TV Fool and antennaweb are ok... but why not go directly to the source....

[mastermesh]

TV Fool and antennaweb are ok... but why not go directly to the source....
TV Query - TV Technical Information - Video Division - MB (FCC) USA

do the stations within a radius search of the database... 475 as max radius. This will give you all tv stations within 475 km of your location, all in a nice format that you can drop in to excel and sort to your hearts content by distance or by degrees.... much more detailed info and way more hits than either antenna web or tvfool give. Yes, tv fool and antenna web are probably more accurate for most signals in that they are highly conservative in what you will get, but with this thing you can get an idea of all channels, so if you have a rotor and good tropospheric conditions, you get a better idea of where to try to aim. Even better... you can get this list, export it, sort by degrees, and then compare it to tv fool to find the signals that are close enough and they'll be ordered in degree... would be very nice if normal tv rotors could do something similar to fta box type USALS, but that time hasn't come yet.

 

[otaota]

TV Fool and antennaweb are ok... but why not go directly to the source....
TV Query - TV Technical Information - Video Division - MB (FCC) USA

do the stations within a radius search of the database... 475 as max radius. This will give you all tv stations within 475 km of your location, all in a nice format that you can drop in to excel and sort to your hearts content by distance or by degrees.... much more detailed info and way more hits than either antenna web or tvfool give.

Because the FCC site gives way too much irrelevant information. The search is based purely on radius with no account for transmitter power, antenna pattern, or terrain.

Having "way more hits" is not always a good thing. For any given search, perhaps only about 1/3 or less are actually receivable. The bulk of the list gets filled with low power transmitters, translators, boosters, and stations that may be blocked by terrain or too weak to reach you. There's no easy way to filter the results according to what you might actually have a chance of receiving. This is especially important if you're in an area where terrain is a big factor.

With the FCC data, you have no way of knowing how close or how far you are (in terms of signal strength) from picking up a channel. If you're just a few dB away from getting a particular channel, then a slightly better antenna or a pre-amp might get it for you. However, if a channel is 50 dB too weak, then you know it's not worth chasing. The FCC data will not tell you any of this.

Yes, tv fool and antenna web are probably more accurate for most signals in that they are highly conservative in what you will get

I agree that antennaweb tends to be too conservative, but I find tvfool to be fairly accurate. On antennaweb, you need to enter an unrealistic antenna height in order to get it to display channels that roughly match actual reception. On tvfool, you get a realistic list for whatever latititude, longitude, and height that you enter. The only exception to this is if you have blockage from buildings or trees, which are not accounted for in the modeling software.



I do agree that it's great to know that the FCC data exists and is available as a reference for the technically inclined. However, their site does a terrible job of telling you what to really expect at your house. TV Fool and antennaweb organize the data by relevance for your exact location so you don't need to waste any time chasing impossible channels.

Thanks for the link. Your sharing is appreciated, so please do not take this as any kind of criticism of your generosity.



Cheers,
Chuck

 

[bidger`]

Well, all I know is TV Query has no idea that there's a local PBS affiliate, WSKA, doing digital transmission in my area (neither does antennaweb.org), but TV Fool does. TV Fool wins.

 

[digiblur]

The FCC data is great, use it all the time. Lots of documents and PDFs/filings to be had

 

[digiblur]

Well, all I know is TV Query has no idea that there's a local PBS affiliate, WSKA, doing digital transmission in my area (neither does antennaweb.org), but TV Fool does. TV Fool wins.

I found lots of stuff on WSKA

CDBS Print

 

[harshness]

The FCC data is great, use it all the time. Lots of documents and PDFs/filings to be had

Lots of information without the supporting information and explanation isn't of much use. The searches could use considerably more control. Much of the stuff in Word format is whacked and doesn't search particularly well (this is Microsoft's fault).

 

[mastermesh]

I'm not sure about the word format... I just copied the stuff as text and imported in to excel with the option to delimit by line size and spaces. I think just line size would have worked though since I noticed that it broke up some of the channel numbers so 17 might look like |1|7|other info etc. Main reason I got this info from fcc is I'm planning to add a higher mast and rotor to my setup in the near future and was hoping to figure out how to scan as many channels as I can in, especially if troposphere lets me get distant channels. Up til about 3 days ago, I was getting Kansas City locals with my antenna aimed in the complete wrong direction, but it was picking up from the rear of the antenna I think, and there must have been some tropospheric ducting going on. These were about 99 miles or so out, on a pole that is only 3 feet or so above my chimney at the moment. I figure if I can try to make happy accidents like that happen more often, it might be worth looking for ways to make it happen... especially if I can lock digital signal again since digital is either 100% clear or nothing, unlike the way fuzzy analog was. My rotor isn't in yet, by my channel master preamp just came in yesterday. It's not the 7777, but the one that Ace carries since Ace Hardware is local and I know that if this whole thing doesn't work out, I might be able to take it back - something you can't usually do with online ordering... Plus, with free in store delivery, I figure what the heck.

 

[Anole]

MM - thanks for the link into the FCC.
Sounds like their raw data is more to your liking than Antennaweb and TVfool.
Someone on AVSforum seems to have a problem with Antennaweb and promotes 2150.com, instead.
Personally , I found 2150 arcane and useless.
To each his own.

When I want to look up hardware and see what's inside, I use the FCC ID number and get lots of added info.
In many cases, you cannot bookmark some of their info.
Not very user-friendly, but still the best game in town.

For me, I just want something to compare relative info from one TV station to another.
Or, to compare the Los Angles market to someone here on the forum, and predict an outcome.
So, for me, the TVfool site seems to offer adequate info, and an easy user interface.
I can see that for more technical research, there may be better approaches.


As for digital TV either being there or not, let me take issue with that.
I've found a lot of exasperation in some of my digital TV tests.
The picture will be beautiful one minute, then frozen or pixel-smeared the next.
I have a straight shot to Mt Wilson where all LA TV comes from, and see serious variations in signal quality from one night to the next, and from one hour to the next on some nights.
That's 100% to under 20% at times, and other times a solid 100% for hours on end.

Having watched snowy analog TV as a kid, and seen it fade in and out, I find digital quality variation to be a close parallel.
Just all the more frustrating, because at times it'll be snow-free and gorgeous, leading you to think you've won, then the next second totally frozen or gone!

 

[mastermesh]

Yes... Know what you mean. My channel 50 out of KC keeps coming and going sporadically. I think this weekend or next weekend I'm going to try getting a 40-50 foot pipe (probably 10 footers pieced together) and seeing if those extra few feet will help.

 

[techno935]

Fcc.gov is full of Legaleze. Leave it to the lawyers please!

 

[reddice]

They are not that accurate. It says on antennaweb that I would need a roof antenna to pull in WABC 7 yet I can pull in that station the easiest and the hardest is 2, 4, 5, 9 and 11. Forget about 13 that I get crap.