Goodbye analog television
A few months back - June I think it was - the switch to digital tv happened. We had applied the government coupons we got in the mail to the cost of two Zenith converter boxes, weeks ahead of the deadline. I didn't know if the picture would be that much better, after all, it would end up on an old analog tv picture tube anyway.
What I hadn't taken into account were all the additional sub-channels. Instantly we went from 10 local channels to 22, and a 23rd channel, a free movie channel, was added later. (And no, I won't buy cable or satellite. Thanks for asking.) Two of the channels show the local weather radar, and that has come in handy more than once. Also, the image is noticably better.
One thing I'll miss though, is those times when odd atmospheric conditions would allow long distance stations to skip into my tv. When I was a kid, it wasn't all that rare to pick up channel 6 from Sedalia Missouri, 7 from Pittsburg Kansas, and the two 13's, Topeka Kansas and Columbia Missouri. I recall watching the old black and white movie, "The Fly" on 13 out of Topeka one night. Every so often the picture would dissolve in static - interference from Columbia 13 maybe - then come back. That made an already scary science fiction / horror movie even more intense. We'd rarely get the Springfield Missouri stations though, their channels 3 and 10 were usually clobbered by "bleed-through" from our local channels 4 and 9.
Years later, I made a game of it when I noticed the atmospherics were especially good. In the 1990's we had a small portable color set that was excellent at picking up those weak signals. If I could spare the time, I'd set down with paper and pen and channel surf, noting all the unusual channels. Then I'd try to make out where the broadcasts were from. That little tv would pull in stations, not only from other parts of Missouri (Columbia, Springfield, Joplin, St. Louis), and Kansas (Topeka, Pittsburg, Wichita), but also from Oklahoma, Iowa, Illinois, and I think Fayetteville Arkansas once. Not all at the same time, of course. The long distance champ...channel 55 out of Springfield ILLINOIS, of all places. I have absolutely no clue how that high of a UHF frequency could have skipped that far, but it did...briefly.
Digital tv is definitely an improvement, but it's a whole different animal. Pulling in long distance television signals will never happen again.
I have questions for my readers
Speaking of missing things, here's the first question...
1. If you could travel back in time to the 1960's, what modern thing that didn't exist then would you miss most? (It doesn't have to be just one thing, list all you want)
2. If you knew you could Not fail at something, what would you attempt?
3. Phooey, there was a third question...maybe it'll come back to me. For now I'll turn it around...What would you like to ask me?
Ah, I've got it, the third question was...well, I guess it has to be number 4 now...
4. What's the oddest tourist attraction you've ever seen on vacation? (Again, list more than one if it's a toss-up.)
I'd really like to get comments from you all. I'm curious what thoughts I've jarred loose with this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
To a digital device, a signal is either there or it's not. Electromagnetic wave propagation through a constantly changing atmosphere doesn't work that way. Digital TV not only makes TV DXing a thing of the past, it can make some formerly watchable channels unwatchable.
If you live, as I do, between two major cities, you got some channels from each. With rabbit ears, you just got the nearest, most powerful stations, with a fair amount of static. With a modest outdoor antenna, you could get the major channels from both cities clearly (although you might need an antenna rotator) and many of the weaker stations with some static. A super antenna would get you all the network stations clearly, and most of the UHF channels in both cities to some degree. You could even do some "short-range DXing" of obscure UHF channels (often connected with educational institutions with varying levels of funding) in surrounding communities. The difference in signal strength was visible as differing levels of static, or "snow" in the picture.
For future generations, "snow" consisted of random individual pixels flashing white within a picture, due to spurious signals from electrical equipment in the area or natural phenomena. Large quantities of interference made it look like you were watching the scene with a snowstorm between you and the screen, each white pixel looking like a single snowflake. Yes, some static was black, or occasionally other colors, but white was most noticeable. Like static on the radio, which hasn't gone all-digital yet, a small amount did not detract too much from the program, but as it increased, it became more distracting, and the picture gradually became harder to see. If you were keenly interested in the program, you would put up with more snow before giving up and changing channels, but you wouldn't be too happy about it. If it got bad enough, the picture would fade to a flickering gray screen, actually thousands of black and white dots flashing on and off randomly. Interestingly, the picture would always go before the sound, so you could sometimes hear a program you couldn't see.
Not so with digital. If you are in a fringe area for your antenna and the available signal, the screen will flash at random intervals between a perfect picture, a pixilated mess consisting of hundreds of tiny copies of the entire picture, and a blue screen that says "No signal". Each time you lose the perfect picture, you lose the sound, too. It goes silent. It's like watching a stage show with someone constantly switching the lights and the microphones on and off. Even if you don't miss any action on the screen, it's hard to follow the dialog with random words and phrases cut out.
Post a Comment