Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Cc&rs For Outdoor Tv Antennas


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#16 bunny

bunny

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts

Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:24 PM

http://www.tvfool.co...m...r&Itemid=29

Put in your address and it'll tell you what kind of antenna you'll need to get which channels, and which way to point it. All the signal levels, distances and whether you'll need an attic or rooftop antenna.

For the quick run I made, it showed just a couple of odd channels in the VHF range, a KVIE analog broadcast and KCSO, whoever they are.



#17 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:37 PM

QUOTE (bunny @ Feb 4 2009, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yep, there is no such thing as an "HD antenna" since any UHF/VHF antenna will work, however most digital tv stations broadcast on UHF, and many common rooftop antennas emphasize VHF over UHF since most analog channels broadcast in VHF.
So an antenna that would work best for HD would emphasize UHF and maybe have a decent VHF piece if the stations decide to move to a VHF band 10 or 15 years from now.

I'm not sure if any Sac broadcasters are going to broadcast in VHF since I get satellite these days.

By the way, I've seen folks take those flat type antennas, around 2'x3' in size, and just put them behind their tv cabinet or a dresser and pull in pretty good signal if they're not too far from the broadcast towers. If you're in the folsom area you're not too far.

Several of the Sac broadcast channels are also expected to boost their signal strength a few months after the conversion is done. That should expand their full signal reach to about 50-60 miles from Sac.

Yes, something many people may not realize, but all RF transmissions are analog. The radio waves are an analog waveform, always have been, always will be. So the difference in analog & digital TV is the method of encoding the information to be transmitted and received. Digital TV takes the information of the analog video signal, digitally encodes it, and it is this digital signal that then is used to modulate the RF that propogates through the air. The digital TV tuner, extracts the digital data from the RF signal, then uses this digital information to create the analog signals that comprise the picture and the sound.
I would rather be Backpacking


#18 bunny

bunny

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts

Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:58 PM

Jeez, my eyes almost glazed over there wink.gif

A really good analogy that works for most people over 30-something is that the changeover is like going from vinyl records to CD's. Vinyl was analog, and with a nice clean record with no scratches and a great turntable, the sound was great. CD's on the other hand either play or dont, and the sound coming out of any cd player is pretty much the same as any other. Its a string of '1's and '0's, not a bunch of little bumps on a record with a needle riding over them.

Similarly, in a perfect world the old analog television could be very good when all was set up properly. Digital television on the other hand allows for the picture to be either perfect or simply not there. If you're up close (under 60 miles) and have a decent antenna, it'll probably be perfect. No more snow or fuzzy pictures. Lock or no lock.

The folks beyond that limit are already used to having monolithic antenna's on a big pole.

Now all we need to do is figure out how to make a trash can screen also double as an antenna. I've got some ideas...

#19 stangage70

stangage70

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:32 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Feb 4 2009, 07:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm using an FM radio only antenna in the attic for a garage stereo and it works well. The best connection for TV's to antenna is to connect a 300 ohm to 75 ohm transformer right at the antenna and run RG-59 cable from there to the TV. It is far better than running the unshielded 300 ohm twin lead from the antenna to the TV set.


I agree about using coax cable, but RG59? I thought everyone was using RG6 these days... I would certainly recommend it. Quad-Shield RG6 is sold at Home Depot and the like for those who want the extra edge.

There are also amplifers that mount at the antenna to amplify the signal before it degrades.

I tried a few different antennas in my attic. I really wanted it to work, but my tile roof and foil building paper on the walls led to failure for me. It was no better than using an indoor antenna. The exterior antenna made all the difference.

I am hoping the Feb 17th change-over is NOT delayed. I am ready to move on and look forward to the transmitter improvements when stations don't need to broadcast both. My KCRA & KVIE are a bit weak currently (subject to weather).

#20 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:18 AM

QUOTE (bunny @ Feb 4 2009, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Jeez, my eyes almost glazed over there wink.gif


Good thing I didn't go into detail explaing data compression techniques, different modulation methods, error correction coding techniques, etc... biggrin.gif

I would rather be Backpacking


#21 bunny

bunny

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:21 AM

The changeover has been officially delayed. Many stations will probably go ahead and switch on the original date anyhow, because its holding them up and costing them money to wait.

#22 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:28 AM

QUOTE (stangage70 @ Feb 5 2009, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree about using coax cable, but RG59? I thought everyone was using RG6 these days... I would certainly recommend it. Quad-Shield RG6 is sold at Home Depot and the like for those who want the extra edge.

