Over the air... really?

Discussion in 'Over the Air TV By RabbitEars.Info' started by larrykenney, Dec 22, 2016.

  1. I do, because differences between TV's and monitors often make it difficult to tell just how good that image should be. I'm 37, so I should still have pretty good eyesight, but there are times when I stare at the TV wall in Best Buy for a long time before I decide which one I like. And if there are 20 TV's up there, all showing the same stream, they can all look different. Knowing the bitrate of different streams help ME differentiate and know what I should be expecting to see on a screen. I'm not saying it would help the average person or that an average person would even care (or know what a bitrate is).
    Nascarken 91xg likes this.
  2. That's like reasoning which car engine is more powerful by how much fuel it consumes.

    The only way you can know what to expect is by bringing it with you.

    Lossy compression loses details. This suggests that the less "loss", the more detailed the picture. On the one side, this seems obvious: more detail requires more data. The folly is that when you re-compress a poor quality source original, it takes even more bandwidth to get a similar quality result. Lossy compression algorithms like JPEG and MPEG are based on some sort of true-to-life reference original visual and they break down quickly as imperfections (such as artifacts from prior compression) are introduced. In digital home video, everything is compressed with lossy compression at least once.

    The existence of poor quality source material is a fact of life. We know that store-bought DVDs, Blu-rays and UHD Blu-rays vary widely in picture quality from title to title (and often based on how they are marketed). There are variables in the medium from which they were sourced and whether the disc is single or double layered. The most worrisome are perhaps the UHD titles that were mastered at 2K (2048x1080).

    The best TV may be the one that best handles poor quality material as well as high quality material. The lesser quality source material is what it is going to be dealing with most of the time.
  3. Yes I think every one does that I know that I do ?
  4. Pull out the old dvr,box blow off the dustbunneys FCC Say's it will work fine for ATSC3,0,,but the TV's eats Turner are not to good TiVo $300,Amazon' fire stick $40,+ota work well movie +all sport's channel's like ESPN and so on just say it to the remote on the stick and their it is on the TV it's cool
  5. What is an "agl box" and how will it work with ATSC 3.0?
  6. LoL, why do you even bother? He posts all over the web, and it's all nearly incomprehensible. Though I gotta say, eventually you do tend to get the hang of some of it.
    Blindowl1234 and Nascarken 91xg like this.
  7. To funny bust my but OK my be u should stop putting people down !!¡!!! My be rabbit should come out of the sand box! ATSC& tuner's what type of tuner box to use for
    OTA thank you
  8. You're putting us down by not taking greater care in crafting your posts. Texting shortcuts along with bad spelling, punctuation and sentence structure shows that you just don't care enough to make the extra effort to be easily understood. That's a slap in our faces.
    Until ATSC 3.0 takes over, any DTV (ATSC) tuner will work just fine. ATSC 3.0 will require an all new tuner and they aren't available yet; an existing tuner WILL NOT WORK. If this doesn't answer your question, you'll have to be more specific.
  9. The FCC say that the top boxes that are out their work just fine ATSC,QAM boxs
    But the TV tunners on some TV will not receive it !!!
    jamesjimcie likes this.
  10. Try again. There are no boxes or tv's currently out that will receive ATSC 3.0. ATSC 1.0 yes. 3.0 No
    jamesjimcie and navychop like this.
  11. I think u need to do your homework first thanks!!!
    Like I did go to FCC ,org, ATSC o yes!!!
  12. Alright mister know it all. Show us these magical boxes that are available that will receive ATSC 3.0.
  13. #94 Nascarken 91xg, Mar 28, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
    Channel master 7001
    Google ATSC 3.0 & atsc is not new Read up on it
    Like I did this last month ATSc has Ben out thier
    For, quite some time now its just some thing
    For the FCC to use like a passufier for us
    To think we got some thing new lol
    And what I get out of it is it's Low,VHF
    OK to tests and play with it
    FCC Say's that if you have an outdoor
    TV antenna, vhf/UHF like a channel master,
    Or a wine guard 8200u,with a top box,or
    Some TV tunners with 1080i will received receive
    ATSC 3.0 so if you have an outdoor vhf/UHF
    TV antenna while they are testing
    Given it a try you MIT receive some
    ATSC3.0 look for them channels!!!!
    jamesjimcie likes this.
  14. By all means, offer us links to where the FCC says what you claim they say.

    At this point, I don't think the FCC is making any promises about ATSC 3.0 other than an assurance from Chairman Ajit Pai they will review it as quickly as possible. This typically means that they're asking others who live and breathe broadcast TV to comment on it.

    ATSC 3.0 is the brainchild of the ATSC, so it would be inappropriate for the FCC to make claims or assurances about what is or isn't available. FCC committee member Mignon Clyburn has stated that there would be NO government sponsored set-top box program as there was with DTV.

    In addition to the FCC comments you provide links to, you could also post to examples of set-top boxes that consumers can buy that claim ATSC 3.0 capability in their feature set. Don't be disappointed if you can't find any.

    In researching this post, I discovered that a low-power station group in the Portland, Oregon market is going to be testing ATSC 3.0 on four channels to see if it interferes with DTV broadcasts. It isn't expected that anyone will be able to see what they broadcast but the engineers are supposed to report back and see if it created any interference problems.
  15. According to the Channel Master website, the CM-7001 has these features:

    1. It is discontinued and replaced by the CM-7003.
    2. It will do ATSC and clear QAM
    3. It supports 8VSB, 8VSB MP@ML, 64/256 QAM (ATSC 3.0 uses ODFM modulation)

    The replacement CM-7003 adds support for MPEG4 but not h.265 that is required for ATSC 3.0.

    Neither the CM-7001 nor the current Channel Master offering is ATSC 3.0 capable.
    jamesjimcie likes this.
  16. Perhaps you should take your own advice and go read up on ATSC 3.0 and quit spewing nonsense.

    FYI that channel master 7001 is an 8vsb ATSC 1.0 tuner. It can NOT tune an OFDM ATSC 3.0 signal.

  17. #98 Nascarken 91xg, Mar 28, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
    Just like Dtv is a part of ATSC,where do you think the DTv came from back in the 1980
    Top box TiVo I think that is what the name is i just got my 2nd cm_7001,new in box
    On eBay $80
    OK OK OK !!!!now u are tolling me u say I think!! u are talking about The Mobil part of it now
    And it's going to suck do to freezups and no signal have fun with that
    Boy thay shure got u all fooled what a good game to steal the broadcasting channels from OTA,
    And u say that to me !!!! And all cellphones that are out their, big money for them red zone and u can't receive no one junk!! I will stick with ham thanks 73!!!!!!!
    jamesjimcie likes this.
  18. NascarKen, I must come down strongly with everyone else. The ATSC 3.0 architecture is quite complex. I agree that some of the layers are re-used from ATSC 1.0 and have been implemented. However, in order to display an ATSC 3.0 signal, you need an implementation that meets ALL of the mandatory blocks of the broadcast standard. If you don't have that, you simply cannot receive the signal. At the present time, we are very early in experimenting with adoption of these standards. On small broadcast area is putting out ATSC 3.0 test signals and the only decoders available are professional units that cost well in the 5 figure range.
    jamesjimcie likes this.
  19. At this pint I think it is clear that nascarken will not convince anyone else----and that no one will convince him. Perhaps it is best that we move on.
    comfortably_numb and jamesjimcie like this.