Digital vs analogue antenna for FM radio

[L.A.T.]

We live in the bush, and digital broadcasting is new. For years we have had
satisfactory VHF and UHF TV reception from a two-piece antenna ( a wide one
and a skinny one connected via a junction box.). The FM receiver is also
connected to this antenna and is satisfactory as well, even though the VHF
part of the antenna is looking a bit droopy.
When we connected a STB to one TV and bought a TV with its own digital
tuner, they both worked spectacularly well connected to the existing
antenna. Now that we don't have any analogue TVs, we are thinking of
replacing the drooping antenna with what we are told is all we need for
digital reception, a very small thing that looks like a grill . If we have
to do this, is its construction such that it will give us FM as good as we
are getting now? I wish we could take the installer's word for it, but I
don't really think he knows much more than I do.

 

[Dorfus Dippintush]

We live in the bush, and digital broadcasting is new. For years we have had
satisfactory VHF and UHF TV reception from a two-piece antenna ( a wide one
and a skinny one connected via a junction box.). The FM receiver is also
connected to this antenna and is satisfactory as well, even though the VHF
part of the antenna is looking a bit droopy.
When we connected a STB to one TV and bought a TV with its own digital
tuner, they both worked spectacularly well connected to the existing
antenna. Now that we don't have any analogue TVs, we are thinking of
replacing the drooping antenna with what we are told is all we need for
digital reception, a very small thing that looks like a grill . If we have
to do this, is its construction such that it will give us FM as good as we
are getting now? I wish we could take the installer's word for it, but I
don't really think he knows much more than I do.

If the present one works I would seriously consider refurbishing it.
Antennas have a "catchment" area. And generally, smaller antennas have a
smaller "catchment". A standard beam antenna with correct element size
is probably the way to go. I'm a bit doubtful about the FM receiver
getting good reception off a UHF antenna, since FM radio is in the VHF band.

Dorfus

 

[Phil Allison]

"L.A.T."

We live in the bush, and digital broadcasting is new. For years we have
had satisfactory VHF and UHF TV reception from a two-piece antenna ( a
wide one and a skinny one connected via a junction box.). The FM receiver
is also connected to this antenna and is satisfactory as well, even though
the VHF part of the antenna is looking a bit droopy.
When we connected a STB to one TV and bought a TV with its own digital
tuner, they both worked spectacularly well connected to the existing
antenna. Now that we don't have any analogue TVs, we are thinking of
replacing the drooping antenna with what we are told is all we need for
digital reception, a very small thing that looks like a grill .

** Beware - all claims made by some turd trying to sell you something.

If we have to do this, is its construction such that it will give us FM as
good as we are getting now?

** No way - not at all - no chance.

I wish we could take the installer's word for it,

** Why ?

You in love with the turd?

but I don't really think he knows much more than I do.

** Get him to put the " grill" thing up - at his trouble and expense.

If it ain't 100% satisfactory

- DO NOT PAY ONE DIME.

Tell him THAT is the deal !!!!!!!!!

See the little shit slink off .............




........ Phil

 

[a t e c 7 7]

We live in the bush, and digital broadcasting is new. For years we have had
satisfactory VHF and UHF TV reception from a two-piece antenna ( a wide one
and a skinny one connected via a junction box.). The FM receiver is also
connected to this antenna and is satisfactory as well, even though the VHF
part of the antenna is looking a bit droopy.
When we connected a STB to one TV and bought a TV with its own digital
tuner, they both worked spectacularly well connected to the existing
antenna. Now that we don't have any analogue TVs, we are thinking of
replacing the drooping antenna with what we are told is all we need for
digital reception, a very small thing that looks like a grill . If we have
to do this, is its construction such that it will give us FM as good as we
are getting now? I wish we could take the installer's word for it, but I
don't really think he knows much more than I do.

Fact is that "grill" will not on it's own provide similar performance ,
if you have good reception clean the old unit up and keep using it .
where are you located ?
If you want a change for changes sake there may be something specific
to your area as per recommendation

 

[L.A.T.]

Fact is that "grill" will not on it's own provide similar performance , if
you have good reception clean the old unit up and keep using it .
where are you located ?
If you want a change for changes sake there may be something specific to
your area as per recommendation

Thanks for you replies.
One of the reasons for the change is that we are about to instal rain-water
tanks. The birds perch on the antenna and crap on the roof. We will move it
to a different part of the roof where birdcrap won't fall onto the
catchment, and I thought that we might replace the antenna at the same time.
Between you all, you have pretty well convinced me to stick with the
existing antenna.
There was a story in Radio and Hobbies when TV first appeared (1956?) about
the rumours and fears about TV. The waves went through you and fried your
brains. The waves confused the cows and made them give less milk. The waves
disoriented the ducks and they lost their way. And so on. Then there was the
chap that insisted that the TV "made the water taste funny." And yes, he had
installed the antenna above his water tank, and the birds congregated on
the antenna and crapped directly into the tank

 

[Phil Allison]

"L.A.T."

Then there was the chap that insisted that the TV "made the water taste
funny." And yes, he had installed the antenna above his water tank, and
the birds congregated on the antenna and crapped directly into the tank

** ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love it.

Best antenna story on this NG in yonks !!!


....... Phil


( who grew up in Shepparton were the family had a 70 foot high, stacked
Yagi antenna facing south - to pick up the Melbourne Olympics in
956 )

 

[Pete]

When we connected a STB to one TV and bought a TV with its own digital
tuner, they both worked spectacularly well connected to the existing
antenna. Now that we don't have any analogue TVs, we are thinking of
replacing the drooping antenna with what we are told is all we need for
digital reception, a very small thing that looks like a grill.

