

Twenty-first Century Rabbit Ears - grellas
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_14102185

======
rbranson
"There are always risks involved with going over the air or using an antenna
to receive a digital picture, mainly because digital airwaves are not as
forgiving as analog airwaves and are always subject to interference," said
Darryl Ryan, a spokesman for Time Warner Cable.

This kind of stuff makes me think that the people who run the cable companies
REALLY ARE like the DirecTV commercials.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SglXWd_fY3E>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0XXS7eswC0>

~~~
henrikschroder
Yeah, that quote jumped out at me as well. Last summer I helped my dad tune
the TV at our summer house, and it's so much easier with a digital receiver
since they all can display a nice little diagnostic screen where they show the
exact signal strength and quality. Makes it a lot easier to figure out where
you should place the antenna and in which direction you should point it. And
as long as the signal quality is over a certain threshold, you get a perfect
picture.

...as compared to the old analog times when you did the same by trying to
decide which picture looked better, and when every tiny drop in signal quality
made the picture deteriorate.

Yeah, them digital airwaves sure aren't as forgiving.

~~~
joeyo
The problem is if the signal you are receiving is near that threshold. Many
people would probably prefer some periodic mild fuzz to artifacts and
stuttering video every few minutes.

~~~
misterbwong
Exactly. My parents live in a borderline neighborhood and they'd take static-y
channels over nothing/stuttering any day of the week. I'm going to side with
Darryl from Time Warner on this one.

~~~
whatusername
Another vote for people on the borderline. When the digital signal works -
it's great. When it doesn't - it's not there at all. When Analogue works -- I
can still kinda see there's a football game going on behind the blizzard.

------
ars
If you need an antenna build this one:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw> \- original video

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8jsDxNgHn4> \- improved model

<http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=798265> \- main discussion
site

<http://www.frontiernet.net/~mclapp/Antennas/diagrams.html> \- plans with
exact measurements

It's absolutely amazing how much better this antenna is compared to regular
commercial models.

~~~
misterbwong
Also keep in mind that these "coathanger" antennas are UHF only-you will not
be able to catch any stations still broadcasting on the VHF spectrum (there
are some).

~~~
ars
It's not zero. You get decent reception in VHF. Possibly better even than what
you had before.

If you know that your stations are lower in frequency, you can make the
elements larger, say 10, 10.5 inches, and adjust your antenna to get even
better VHF reception.

You can tune it based on which frequencies have a strong signal, which weak.
And size it for best reception for the weak signals.