You may have misconceptions about that extra edge. This article discusses some of the differences between RG-59 & RG-6, but it doesn't address home antenna VHF-UHF applications. Either will work fine (especially compared to twin-lead), but the article does say for 100 ft runs, the RG-59 has less loss.
I would rather be Backpacking


#23 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:32 AM

QUOTE (bunny @ Feb 5 2009, 09:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The changeover has been officially delayed. Many stations will probably go ahead and switch on the original date anyhow, because its holding them up and costing them money to wait.

I saw the news last night and couldn't believe the crap they said. bunch of liars.

they said the date has been pushed out when they would have to turn off the analog even though they didn't want to.

BS The TV broadcast industry lobbied the FCC to no longer require them to provide backwards compatible analog broadcasts and are the ones trying to make the switch to digital, old TV's be damned if they don't work is their industry's stance.
I would rather be Backpacking


#24 stangage70

stangage70

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 05 February 2009 - 03:37 PM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Feb 5 2009, 09:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You may have misconceptions about that extra edge. This article discusses some of the differences between RG-59 & RG-6, but it doesn't address home antenna VHF-UHF applications. Either will work fine (especially compared to twin-lead), but the article does say for 100 ft runs, the RG-59 has less loss.


Thanks for the reference... However after reading that, I will still use RG6.
The use of RG59 seemed to be suggested more for direct video signals (i.e. CCTV, RGB or YUV), which I can believe.

#25 golive

golive

    Newbie

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 06:03 AM

It is brings a smile to my face every time I read a posts about CC&R's. CC&R's are merely put into action by builders during construction to ensure that they have the right to lets say clean something up or keep your front yard tidy so that they have a easier time selling the remainder of their properties. The builders will have to show loss in court to be able to get a judgement, which they have a better chance to do that rather than your neighbor. The neighbor would have to show financial loss to win a judgement. Which brings me to my next question. What person would be foolish enough to gamble on such a case knowing this would cost thousands and would more than likely open themselves up to a counter suit. You see a CC&R has no board attached to it. If you are relying on your CC&R I hate to say it but you were gullible enough to believe a sales pitch to sell a home. You probably should of spent a few more bucks a month and moved into a HOA neighborhood.

biggrin.gif

#26 EDF

EDF

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,517 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 06:43 AM

QUOTE (golive @ Apr 27 2009, 07:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It is brings a smile to my face every time I read a posts about CC&R's. CC&R's are merely put into action by builders during construction to ensure that they have the right to lets say clean something up or keep your front yard tidy so that they have a easier time selling the remainder of their properties. The builders will have to show loss in court to be able to get a judgement, which they have a better chance to do that rather than your neighbor. The neighbor would have to show financial loss to win a judgement. Which brings me to my next question. What person would be foolish enough to gamble on such a case knowing this would cost thousands and would more than likely open themselves up to a counter suit. You see a CC&R has no board attached to it. If you are relying on your CC&R I hate to say it but you were gullible enough to believe a sales pitch to sell a home. You probably should of spent a few more bucks a month and moved into a HOA neighborhood.

biggrin.gif



Yea... I hate to admit it.. but CC&R's are only enforceable if you take your neighbor to court...

I wonder if you could do it... with a "small claims" action...

The biggest offense I've seen was when I was in Lexington Hills there were a lot of boats parked in the driveway.. including mine... when I decided to park it in the garage (it took up two spaces) I only had 3rd garage and had to leave one of my cars out in the driveway which I hated...

but the difference was amazing.. when I drove down the street looking at the spot where my boat used to be... it was huge and ugly sitting there..

CCR's are there to help maintain the value of the property...

I remember the outrage a bunch of neighbors had when an owner painted their house some god awful color.. I mean it was one of those "astro-brite" yellows... they had to repaint it again because of the outrage...

I've seen a few homes here and there in town... and you have to admit CCR's are there for those people who JUST DON'T HAVE ANY TASTE....

I mean where are the "fashion police" when you need them....?



#27 golive

golive

    Newbie

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 07:33 AM

Yes I agree but the association should have been started. See there is no possible way to amend the CC&R as it has no board. This is a clear gap in the CC&R. HOA's will have a section directly related to the percentage of votes necessary to make changes which is also covered in California state law. My advice is to look up a winning case. You wont find one without HOA. All and all its just best to talk to your neighbor and realize that you probably are not perfect either. I'm just saying be careful. smile.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users