>>> when such data was needed to find the station using a variable condenser.
>>>        Phoned the makers of the TV set, who said to use "Restore Factory
>>> Defaults" (in case I'd stuffed things up?).  Guess, what?  Same reception
>>> result.
>> I had the same problem and upon contacting the ABC reception advice line I
>> was informed that many older aerials dont support the right frequencies
>> for ABC digital.
>
> # So, I'm forced to get a new TV antenna just to get the ABC?
>     At present, I can receive (and quite clearly) - channels:
> 1,3,7,9,10,11,12,30,32,33,34,44,70, 71,72,73,74,90,99 on DTV; and five
> channels on ATV (ABC, 7,9,10, SBS).
>     Hence, while I only watch ABC for the news, it may be goodbye ABC come
> Dec 2013, when analogue disappears.
>     Can't the ABC switch its output to some higher frequency (Mhz), or is it
> stuck with an inferior bandwidth?

They already did that in capital cities, as ABC digital is on VHF 
channel 12 whereas analog is on VHF channel 2. I think it's channel 12 
that some aerials had problems with, although you may be getting it on a 
different frequency (e.g. UHF), depending on where you are.

-- 
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.

I think the new frequencies are actually channel centre, rather than Video Carrier frequencies as they were in the old analog(ue) system.

The analog system consisted of several carriers with the sound sub-carriers nearer the top edge of the channel. The digital signals consist of many thousands of carriers and if you were to look at them on a spectrum analyser, you would see them all at the same strength. This means that you need an antenna with a reasonably flat response across the whole channel or you will lose data.

The older 'metro' analog antennas were designed to cover up to Ch10, and that's about it. The gain, or sensitivity of the antenna rolled off rapidly above that. CH10 has moved up 1MHz and the two new digital channels above that are now being used. They will be received poorly by an old antenna. While detractors like to argue that there is no such thing as a 'digital antenna', there is a difference between an antenna designed to receive up to CH10, and one designed to pick up CH10, 11 & 12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasian_television_frequencies#Australia

Don't forget to replace the coaxial cable too. The older cable may have corroded, suffered water ingress, may be poor quality, or just aged badly. Use a good quality Quad shield RG6 on the new antenna. It's cheaper than an amplifier.

"DonH" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message 
news:KnXTq.2146$v14.563@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> Yeah, taking the plunge from the old cathode ray tube set to the new 
> liquid crystal display model, and thus from analogue to digital, in the 
> process.
>   The coaxial cable is now male-to-male (in keeping with modern trends), 
> and plugs into "RF" on the new TV - whatever RF means.
>    Auto-tune the channels?  Alright.  Only trouble is : no DTV-ABC 
> (2,22,23,24) even if all other channels work perfectly.  But ABC is there, 
> on ATV.
>    Perhaps the ABC operates on a lower, and/or weaker, Megahertz waveband?
>    What band does it operate on?  No clue, not like in the old radio days 
> when such data was needed to find the station using a variable condenser.
>     Phoned the makers of the TV set, who said to use "Restore Factory 
> Defaults" (in case I'd stuffed things up?).  Guess, what?  Same reception 
> result.
>     Maybe need a better aerial...?  Costs too much?
>

# Well, from what I can glean from Internet, it seems that Mhz allocations 
for the basic DTV channels are (sorted by order of magnitude):
    Channel 7     = 177.5
    Channel 9     = 191.5
    Channel 10   = 219.5
    Ch 2 (ABC) = 226.5
    Ch 28 (SBS)= 564.5
  As the ABC is not at bottom of range, and I can receive all others, I see 
no reason why there would be an antenna  problem - solely re the ABC.
 

On Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:44:29 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:

> # Well, from what I can glean from Internet, it seems that Mhz allocations 
> for the basic DTV channels are (sorted by order of magnitude):
>     Channel 7     = 177.5
>     Channel 9     = 191.5
>     Channel 10   = 219.5
>     Ch 2 (ABC) = 226.5
>     Ch 28 (SBS)= 564.5
>   As the ABC is not at bottom of range, and I can receive all others, I see 
> no reason why there would be an antenna  problem - solely re the ABC.


