How to get better digital reception ?

[Ext User(John Fitzsimons)]

Hi,

Other than the two approaches below, is there any other way to get
better digital reception ? It is for some elderly relatives of mine in
country Victoria. The T.V., though old, sometime seems fine on
"good" channels/days so that is okay.

(1) They had their aerial raised further up (they are in the hills).

(2) They plugged in a signal amplifier.

Is there such a thing as a "better quality" signal amplifier ? Or are
they all pretty much the same ?

Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
so then would that help ?

Any ideas, suggestions, help, input appreciated.

[Ext User(Typhonalias)]

John Fitzsimons wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Other than the two approaches below, is there any other way to get
> better digital reception ? It is for some elderly relatives of mine in
> country Victoria. The T.V., though old, sometime seems fine on
> "good" channels/days so that is okay.
>
> (1) They had their aerial raised further up (they are in the hills).
>
> (2) They plugged in a signal amplifier.
>
> Is there such a thing as a "better quality" signal amplifier ? Or are
> they all pretty much the same ?
>
> Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
> so then would that help ?
>
> Any ideas, suggestions, help, input appreciated.

This is a good place to try:

http://www.dtvforum.info/

[Ext User()]

> Other than the two approaches below, is there any other way to get
> better digital reception ?

You could try satellite. It means getting a free to air card
from Optus/Auroura. I think the card cost approx $100. The dish
and STB etc would cost Approx $350. Then you would need it set
up.

[Ext User(Greg)]

<privacy@hyundai.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ed023f53fecb6f19896b3@news.optusnet.com. au...
>> Other than the two approaches below, is there any other way to get
>> better digital reception ?
>
> You could try satellite. It means getting a free to air card
> from Optus/Auroura. I think the card cost approx $100. The dish
> and STB etc would cost Approx $350. Then you would need it set
> up.

No local version of 7, 9 or 10 are available.

If in WA you get win and 7 country, abc and sbs wa but other areas.
You get 7 central and imparja but they are local for NT and Country QLD.

[Ext User(PeteR)]

There are two basic types of amplifiers used in TV signal reception.
1. A Head Amplifier.
This is a low noise amplifier that usually sits on or near the antenna to
increase the signal level to overcome losses in the down cable and give the
television set a higher input signal.
These are almost essential in fringe areas where there is a long down cable
run to the television set or STB. Head amps are powered from a supply that
sends power up the cable. The power supply can be located anywhere along the
cable but usually it's located in the ceiling space.
Sometimes a head amplifier has two or more outputs that can be used to
supply a decent signal to points around the building. If there is reasonable
signal strength at the antenna to start with then these outputs can be split
further to supply more TV points.

2. A Distribution Amplifier.
These are used where a TV signal has to be split to provide a signal to two
or more points in the building.
The number of points and the antenna input signal level will determine the
gain (and cost) of the amplifier. A typical application for a high gain
distribution amplifier would be in a block of say 20 home units being fed
off one antenna.

Generally, there is not much difference in quality, for obvious reasons it's
important that the head end of head amps must be well weather protected.

A television antenna installation can be fairly complex. Basically, the
components used depend on the strength and quality of the transmitted
signal, the antenna gain and directionality, cable losses, the number of TV
outlet points required and the input sensitivity of the STB or analogue
tuner.
While it's not rocket science installations in difficult areas requires
the right test equipment, a good knowledge of local geography and reception
problems, an understanding of antenna characteristics, cable and other
equipment, and the ability to work quickly on roofs and not fall off.

> Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
> so then would that help ?
I'm puzzled as to why you would you want to do that. Could you clarify?

PeteR

"John Fitzsimons" <DELETEucwubqf02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:uk4a62ppunurlllk0g6i06f73sml4s58bu@4ax.com...
>
> Hi,
>
> Other than the two approaches below, is there any other way to get
> better digital reception ? It is for some elderly relatives of mine in
> country Victoria. The T.V., though old, sometime seems fine on
> "good" channels/days so that is okay.
>
> (1) They had their aerial raised further up (they are in the hills).
>
> (2) They plugged in a signal amplifier.
>
> Is there such a thing as a "better quality" signal amplifier ? Or are
> they all pretty much the same ?
>
> Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
> so then would that help ?
>
> Any ideas, suggestions, help, input appreciated.

