ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

ATSC 3.0 Forum
kohaiut
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:08 pm
x 3

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by kohaiut »

NedS wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:00 pm
kohaiut wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:38 pm As I think about this.... my roof antenna is running through a powered splitter. That could be causing the signal strength/quality to always show 100%. What do you all think?
The amplifier is most likely overloading the HDHomeRun and needs to be bypassed with something passive. If it's enough to overload the HDHomeRun, then a powered splitter probably isn't needed given how strong the original signal is.
I had a recording running on 30.1, which does tune in ok, and it was showing about 10 Mbps stream rate and strength/quality of 100%. When I unplugged the power to the amplifer/splitter it dropped to 23% strength with 0% signal quality and 0% symbol quality and 0 stream rate. I plugged the power back in and it went back to working. I'll have to try on 14.1 which is the problem child but I'm guessing it gets worse. Bummer.

4.1 and 14.1 have their towers on the same mountain peak, it's interesting I'm getting others from that location but not this one.

NedS
Silicondust
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:38 pm
x 63

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by NedS »

kohaiut wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:10 pm
NedS wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:00 pm
kohaiut wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:38 pm As I think about this.... my roof antenna is running through a powered splitter. That could be causing the signal strength/quality to always show 100%. What do you all think?
The amplifier is most likely overloading the HDHomeRun and needs to be bypassed with something passive. If it's enough to overload the HDHomeRun, then a powered splitter probably isn't needed given how strong the original signal is.
I had a recording running on 30.1, which does tune in ok, and it was showing about 10 Mbps stream rate and strength/quality of 100%. When I unplugged the power to the amplifer/splitter it dropped to 23% strength with 0% signal quality and 0% symbol quality and 0 stream rate. I plugged the power back in and it went back to working. I'll have to try on 14.1 which is the problem child but I'm guessing it gets worse. Bummer.

4.1 and 14.1 have their towers on the same mountain peak, it's interesting I'm getting others from that location but not this one.
The amplifier needs to be bypassed completely. An unpowered amplifier will act as a resister.

kohaiut
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:08 pm
x 3

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by kohaiut »

NedS wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:23 pm
kohaiut wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:10 pm
NedS wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:00 pm

The amplifier is most likely overloading the HDHomeRun and needs to be bypassed with something passive. If it's enough to overload the HDHomeRun, then a powered splitter probably isn't needed given how strong the original signal is.
I had a recording running on 30.1, which does tune in ok, and it was showing about 10 Mbps stream rate and strength/quality of 100%. When I unplugged the power to the amplifer/splitter it dropped to 23% strength with 0% signal quality and 0% symbol quality and 0 stream rate. I plugged the power back in and it went back to working. I'll have to try on 14.1 which is the problem child but I'm guessing it gets worse. Bummer.

4.1 and 14.1 have their towers on the same mountain peak, it's interesting I'm getting others from that location but not this one.
The amplifier needs to be bypassed completely. An unpowered amplifier will act as a resister.
I had a stand alone splitter I swapped in place (old school style). I still see a similar problem with blocky video and audio going in and out. Stream rate tends to be about 2.1 Mbps to a little higher but then drops out. I'm not sure how to diagnose further, any hints?

Virtual Channel 114.1 KJZZ
Frequency 503.000 MHz
Program Number 5001
Modulation Lock atsc3
Signal Strength 92%
Signal Quality 100%
Symbol Quality 100%
Streaming Rate 0.211 Mbps
Resource Lock 192.168.1.233


EDIT:
Here's an example of it being higher:
Virtual Channel 114.1 KJZZ
Frequency 503.000 MHz
Program Number 5001
Modulation Lock atsc3
Signal Strength 91%
Signal Quality 100%
Symbol Quality 100%
Streaming Rate 2.453 Mbps
Resource Lock 192.168.1.233

Here's an example of a channel I think is on the same peak:
Virtual Channel 104.1 KTVX
Frequency 503.000 MHz
Program Number 5004
Modulation Lock atsc3
Signal Strength 91%
Signal Quality 100%
Symbol Quality 100%
Streaming Rate 6.390 Mbps
Resource Lock 192.168.1.233

UPDATED again.... this is without any splitter in my basement -- straight to the hdhomerun from the attic antenna patch location in the basement with the same issues:
Virtual Channel 114.1 KJZZ
Frequency 503.000 MHz
Program Number 5001
Modulation Lock atsc3
Signal Strength 100%
Signal Quality 100%
Symbol Quality 100%
Streaming Rate 2.190 Mbps
Resource Lock 192.168.1.233