Once more - because the ABC Digital is on Channel 12 and your VHF antenna is not made to cover that channel .The antenna also has UHF elements to cover CH28+. These are too small for CH12. There is a 'hole' in the coverage of your antenna as there was nothing of interest between 10 and 28 when it was manufactured.

You have no reason to take my word for it, but it is true nonetheless. I used to work for an antenna manufacturer and designed many weird combinations of elements to cover specific channel groups for country areas. Older antennas made in Australia did not cover any VHF frequencies above CH10. The UHF elements covered 28-65. 

And do not confuse the TV network names with the actual channels. Ch 7 Seven DTV is broadcast on CH 6. Nine Network is on 8. Digital Radio is on 9A, Ten Network is on 11 and ABC is on 12. The old 2,7,9,10 names are going to be a thing of the past. People in regional areas do not use them.

"Brad" <google2@vk2qq.com> wrote in message 
news:10128592.56.1327700651856.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prhq15...
On Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:44:29 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:

> # Well, from what I can glean from Internet, it seems that Mhz allocations
> for the basic DTV channels are (sorted by order of magnitude):
>     Channel 7     = 177.5
>     Channel 9     = 191.5
>     Channel 10   = 219.5
>     Ch 2 (ABC) = 226.5
>     Ch 28 (SBS)= 564.5
>   As the ABC is not at bottom of range, and I can receive all others, I 
> see
> no reason why there would be an antenna  problem - solely re the ABC.


Once more - because the ABC Digital is on Channel 12 and your VHF antenna is 
not made to cover that channel .The antenna also has UHF elements to cover 
CH28+. These are too small for CH12. There is a 'hole' in the coverage of 
your antenna as there was nothing of interest between 10 and 28 when it was 
manufactured.

You have no reason to take my word for it, but it is true nonetheless. I 
used to work for an antenna manufacturer and designed many weird 
combinations of elements to cover specific channel groups for country areas. 
Older antennas made in Australia did not cover any VHF frequencies above 
CH10. The UHF elements covered 28-65.

And do not confuse the TV network names with the actual channels. Ch 7 Seven 
DTV is broadcast on CH 6. Nine Network is on 8. Digital Radio is on 9A, Ten 
Network is on 11 and ABC is on 12. The old 2,7,9,10 names are going to be a 
thing of the past. People in regional areas do not use them.

# Thanks for the further info.
   I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is fine.
   This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a 
professional):

"Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on analogue and 
it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be 
getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner. Maybe 
call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for you."

# (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)

On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>   I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is fine.
>    This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a 
> professional):
> 
> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on analogue and 
> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be 
> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner. Maybe 
> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for you."
> 
> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)


That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of CH2 (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of CH12 (for which the antenna is probably not designed.) 

You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you. They can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable plug and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary antenna on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.

"Brad" <google2@vk2qq.com> wrote in message 
news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...


On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>   I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is fine.
>    This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
> professional):
>
> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on analogue 
> and
> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be
> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner. Maybe
> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for you."
>
> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)


That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of CH2 
(for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of CH12 
(for which the antenna is probably not designed.)

You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you. They 
can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable plug 
and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary antenna 
on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.

# Alright, point taken.
   Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic, area, who 
will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
   As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it does seem 
odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, while all 
other DTV channels give excellent results.
   Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, but, come Dec 
2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.
   (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV Amplifier, for 
about $30 - any use?) 

On Monday, January 30, 2012 2:35:12 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
> "Brad" <goo...@vk2qq.com> wrote in message 
> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
> 
> 
> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
> >   I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is fine.
> >    This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
> > professional):
> >
> > "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on analogue 
> > and
> > it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be
> > getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner. Maybe
> > call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for you."
> >
> > # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
> 
> 
> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of CH2 
> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of CH12 
> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
> 
> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you. They 
> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable plug 
> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary antenna 
> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
> 
> # Alright, point taken.
>    Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic, area, who 
> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?

No, I can't.

>    As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it does seem 
> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, while all 
> other DTV channels give excellent results.

It is not odd at all. It's perfectly plain, if you understood what I wrote. 

>    Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, but, come Dec 
> 2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.

That's just silly, for that sake of an antenna you will forsake 3 additional channels.