[Ext User(John Fitzsimons)]

On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:47:25 +1000, "PeteR"
<pcrREMOVE@THISgensol.com.au> wrote:

>There are two basic types of amplifiers used in TV signal reception.

>1. A Head Amplifier.
>This is a low noise amplifier that usually sits on or near the antenna to
>increase the signal level to overcome losses in the down cable and give the
>television set a higher input signal.
>These are almost essential in fringe areas where there is a long down cable
>run to the television set or STB. Head amps are powered from a supply that
>sends power up the cable. The power supply can be located anywhere along the
>cable but usually it's located in the ceiling space.
>Sometimes a head amplifier has two or more outputs that can be used to
>supply a decent signal to points around the building. If there is reasonable
>signal strength at the antenna to start with then these outputs can be split
>further to supply more TV points.

Thanks. Would there be any point in having it where the cable enters
the room ? Or would there be no gain at all so far from the physical
aerial ?

Could one use a head amplifier AND a Distribution Amplifier ?

Comparing one to the other, would one be better than the other ?

>2. A Distribution Amplifier.
>These are used where a TV signal has to be split to provide a signal to two
>or more points in the building.
>The number of points and the antenna input signal level will determine the
>gain (and cost) of the amplifier. A typical application for a high gain
>distribution amplifier would be in a block of say 20 home units being fed
>off one antenna.

This is what they seem to have. One in and two out. Would a one in and
one out be any better ?

>Generally, there is not much difference in quality, for obvious reasons it's
>important that the head end of head amps must be well weather protected.

>A television antenna installation can be fairly complex.

< snip >

Okay, they DID get a supposed professional in to improve the reception
but he didn't do a very good job.

>> Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
>> so then would that help ?
>I'm puzzled as to why you would you want to do that. Could you clarify?

I thought that that would make for a better "total" reception. For
example suppose the outside aerial best stations were 7 and 9 then
perhaps the best indoor reception would be pointing at a slightly
different direction and get 10 and 2 etc. Being able to move around
an internal aerial could be handy.

Regards, John.

[Ext User(John Fitzsimons)]

On Sat, 13 May 2006 10:04:24 +1000, Typhonalias <spam@emailcouch.com>
wrote:

>John Fitzsimons wrote:

< snip >

>This is a good place to try:

>http://www.dtvforum.info/

Thanks. I will check it out. :-)

[Ext User(bassett)]

"John Fitzsimons" <DELETEucwubqf02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:uk4a62ppunurlllk0g6i06f73sml4s58bu@4ax.com...
>
> Hi,
>
> Other than the two approaches below, is there any other way to get
> better digital reception ? It is for some elderly relatives of mine in
> country Victoria. The T.V., though old, sometime seems fine on
> "good" channels/days so that is okay.
>
> (1) They had their aerial raised further up (they are in the hills).
>
> (2) They plugged in a signal amplifier.
>
> Is there such a thing as a "better quality" signal amplifier ? Or are
> they all pretty much the same ?
>
> Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
> so then would that help ?
>
> Any ideas, suggestions, help, input appreciated.

There is no such thing as "better" digital, you have it or you have a black
screen.
The Forward error correction [FEC] goven's what's expectable to the
receiver, and it lets the signal through, or rejects it.
bassett

[Ext User(PeteR)]

>
> >There are two basic types of amplifiers used in TV signal reception.
>
<snip>
> Thanks. Would there be any point in having it where the cable enters
> the room ? Or would there be no gain at all so far from the physical
> aerial ?
You can put the power supply anywhere within the house. An installer may put
it in the ceiling and get 240 volts to run it by tapping into a mains power
cable. Inside the house you could plug it into the same power point as the
TV.

> Could one use a head amplifier AND a Distribution Amplifier ?

You would only use that combination where you have weak signal reception and
you wanted a lot of outlet points. For example if our block of 20 units was
located 100 KM from the transmitter then a mast head amplifier (MHA) would
boost the antenna signal up to a useful level and the distribution amplifier
(DA) would increase the signal power to a level that can be distributed
equally to the TV points around the building.