I'm not indicating this is an hdhomerun issue -- I don't know enough to make that conclusion. I'm just hoping to clean up this channel. It seems to run on the same frequency as the others that work.

timeshifter
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:20 am
x 3

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by timeshifter »

It's been a while since I've taken a look and the ATSC3 broadcasts. One thing I've noticed is 114.1 KJZZ at some point switched from broadcasting at a resolution of 1920x540 (1080i) to 1920x1080, which is good news. The only problem being it appears the change introduced an issue with the steaming rate being fairly low and inconsistent, even with a strong signal, as has been mentioned previously. 102.1 KUTV & 130.1 KUCW actually wouldn't tune until after I rescanned, and both are still at 1920x540. I guess we can expect things to continue to evolve for a while.

kohaiut
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:08 pm
x 3

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by kohaiut »

timeshifter wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:08 pm It's been a while since I've taken a look and the ATSC3 broadcasts. One thing I've noticed is 114.1 KJZZ at some point switched from broadcasting at a resolution of 1920x540 (1080i) to 1920x1080, which is good news. The only problem being it appears the change introduced an issue with the steaming rate being fairly low and inconsistent, even with a strong signal, as has been mentioned previously. 102.1 KUTV & 130.1 KUCW actually wouldn't tune until after I rescanned, and both are still at 1920x540. I guess we can expect things to continue to evolve for a while.
Good to know others are seeing oddities.

CBme
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:15 pm
x 19

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by CBme »

timeshifter wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:08 pm It's been a while since I've taken a look and the ATSC3 broadcasts. One thing I've noticed is 114.1 KJZZ at some point switched from broadcasting at a resolution of 1920x540 (1080i) to 1920x1080, which is good news. The only problem being it appears the change introduced an issue with the steaming rate being fairly low and inconsistent, even with a strong signal, as has been mentioned previously. 102.1 KUTV & 130.1 KUCW actually wouldn't tune until after I rescanned, and both are still at 1920x540. I guess we can expect things to continue to evolve for a while.
"One thing I've noticed is 114.1 KJZZ at some point switched from broadcasting at a resolution of 1920x540 (1080i) to 1920x1080, which is good news"
I'm not in your market but given what happened in our and other markets, that likely isn't what happened. If you are looking at the resolution through VLC, it will not show you 1080i because it (and other FFMPEG apps) doesn't understand/support HEVC 1080i. For our (Sinclair owned- like KJZZ) CBS channel, they "forced" the aspect ratio so that it was still 1080i but is no longer squished. VLC reports it as 1080p (again, incorrectly, as it won't report 1080i). The only way know for sure, without Nick confirming it from a sample, is to ask the station what resolution they are broadcasting.
Also, if you are having any issue with the image, make sure you are on the latest firmware and the apps as the latter just got updates on a number of platforms.

timeshifter
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:20 am
x 3

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by timeshifter »

CBme wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:10 pm
timeshifter wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:08 pm It's been a while since I've taken a look and the ATSC3 broadcasts. One thing I've noticed is 114.1 KJZZ at some point switched from broadcasting at a resolution of 1920x540 (1080i) to 1920x1080, which is good news. The only problem being it appears the change introduced an issue with the steaming rate being fairly low and inconsistent, even with a strong signal, as has been mentioned previously. 102.1 KUTV & 130.1 KUCW actually wouldn't tune until after I rescanned, and both are still at 1920x540. I guess we can expect things to continue to evolve for a while.
"One thing I've noticed is 114.1 KJZZ at some point switched from broadcasting at a resolution of 1920x540 (1080i) to 1920x1080, which is good news"
I'm not in your market but given what happened in our and other markets, that likely isn't what happened. If you are looking at the resolution through VLC, it will not show you 1080i because it (and other FFMPEG apps) doesn't understand/support HEVC 1080i. For our (Sinclair owned- like KJZZ) CBS channel, they "forced" the aspect ratio so that it was still 1080i but is no longer squished. VLC reports it as 1080p (again, incorrectly, as it won't report 1080i). The only way know for sure, without Nick confirming it from a sample, is to ask the station what resolution they are broadcasting.
Also, if you are having any issue with the image, make sure you are on the latest firmware and the apps as the latter just got updates on a number of platforms.
Ah, interesting. Yeah, I have no idea if it's 1080p, or if like you said, they forced the aspect ratio.

timeshifter
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:20 am
x 3

Re: ATSC 3.0: Salt Lake City

Post by timeshifter »

Just one other note. A while back I emailed both Fox 13 (KSTU) and Scripps asking if they had a time table for broadcasting ATSC 3.0. I never heard back from either of them.

Post Reply