>    (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV Amplifier, for 
> about $30 - any use?)

No. Don't amplify noise. Pick up a stronger signal in the first place.

On 30/01/2012 1:35 AM, DonH wrote:
> "Brad"<google2@vk2qq.com>  wrote in message
> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
>
>
> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>>    I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is fine.
>>     This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
>> professional):
>>
>> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on analogue
>> and
>> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be
>> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner. Maybe
>> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for you."
>>
>> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
>
>
> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of CH2
> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of CH12
> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
>
> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you. They
> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable plug
> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary antenna
> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
>
> # Alright, point taken.
>     Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic, area, who
> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
>     As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it does seem
> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, while all
> other DTV channels give excellent results.
>     Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, but, come Dec
> 2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.
>     (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV Amplifier, for
> about $30 - any use?)
>
>
Just go check your local paper , spend the $120 odd and loosen the grip 
on your purse
  sop

-- 









X-No-Archive: Yes

"atec77" <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jg52lq$66t$2@dont-email.me...
> On 30/01/2012 1:35 AM, DonH wrote:
>> "Brad"<google2@vk2qq.com>  wrote in message
>> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>>>    I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is fine.
>>>     This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
>>> professional):
>>>
>>> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on analogue
>>> and
>>> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be
>>> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner. 
>>> Maybe
>>> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for you."
>>>
>>> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
>>
>>
>> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of 
>> CH2
>> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of 
>> CH12
>> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
>>
>> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you. 
>> They
>> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable 
>> plug
>> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary 
>> antenna
>> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
>>
>> # Alright, point taken.
>>     Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic, area, 
>> who
>> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
>>     As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it does 
>> seem
>> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, while 
>> all
>> other DTV channels give excellent results.
>>     Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, but, come 
>> Dec
>> 2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.
>>     (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV Amplifier, 
>> for
>> about $30 - any use?)
>>
>>
> Just go check your local paper , spend the $120 odd and loosen the grip on 
> your purse
>  sop
>
> -- 
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>

# Well, I relented and got in the TV specialist.
    Yes, a new antenna fixed the problem.
    So, that's my daughter set up with digital, at her home.
    Now for me; firstly I still use the old ribbon lead from the wall plug, 
not co-axial cable... 

On Monday, February 6, 2012 5:36:31 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:

> # Well, I relented and got in the TV specialist.
>     Yes, a new antenna fixed the problem.

I said it would.

>     So, that's my daughter set up with digital, at her home.
>     Now for me; firstly I still use the old ribbon lead from the wall plug, 
> not co-axial cable...

You can use wet string if you have a strong enough signal. But if you start experiencing problems, you know where to begin trouble shooting.

On 6/02/2012 4:36 AM, DonH wrote:
> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:jg52lq$66t$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 30/01/2012 1:35 AM, DonH wrote:
>>> "Brad"<google2@vk2qq.com>   wrote in message
>>> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>>>>     I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is fine.
>>>>      This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
>>>> professional):
>>>>
>>>> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on analogue
>>>> and
>>>> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be
>>>> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for you."
>>>>
>>>> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
>>>
>>>
>>> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of
>>> CH2
>>> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of
>>> CH12
>>> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
>>>
>>> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you.
>>> They
>>> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable
>>> plug
>>> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary
>>> antenna
>>> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
>>>
>>> # Alright, point taken.
>>>      Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic, area,
>>> who
>>> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
>>>      As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it does
>>> seem
>>> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, while
>>> all
>>> other DTV channels give excellent results.
>>>      Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, but, come
>>> Dec
>>> 2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.
>>>      (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV Amplifier,
>>> for
>>> about $30 - any use?)
>>>
>>>
>> Just go check your local paper , spend the $120 odd and loosen the grip on
>> your purse
>>   sop
>>
>> --
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>
> # Well, I relented and got in the TV specialist.
>      Yes, a new antenna fixed the problem.
>      So, that's my daughter set up with digital, at her home.
>      Now for me; firstly I still use the old ribbon lead from the wall plug,
> not co-axial cable...
>
>
Never relenting tight arse  eh Don