> Comparing one to the other, would one be better than the other ?

They serve different purposes. Each is designed to do a specific job.
You *could* use a DA instead of a MHA to increase the antenna signal level
from the antenna but it's not really recommended or cost effective. You
would normally only use a DA by itself where there is a good antenna signal
and you want to distribute it to a number of TV points.

<snip>

> This is what they seem to have. One in and two out. Would a one in and
> one out be any better ?
Yes, the signal power out of one output would be at least twice that of two
outputs

< snip >
>
> Okay, they DID get a supposed professional in to improve the reception
> but he didn't do a very good job.
>
> >> Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
> >> so then would that help ?
> >I'm puzzled as to why you would you want to do that. Could you clarify?
>
> I thought that that would make for a better "total" reception. For
> example suppose the outside aerial best stations were 7 and 9 then
> perhaps the best indoor reception would be pointing at a slightly
> different direction and get 10 and 2 etc. Being able to move around
> an internal aerial could be handy.
>
> Regards, John.

It's unlikely that combining the signal from an indoor and outdoor antenna
would improve things. It may work for one channel but make other channels
worse. Even then moving (say) one object in the house or a car parking
outside (particularly on UHF) may upset the one that works and make another
one work.
TV signals bounce around all over the place arriving at the "antenna" at
different times adding to or canceling each other out. This is particularly
so in built up areas where there are a lot of flat surfaces for signals to
be reflected off. For example if you live in an area where you are in a
reception "shadow" i.e. no direct line of site to the transmitter, it's
possible that a reflected signal can be stronger than the main signal adding
to the complexity of the situation. You can see this occasionally in some
installations where the antenna is pointing in the wrong way, away from the
transmitter (or the clamps have rusted loose and the wind has blown the
antenna around :>)
In difficult areas it's important to select the right antenna for the local
conditions and mount it in the best [practical] location. The location can
be a simple as in the ceiling space or as complex (and expensive) as a 35
meter tower.
In most difficult reception areas an installation is a compromise. It's
technically possible to receive good clean TV reception almost anywhere
[within a viewing area] but at a cost that most of us aren't able to spend.
Digital Television technology can overcome many reception problems but to be
able to sort out the wheat from the chaff it still needs a reasonably good
signal to start with.

PeteR

[Ext User(John Fitzsimons)]

On Sun, 14 May 2006 14:34:00 +1000, "bassett"
<bassett@bassettskennel.com> wrote:

>"John Fitzsimons" <DELETEucwubqf02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:uk4a62ppunurlllk0g6i06f73sml4s58bu@4ax.com...

>> Hi,

>> Other than the two approaches below, is there any other way to get
>> better digital reception ? It is for some elderly relatives of mine in
>> country Victoria. The T.V., though old, sometime seems fine on
>> "good" channels/days so that is okay.

>> (1) They had their aerial raised further up (they are in the hills).

>> (2) They plugged in a signal amplifier.

>> Is there such a thing as a "better quality" signal amplifier ? Or are
>> they all pretty much the same ?

>> Is there some way to combine an outside AND inside aerial input ? If
>> so then would that help ?

>> Any ideas, suggestions, help, input appreciated.

>There is no such thing as "better" digital, you have it or you have a black
>screen.
>The Forward error correction [FEC] goven's what's expectable to the
>receiver, and it lets the signal through, or rejects it.
> bassett

Well, I have a STB for myself at present. When I have a "bad"
reception the image freezes for a few seconds. When things are
"good" I don't get freeze frames. The latter is what I was after.
Presumably "stronger" reception would reduce the freezing.

Regards, John.

[Ext User(John Fitzsimons)]

On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:42:34 +1000, "PeteR"
<pcr989@REmOVEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:


< snip lots of stuff >

>> This is what they seem to have. One in and two out. Would a one in and
>> one out be any better ?

>Yes, the signal power out of one output would be at least twice that of two
>outputs

Great ! I hoped you would say that.

Thanks PeteR. Your detailed answer is a great help. :-)

Regards, John.