Let me get this straight - it's working spectacularly well, and you're
going to change it? Whatever for? What could you possibly be hoping to
achieve?

Peter

 

[David L. Jones]

We live in the bush, and digital broadcasting is new. For years we have had
satisfactory VHF and UHF TV reception from a two-piece antenna ( a wide one
and a skinny one connected via a junction box.). The FM receiver is also
connected to this antenna and is satisfactory as well, even though the VHF
part of the antenna is looking a bit droopy.
When we connected a STB to one TV and bought a TV with its own digital
tuner, they both worked spectacularly well connected to the existing
antenna. Now that we don't have any analogue TVs, we are thinking of
replacing the drooping antenna with what we are told is all we need for
digital reception, a very small thing that looks like a grill . If we have
to do this, is its construction such that it will give us FM as good as we
are getting now? I wish we could take the installer's word for it, but I
don't really think he knows much more than I do.

My new digital TV antenna gives awful FM reception, practically non-
existent, compared to my previous analog one.

If your system is working spectacularly well, why change it?

Dave.

 

[Dorfus Dippintush]

My new digital TV antenna gives awful FM reception, practically non-
existent, compared to my previous analog one.

If your system is working spectacularly well, why change it?

Dave.

Why do they call it a digital antenna anyway?
Radio signals haven't changed since Marconi and they're still analogue
by nature. Maybe the bandwidth is different but it's still not digital.

Anyone?





Dorfus

 

[Phil Allison]

"David L. Jones"
"L.A.T."

My new digital TV antenna gives awful FM reception, practically non-
existent, compared to my previous analog one.

** DLJ lives in Sydney where DTV in mostly on VHF, unlike rural areas.

Capital city DTV antennas are sized to suit VHF channels 6 through 12 (ie
174 to 230 MHz ) plus UHF - hence, they lack response to the 88 to 108
MHz FM broadcast band on VHF channels 3, 4 and 5.

Rural area DVT antennas are UHF only - some are " ...a very small thing
that looks like a grille " - these only cover from 520 MHz upwards.

So no FM band response whatsoever.....

But you can get " Dig " and " Dig Jazz " stereo music from the ABC's
digital TV signal.




........ Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dorfus Dippintush"

Why do they call it a digital antenna anyway?

** Means built to suit just the digital TV broadcast frequencies - plus
generally they are of lower gain, as DTV works OK with far lower received
RF levels than analogue TV.

Radio signals haven't changed since Marconi and they're still analogue by
nature. Maybe the bandwidth is different but it's still not digital.

** The MPEG compressed video and audio data is modulated onto multiple (
many hundreds) of close spaced RF carriers such that the result has the
characteristics of random noise. Bit like when you hear the data stream
coming from a 56 kb/s dial up modem.

This makes the pic it immune to ghosting, most interference sources,
adjacent channel interference problems and noise ( aka "snow" when the
signal strength gets a bit weak.

The biggest plus is the dramatic increase in the number of available
channels at any one location. Each 7 MHz wide analogue channel space now
accommodates 3 digital pictures and there is no need for channels to be left
vacant on either side of an occupied one.




........ Phil

 

[David L. Jones]

Why do they call it a digital antenna anyway?
Radio signals haven't changed since Marconi and they're still analogue
by nature. Maybe the bandwidth is different but it's still not digital.

Anyone?

It's called a "digital" antenna because it's designed only for the
frequency range used by the digital TV stations in your particular
area, as Phil said.

You can find out more info about the channels used here:
http://www.dba.org.au/

Also, my "digital" antenna is a log-periodic type, like this one:
http://www.australiandigitaltv.com/accessories/digitalantenna.htm

Dave.

 

[JimW52]

"L.A.T."




** ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love it.

Best antenna story on this NG in yonks !!!


...... Phil


( who grew up in Shepparton were the family had a 70 foot high, stacked
Yagi antenna facing south - to pick up the Melbourne Olympics in 956
)

IIRC the Vikings won most of the gold medals that time around.

Jim

 

[Brad]

Why do they call it a digital antenna anyway?
Radio signals haven't changed since Marconi and they're still analogue
by nature. Maybe the bandwidth is different but it's still not digital.

Anyone?

Dorfus- Hide quoted text -

Same as when colour tv was introduced and the manufacturers sold
colour antennas. By then the old aluminium was probably 20 years old
and fed with worn out old 300 ohm ribbon.

Now, since Digital tv does not operate on Band I or II or 5A, a
'digital' antenna needs only cover from Ch6 upwards, and also have a
flatter frequency response from ch6 to ch11A and also therefore has
poor FM coverage. And once again, it's probably time you replaced the
old corroded lump that's waving about up on the roof.

But of course you already knew this and you were being pedantic about
semantics. Does "digital tv antenna" mean digital "tv antenna" or
"digital tv" antenna?

Brad.

 

[Brad]

Radio signals haven't changed since Marconi and they're still analogue
by nature.

Oh, and YES, they have changed since Marconi, especially since he was
transmitting his first signals using spark. Nothing analog about that!

Brad.

 

[Phil Allison]

"JimW52"

IIRC the Vikings won most of the gold medals that time around.

** Well, they certainly cleaned up all the rowing events.





....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Brad"

Oh, and YES, they have changed since Marconi, especially since he was
transmitting his first signals using spark. Nothing analog about that!

** Plus Marconi used Morse code for his radio messages.

Clearly an early form of digital data.





....... Phil

 

[Dave Goldfinch]

"JimW52"




** Well, they certainly cleaned up all the rowing events.





...... Phil

LOL!!

Dave