-- 









X-No-Archive: Yes

"atec77" <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jgoi1o$o7l$2@dont-email.me...
> On 6/02/2012 4:36 AM, DonH wrote:
>> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:jg52lq$66t$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 30/01/2012 1:35 AM, DonH wrote:
>>>> "Brad"<google2@vk2qq.com>   wrote in message
>>>> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>>>>>     I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is 
>>>>> fine.
>>>>>      This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
>>>>> professional):
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on 
>>>>> analogue
>>>>> and
>>>>> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be
>>>>> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner.
>>>>> Maybe
>>>>> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for 
>>>>> you."
>>>>>
>>>>> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of
>>>> CH2
>>>> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of
>>>> CH12
>>>> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
>>>>
>>>> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you.
>>>> They
>>>> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable
>>>> plug
>>>> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary
>>>> antenna
>>>> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
>>>>
>>>> # Alright, point taken.
>>>>      Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic, 
>>>> area,
>>>> who
>>>> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
>>>>      As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it 
>>>> does
>>>> seem
>>>> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, while
>>>> all
>>>> other DTV channels give excellent results.
>>>>      Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, but, 
>>>> come
>>>> Dec
>>>> 2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.
>>>>      (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV 
>>>> Amplifier,
>>>> for
>>>> about $30 - any use?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Just go check your local paper , spend the $120 odd and loosen the grip 
>>> on
>>> your purse
>>>   sop
>>>
>>> --
>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>
>>
>> # Well, I relented and got in the TV specialist.
>>      Yes, a new antenna fixed the problem.
>>      So, that's my daughter set up with digital, at her home.
>>      Now for me; firstly I still use the old ribbon lead from the wall 
>> plug,
>> not co-axial cable...
>>
>>
> Never relenting tight arse  eh Don
>

# If you think I'm going to spend $200 (as advised) to get an expert in to 
change the wall socket, which I could probably do with a screwdriver (and a 
bit of knowledge), then forget it.
  OK, which of the two prongs of a ribbon lead is audio, and which is video?
  Ever noticed that people are always free with advice when it comes to 
spending another person's money?  "Financial advisers" only do what you 
could do yourself - and charge a fee.
  "You are a tight arse; I am merely prudent."
 

On 7/02/2012 2:41 AM, DonH wrote:
> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:jgoi1o$o7l$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/02/2012 4:36 AM, DonH wrote:
>>> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>   wrote in message
>>> news:jg52lq$66t$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 30/01/2012 1:35 AM, DonH wrote:
>>>>> "Brad"<google2@vk2qq.com>    wrote in message
>>>>> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>>>>>>      I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is
>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>       This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
>>>>>> professional):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on
>>>>>> analogue
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't be
>>>>>> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner.
>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for
>>>>>> you."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception of
>>>>> CH2
>>>>> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception of
>>>>> CH12
>>>>> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you.
>>>>> They
>>>>> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna cable
>>>>> plug
>>>>> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary
>>>>> antenna
>>>>> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> # Alright, point taken.
>>>>>       Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic,
>>>>> area,
>>>>> who
>>>>> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
>>>>>       As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it
>>>>> does
>>>>> seem
>>>>> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, while
>>>>> all
>>>>> other DTV channels give excellent results.
>>>>>       Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, but,
>>>>> come
>>>>> Dec
>>>>> 2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.
>>>>>       (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV
>>>>> Amplifier,
>>>>> for
>>>>> about $30 - any use?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Just go check your local paper , spend the $120 odd and loosen the grip
>>>> on
>>>> your purse
>>>>    sop
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>>
>>>
>>> # Well, I relented and got in the TV specialist.
>>>       Yes, a new antenna fixed the problem.
>>>       So, that's my daughter set up with digital, at her home.
>>>       Now for me; firstly I still use the old ribbon lead from the wall
>>> plug,
>>> not co-axial cable...
>>>
>>>
>> Never relenting tight arse  eh Don
>>
>
> # If you think I'm going to spend $200 (as advised) to get an expert in to
> change the wall socket, which I could probably do with a screwdriver (and a
> bit of knowledge), then forget it.
>    OK, which of the two prongs of a ribbon lead is audio, and which is video?
>    Ever noticed that people are always free with advice when it comes to
> spending another person's money?  "Financial advisers" only do what you
> could do yourself - and charge a fee.
>    "You are a tight arse; I am merely prudent."
>
>
>
I suspect even a draconian old fart like you might manage a gpo change , 
under $10.00 from lousy and hungrys and a couple of bucks for a new cable
  and yes you are a tightarse :P
  if you were closer I would hand you one but not going to spend postage 
on you today :P

