[mythtv-users] Hauppauge WinTV-quadHD TV Tuner Card 1609 and Pixelation
barry3martin at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 17:07:53 UTC 2019
Thanks for the photo – I’d still get ‘shot’! <g> As for the duplicate
message, I did receive in this packet what appears to be the original
followed by probably the first one indicating a problem. To assist in
troubleshooting timestamps are “Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 09:12:04 -0800”
and “Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 09:14:36 -0800”. If the third and fourth
posts duplicated the second might explain why rejected.
> Reading the flyer on your antenna, it reads like marketing hype and not an
> engineering document. Perhaps that is normal and to be expected but the
> fact is that they have probably not changed physics as they claim they
As for the specs on my DB2 antenna, yes, more fluff than substance. At
the time it looked to have decent specs, had a decent price, and would
fit between the 16” rafters. Yagis tend to be too fat!
As sort of a tie-in with Jay’s reply on site recommendations I recall
for some reason being recommended a more-fringe antenna even though I’m
less than 20 miles from the local stations. I’m figuring because of the
option to receive stations from adjoining markets/coverage areas.
As far as the brochure’s “changing physics” comment, I’m thinking not
for that price! <g>
> You are obviously not going to do this and I would not duplicate this setup
> myself. I would get one of the higher end HD Winegards. Perhaps you can
> get a recommendation directly from them. Given they are close to you, I am
> sure they would know which antenna would be good if you can get in touch
> with technical support and not marketing.
As for contacting Winegard, sounding like getting to be a good idea,
though I’m dreading the conversation of asking for permission to have
their tech crash here for a week or so! <joke> ...At this point I’m
still leaning towards the new Backend with the 1609 just because
gut-reaction seems to indicate a tuner sensitivity issue, though the
suggestion of a higher-gain antenna being able to target the incoming
signal makes sense. Maybe that was the reason the site was advising the
fringe-type antenna?? Too many variables!!
> All this said the market for antennas has clearly changed. HDTV is a lot
> easier to receive than the old analog signals. Multipath used to give
> ghosts and most people had TVs with terrible pictures. That led to the
> Cable industry. But with digital, you can get a perfect signal more
> easily. Equalizers can remove problems from multipath and you have less of
> a constraint on the antenna. In your case with the wind and the pixelation
> your new tuner might solve it or you might need a better antenna.
Agree on the antenna market has changed. Have seen ads for ‘hidden’
antennae: one style fits against the back of the television, others are
clear and so barely show at all. Must use RG-187 for the lead! AFAIK the
display is only as good as its weakest link. I have used old UHF
antennae (bow-tie and circular) for testing – these seem to work about
as well as the ‘digital’ antennae – apparently they didn’t read the
hype-brochures! (The DB2 antenna in the attic does provide a better
quality signal; I was using the old antenna to test positioning, etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mythtv-users