ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Reception, channel detection, network issues, CableCARD setup, etc.
SoNic67
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:15 pm
x 5

ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by SoNic67 »

I have the Flex 4k and an older Quarto.
Over classic ATSC channels they are all almost equal in reception quality, but the ATSC 3.0 channels are disaster in regard to signal quality.
Is that something normal?

I am in the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News, VA market.

kyl416
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:09 pm
Device ID: 1080DB11
Location: Tobyhanna, PA
x 33
Contact:

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by kyl416 »

Norfolk's ATSC 3.0 lighthouse is the 15 kW Class A WNLO-CD, so it's going to be weaker than their full power ATSC 1.0 counterparts that have 850-1000 kW signals.

One of the rules is that the ATSC 1.0 simulcasts have to be on a signal that has at least 95% coverage area of the signal that converted, so in a bunch of markets the only option for the participating stations was to convert a Class A signal because the rest of the participating stations either wouldn't have met the coverage requirements or didn't have room to carry simulcasts.
Last edited by kyl416 on Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

SoNic67
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:15 pm
x 5

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by SoNic67 »

I got that to work only briefly, not even worried about it, beening so weak.
However that's another lighthouse in the area that has three/four stations on it.
https://tvnewscheck.com/tech/article/fo ... -atsc-3-0/

signcarver
Expert
Posts: 9861
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:04 am
Device ID: 10A05954 10802091 131B34B7 13231F92 1070A18E 1073ED6F 15300C36
x 22

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by signcarver »

What other one... that is the WNLO lighthouse being talked about. (a lighthouse when it comes to ATSC 3.0 basically means channel sharing which in the article you linked to was WNLO hosting WAVY, WVBT, and WTVZ)

SoNic67
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:15 pm
x 5

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by SoNic67 »

I thought that the one you mentioned is on a stand alone antenna, WNLO-CD, channel 14.1, 14.2...
Different from the above lighthouse.
It was QVC and HSN...

kyl416
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:09 pm
Device ID: 1080DB11
Location: Tobyhanna, PA
x 33
Contact:

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by kyl416 »

WNLO-CD uses 45-1 as its virtual number (145.1 on the HDHomeRun 4K). WNLO-CD's RF 14 ATSC 3.0 signal is shared with WAVY (ABC), WTVZ (MyNet) and WVBT (Fox).

The HSN's and QVC's you see on 14-x are W26EV-D, which is owned by HSN's parent company. Pre-repack they were W14DC-D, but since it's a LPTV signal, they weren't protected in the repack and were displaced from RF 14 to RF 26 when the Class A WNLO-CD moved from RF 45 to RF 14.

SoNic67
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:15 pm
x 5

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by SoNic67 »

Thanks. So the ATSC 3.0 lighthouse is now on low UHF? Maybe that needs a different antenna than what I have, to boost the low end.

signcarver
Expert
Posts: 9861
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:04 am
Device ID: 10A05954 10802091 131B34B7 13231F92 1070A18E 1073ED6F 15300C36
x 22

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by signcarver »

Though possible to be an antenna issue, UHF antennas typically work on everything UHF with typically no need to worry about low vs high.

The main thing was already mentioned that it is an extremely low powered station compared to the other ones. You also didn't mention plp configuration which plays an important roll in the ability to receive a signal. Many use the term robust to describe plp that is typically configured as qam16 as it is typically viewable in any of the areas that get the signal... my personal connotation of robust is "full-bodied" (full-featured) and a qam16 will neve be full featured as there isn't enough bandwidth (they are using the term robust as forceful and the ability to punch through) so I would really wish they changed that term. Since it doesn't allow for much bandwidth, most will probably choose to have most plp's configured as qam256. In addition to such, there are variations in different correction mechanisms that can be implemented (at the cost of bandwidth) that can also help the station reach more but it is up to them to decide the tradeoff on such.

SoNic67
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:15 pm
x 5

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by SoNic67 »

It looks that indeed is a matter of compression.
This one barely comes on, I was lucky to catch that image, it fluctuates widely, sometimes with complete loss of signal. The other two sister stations are unwatchable too:
Image

This one... kind of works. But that's only in the evening, not during daytime:
Image
Image
PS: WAVY, WVBT and WNLO-CD are owned by Nexstar, while WTVZ (the one that kind of works) is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group.

jasonl
Expert
Posts: 15637
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:23 pm
x 32

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by jasonl »

What antenna are you using? Many antennas have poor performance at the bottom of the UHF allocation due to limitations imposed by the design and/or physics. This isn't usually an issue on full-power stations because the lower frequency gives them a stronger signal at the same power level compared to higher-frequency stations, and that mostly makes up the difference, but it is an issue on low-power stations. Generally speaking, bowtie, loop, and log periodic style antennas have a flatter gain curve and are better choices for lower UHF channels than yagi-style antennas, at least until antenna manufacturers get around to designing yagi antennas optimized for the current UHF band.

SoNic67
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:15 pm
x 5

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by SoNic67 »

jasonl wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:59 pm What antenna are you using?
Only the best... Chinese generic :D
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00M5RXL5M

That was what I was wondering, what's the actual performance on the lower UHF band.

PS: Now this looks like a periodic Yagi, I wonder if it will work better (with an amp of course):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B089G4WRC4/

jasonl
Expert
Posts: 15637
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:23 pm
x 32

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by jasonl »

The second one is indeed a log periodic. The idiot Chinese company screws up the description even worse every time they change the name they're selling as, but in spite of that, it's still probably the best < $25 antenna out there. Amplification is going to depend on how far you are from the broadcast tower, how long the cable run is, and how many ways you're splitting it. You've got about a 20 mile radius that mostly covers Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Newport News, and Suffolk where an amp probably isn't needed unless you have a really long cable run or a lot of splits. WNLO-CD is on WAVY's tower, which you can see on a map by going to Driver, Suffolk, VA, and looking just to the west for a three-pointed bit of cleared land.

SoNic67
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:15 pm
x 5

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by SoNic67 »

I am at 23608 zip code. Right at the fringe of "green" reception, 85-105 dbuV/m based on FCC maps, with 15' cable and I am splitting the cable between two SD devices.
The ATSC 3.0 signal level from above is at only 81 dbuV/m.

jasonl
Expert
Posts: 15637
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:23 pm
x 32

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by jasonl »

Getting the antenna up higher might help. The combination of low power, the ATSC 3 transmitting antenna being much lower in elevation than your other station (745' vs. 1000-1250'), and the hills in your area make the reception spotty.

LMart009
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:14 pm

Re: ATSC 3.0 signal quality VS ATSC

Post by LMart009 »

Does anyone in HR get the ATSC 3.0 signals offered? My Flex picks up the channels, but does not decode the video (except for myTV, 133).

I'm using a CM 4220HD and the ATSC 1.0 signals all pull 100% symbol quality from the attic mount (inside 25 miles near the VB landfill).

Best,
Lloyd

Post Reply