-- 









X-No-Archive: Yes

"atec77" <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jgpuee$tv1$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/02/2012 2:41 AM, DonH wrote:
>> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:jgoi1o$o7l$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 6/02/2012 4:36 AM, DonH wrote:
>>>> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>   wrote in message
>>>> news:jg52lq$66t$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 30/01/2012 1:35 AM, DonH wrote:
>>>>>> "Brad"<google2@vk2qq.com>    wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>>>>>>>      I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is
>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>       This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
>>>>>>> professional):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on
>>>>>>> analogue
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't 
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner.
>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for
>>>>>>> you."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> CH2
>>>>>> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> CH12
>>>>>> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna 
>>>>>> cable
>>>>>> plug
>>>>>> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary
>>>>>> antenna
>>>>>> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # Alright, point taken.
>>>>>>       Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic,
>>>>>> area,
>>>>>> who
>>>>>> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
>>>>>>       As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> seem
>>>>>> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable, 
>>>>>> while
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> other DTV channels give excellent results.
>>>>>>       Currently, I can receive ABC on analog, on this new TV set, 
>>>>>> but,
>>>>>> come
>>>>>> Dec
>>>>>> 2013, it may be goodbye to anything ABC.
>>>>>>       (Incidentally, Dick Smith Electronics markets a plug-in TV
>>>>>> Amplifier,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> about $30 - any use?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Just go check your local paper , spend the $120 odd and loosen the 
>>>>> grip
>>>>> on
>>>>> your purse
>>>>>    sop
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # Well, I relented and got in the TV specialist.
>>>>       Yes, a new antenna fixed the problem.
>>>>       So, that's my daughter set up with digital, at her home.
>>>>       Now for me; firstly I still use the old ribbon lead from the wall
>>>> plug,
>>>> not co-axial cable...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Never relenting tight arse  eh Don
>>>
>>
>> # If you think I'm going to spend $200 (as advised) to get an expert in 
>> to
>> change the wall socket, which I could probably do with a screwdriver (and 
>> a
>> bit of knowledge), then forget it.
>>    OK, which of the two prongs of a ribbon lead is audio, and which is 
>> video?
>>    Ever noticed that people are always free with advice when it comes to
>> spending another person's money?  "Financial advisers" only do what you
>> could do yourself - and charge a fee.
>>    "You are a tight arse; I am merely prudent."
>>
>>
>>
> I suspect even a draconian old fart like you might manage a gpo change , 
> under $10.00 from lousy and hungrys and a couple of bucks for a new cable
>  and yes you are a tightarse :P
>  if you were closer I would hand you one but not going to spend postage on 
> you today :P
>
> -- 

#  Well, my daughter doesn't think so.
    After all, I paid for her new TV set (and DVD player), plus the aerial, 
and this after buying her, and her daughter, a new vacuum cleaner each.
    My Visa card balance has soared - and me being a pensioner.
    Incidentally, the new DVD player doesn't have aerial access any more. Is 
this to avoid piracy? 

