NBC 5 Chicago 5.1 choppy for Bears game

[dodge]

Watching the Bears lose on NBC 5.1 WMAQ and Pictures has been choppy. nyone else seeing this . SIgnal on antenna is 100% according to my 622 OTA tuner.

 

[Jim5506]

HARD REBOOT! Clear that leaky memory.

 

[JB Antennaman]

WMAQ is on digital channel 29 and is a line of sight signal that is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 48 miles and is transmitted at about a power level of 167 Kw - which is not a lot of power, especiallly at 48 miles.

I would suggest that you buy a better UHF antenna like the XG 91 and a good Pre amplifier such as a Channel Master CM 7777 and a good antenna rotor because you have signals coming from all directions at your location and the XG 91 is a highly directional antenna.

Look at your TV fool report to see what I mean.

The XG 91 will not work well on any station in your area that is less then channel 22, so you will also need some sort of good VHF antenna if you wish to watch WWTO, WGN, WLS, WYCC, WYIN, or WOCK.

 

[dodge]

JB
Antenna is a winegard HD8200p
AMp is an Ap 8275 winegard
On a rotor 35 feet up on the roof
Signal on NBC is 100% according to the tuner, was the weather or station or the crummy 622 not the antenna!!!

 

[JB Antennaman]

So do you want a shoulder to cry on - or a tissue to wipe the tears from your eyes?

Lot's of things disrupts signals.

Everything from migrating birds to airplanes to the leaves on the trees to rain to snow to fog.

Anything between you and the signal can temporarily block your signal, there by corrupting it and making it unwatchable.

I too also have a Winegard 8200 U antenna and a Channel Master CM 7777 pre amp.

Maybe you need a FM trap on your line.

Maybe a cop shop in your area has a strong transmitter that is interfering with your reception.

Could be one of 100 things happening here.

 

[Jim5506]

HOW RUDE!!

 

[dodge]

yes how rude!!!!
I found my prob, the 622 is a pos, did a hard rebott and the prob went away, the dtv pal worked fine so I knew it was a 622 problem.

 

[Splicer]

I would suggest that you buy a better UHF antenna like the XG 91 and a good Pre amplifier such as a Channel Master CM 7777 and a good antenna rotor because you have signals coming from all directions at your location and the XG 91 is a highly directional antenna.

I would suggest that you actually read the post before you start being rude to torwards the more experienced forum members here. There was no indication that what he was experienceing was a reception problem at all. Yet you jump right in and spout that he is in a poor location with a poor antenna, then procede in another post to be very rude and tell things that is already a known. You should ask questions before instantly ASSuming you know the whole story.

The problem at hand was a "choppy" picture. This can be caused by many issues that do not involve the antenna or reception. In fact, an antenna issue would NOT cause a problem as he indicated. You need to learn some manners. Bite your tongue and THINK about the problem(s) you act like you are an expert on, before you so matter-of-factly reply.

 

[dodge]

splicer
Glad to see there are some people here who still can comprehend a sentence.
I spoke to another member a friend of mine on avs forums and he confirmed it was a problem on NBC's end not on mine. He had the same issue.

 

[Billjames]

WMAQ is on digital channel 29 and is a line of sight signal that is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 48 miles and is transmitted at about a power level of 167 Kw - which is not a lot of power, especiallly at 48 miles.

I heard some DTV stations cut their power by over 90%, making reception nearly impossible.

Many stations that have reverted to VHF assignments have dramatically cut their transmitter power, in some cases by over 90%! Some stations mistakenly thought they could save money by cutting their power while reaching the same number of viewers.
Getting VHF stations

 

[Splicer]

Thats an advertisement. I'm not aware of any stations that reduced their output by 90% and expected the same coverage. Now stations have seen a reduction in the amount of power required to run the transmitters, but that is completely different.

Most reception problems with VHF is the wrong antenna. And that is what the linked article is trying to sell.

 

[Mr Tony]

Well there are some here in Minneapolis that cut their power 90% and the FCC expected the same coverage according to the maps

KARE 11 was at 316Kw on analog...digital 27.1kw...same height
KMSP 9 was at 316kw on analog...digital 21k watts

in the case of Minnesota, all stations on VHF dropped way down (more than 90%)...all were 316kw analog signals
KAWE 9 PBS...14.5kw
KCCO 7 CBS...15.6kw
KCCW 12 CBS 14.3kw

and the FCC thought they would GAIN folks
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_current/Minneapolis-St_Paul_MN.pdf

 

[Splicer]

Damn. Now I'm no rocket scientist or even a mathmatician, but even I realize just how utterly ridiculous that is. The frequencies themselves have not changed, only the encoding has.

If I'm wrong, I would appreciate someone in the know edumacating me.

 

[Mr Tony]

forgot to add other channels in MN on VHF Hi

WDIO Duluth (ABC) 34.6kw
WDSE Duluth (PBS) 17.8kw...they have a construction permit to add a "fill in" translator at 38 (their old DT spot)
KTTC Rochester, MN (NBC) 16kw


but I liked when Mpls was a UHF land for digital. Much easier

Mike Kohl at global-cm.net had a great editorial about this whole "changeover"

We have been attempting to cover the fallout from the June 12th shutoff of full power analog television signals across the United States. It turns out that most of the public WAS ready for the transition, and that television stations were equally ready for that plug to be pulled, forcing everyone into permanent digital mode. But it turns out that flawed engineering data at the FCC has caused a major fiasco with stations that are now using VHF channels 2 to 13 for digital. Most visible examples include channel 13 in Baltimore, which was doing fine with its analog VHF channel, and equally well if not even better with their temporary UHF digital frequency. Once they shut off analog on VHF, turned off the temporary UHF digital signal, and then turned on VHF digital, a nasty surprise was found. As an outsider, all I can see is that highly visible engineering people must have been sleeping through much of their elementary school mathematics classes, and missed the parts on multiplication and division. Let's see if the rest of you can pass this test: If a UHF TV station was allowed to transmit 5 million watts video power in analog, and then given permission to use 1 million watts for digital, that would mean that the digital signal is using 20% of the power of previous analog signal. Suppose that a VHF station on channel 13 was previously transmitting at the maximum 316 Kw allowed for analog (just as UHF channels were allowed 5000 Kw on analog), would it not make a little bit of sense that the digital allotment should be somewhere near 20% of the previous analog power output? That number would be just over 60 Kw in most circumstances. Why were VHF channels given power outputs typically between 10 and 30 Kw? Did nobody realize that you would get extremely reduced coverage at a fraction of the power? And there was no real-world testing situation in many cases to see if digital VHF performance was adequate at proposed power levels?? Somewhere in the explanation should include the word "idiot", in my humble opinion. At least the FCC is now acting at previously unheard of speed to respond to broadcasters that are struggling with the power levels authorized, and giving them permission to crank up the power. It's still sort of an experimental process, with those complaining the loudest getting the attention (and permission) to increase power levels. Let's hope that things work out for the best sooner than later. Next is the plan to allow fill-in translators and other rebroadcasters to go on the air in areas that digital is now not working---after being satisfactory for analog signals for many years. Another debacle that will take a long time to straighten our!