On 8/02/2012 4:30 AM, DonH wrote:
> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:jgpuee$tv1$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/02/2012 2:41 AM, DonH wrote:
>>> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>   wrote in message
>>> news:jgoi1o$o7l$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 6/02/2012 4:36 AM, DonH wrote:
>>>>> "atec77"<atec77@hotmail.com>    wrote in message
>>>>> news:jg52lq$66t$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 30/01/2012 1:35 AM, DonH wrote:
>>>>>>> "Brad"<google2@vk2qq.com>     wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:5711129.405.1327802783494.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:15:50 AM UTC+11, DonH wrote:
>>>>>>>>       I may decide to do without DTV-ABC, as all other reception is
>>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>>        This response, however, was received by email, earlier (from a
>>>>>>>> professional):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Hi Don thanks for the enquiry, if your TV is receiving ABC on
>>>>>>>> analogue
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> it is somewhat clear then there is no reason why digital shouldn't
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> getting it. It sounds like its an issue with the TV's Digital Tuner.
>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>> call ******** # customer support to see if they have an answer for
>>>>>>>> you."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # (Brand name suppressed by me, here.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just plain wrong. You cannot blindly state that the reception
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> CH2
>>>>>>> (for which the antenna is designed) should be equal to the reception
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> CH12
>>>>>>> (for which the antenna is probably not designed.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need a new antenna. An antenna installer can do a survey for you.
>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>> can measure the strength of the ABC digital signal at the antenna
>>>>>>> cable
>>>>>>> plug
>>>>>>> and tell you if it is strong enough. They can also put a temporary
>>>>>>> antenna
>>>>>>> on the roof and let you see the improvement for yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # Alright, point taken.
>>>>>>>        Can you recommend a TV antenna expert in the Camberwell, Vic,
>>>>>>> area,
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> will give an assessment, at reasonable price?
>>>>>>>        As I said earlier, I can live without ABC, if necessary, but it
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>> odd that it is the one channel or bandwidth which is unavailable,


>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I suspect even a draconian old fart like you might manage a gpo change ,
>> under $10.00 from lousy and hungrys and a couple of bucks for a new cable
>>   and yes you are a tightarse :P
>>   if you were closer I would hand you one but not going to spend postage on
>> you today :P
>>
>> --
>
> #  Well, my daughter doesn't think so.
>      After all, I paid for her new TV set (and DVD player), plus the aerial,
> and this after buying her, and her daughter, a new vacuum cleaner each.
>      My Visa card balance has soared - and me being a pensioner.
>      Incidentally, the new DVD player doesn't have aerial access any more. Is
> this to avoid piracy?


  I don't know at this point , will be making  a review and purchase of 
the dvd when my new LG70" 4k arrives in a few weeks , can'  see the 
point of such measures when copy work is simply on a pc
>
>


-- 









X-No-Archive: Yes

Nope. They used to have the antenna connections and RF modulator because TV's did not have AV inputs. Nowadays tv's have a dozen inputs of various types.

Brad wrote...

> Need a better antenna and new cable. 

I installed a new antenna. It's RG6 from the antenna to the splitter, a run of
about 3m. From the splitter it goes off to a TV in the back of the house, a run
of about 20m, perhaps. That cable is the original coax. The second run of about
8m goes to the lounge. It's RG6.

The back of the house has a Mystar HD PVR and a Panasonic Blu-ray HDD recorder.
While the Mystar, which has an RF input from the FTA antenna seems to have
little problems with reception, the Panasonic often says "no signal" on One, Ten
and Eleven. Sometimes it happens on Prime/7Mate, etc.

I have to run a new length of RG6 to this point and to use proper plugs and
sockets. Hopefully that will fix the reception problem.

The front point seems to work fine, but it doesn't have a blu-ray recorder.

On Saturday, March 3, 2012 3:57:42 PM UTC+11, Marts wrote:
> Brad wrote...
> 
> > Need a better antenna and new cable. 
> 
> I installed a new antenna. It's RG6 from the antenna to the splitter, a run of
> about 3m. From the splitter it goes off to a TV in the back of the house, a run
> of about 20m, perhaps. That cable is the original coax. The second run of about
> 8m goes to the lounge. It's RG6.
> 
> The back of the house has a Mystar HD PVR and a Panasonic Blu-ray HDD recorder.
> While the Mystar, which has an RF input from the FTA antenna seems to have
> little problems with reception, the Panasonic often says "no signal" on One, Ten
> and Eleven. Sometimes it happens on Prime/7Mate, etc.
> 
> I have to run a new length of RG6 to this point and to use proper plugs and
> sockets. Hopefully that will fix the reception problem.
> 
> The front point seems to work fine, but it doesn't have a blu-ray recorder.

Move the gear to the front room and test it again. if it works the only variable is the long cable. 20m is quite long. I couldn't get away with it here in a deep fringe area.