Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

TV antennas and 4k UHD TV's


Note: This thread is 3813 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Any channels I get in my house come via a roof top antenna. Normally I can draw in 38 -42 channels using my antenna with a 1080p Flat screen TV. However I decided to upgrade and buy one of those new 4k UHD (ultra high definition) TV's. The first one I bought was a Vizio, and it would scan or draw in most of those 38 or so channels, but it wouldn't hold reception all the time so I took the Vizio back for a refund and got a Samsung 4k UHD TV which I brought home and went through the set up and scan process. The Samsung would only recognize 16 of the 40 or so channels which I normally get with a regular 1080p TV. So I took the Samsung back and got my money back on that as well. This time I simply bought a regular new Samsung 1080p TV and set it up at home and it recognized all 42 of my channels when I ran it through a scan. Now I'm wondering if 4k UHD TV's don't like receiving a signal from a roof top antenna

Any techies out there have an answer for this?

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Hmm, I have no problem with my Samsung 4k UHD TV.   Perhaps, you ended up with a lemon.  I don't believe there is a technical reason why the 4K would not receive the channels compare to its 1080 counterpart.

RiCK

(Play it again, Sam)

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
42 minutes ago, 9wood said:

4k UHD TV's don't like receiving a signal from a roof top antenna

Found this info - Not really sure why you have a signal loss of the other channels?

I have good news and bad news for you. The good news... any antenna should work for 4K over-the-air broadcasting, even the really old one that was on the roof when you got the house. The bad news...

There probably will never be any 4K over-the-air broadcasting. Ever.

Broadcasters aren't required to put out a 4K signal and that means that they probably won't. The only reason you see HD today is because a move to digital broadcasting was mandated by the FCC back in the 2000s and while that didn't technically require a move to HD, it did make sense to put in HD equipment in most stations when they were switching over to digital.

There is actually a broadcast standard for 4K that would allow broadcasters to put out a 4K signal using the same 6MHz channel that they currently use for broadcasting HD. There's some question as to whether the quality would be any good, but there's nothing technical that would prevent them. The ATSC, the group that designed today's TV standards for North America, has created the ATSC 3.0 standard which includes 4K. Unfortunately the standard hasn't been approved or even considered for US broadcasting as of yet, and it likely won't be.

Transitioning from analog to digital was a pretty massive undertaking, the sort of thing that comes about once in a generation or so. It's not likely that already cash-strapped broadcasters are going to pitch all their HD equipment to move to 4K so quickly. This is especially true when you consider that there just isn't a demand for 4K content like there was for HD content, and when you further consider that most people consider the future of television to rely just as much on streaming as it does on broadcasting.

Getting back to the question at hand, though, since there is a technical standard for putting 4K on the same channels as HD, and since there is plenty of channel space out there in the UHF and VHF bands (too much in fact, since the FCC is considering taking spectrum away from broadcasters to give it to mobile users) there is no reason to think you'd need a different antenna. After all, an antenna doesn't know and doesn't care what kind of signal it receives as long as it's within the frequency range that it's designed for. So bring on the 4K, your antenna can take it... but don't hold your breath waiting for it.

  • Upvote 1

Johnny Rocket - Let's Rock and Roll and play some golf !!!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
8 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

Hmm, I have no problem with my Samsung 4k UHD TV.   Perhaps, you ended up with a lemon.  I don't believe there is a technical reason why the 4K would not receive the channels compare to its 1080 counterpart.

But I bought two different 4k TV's, a Vizio and a Samsung. What are the chance they were both lemons?

8 hours ago, Club Rat said:


There probably will never be any 4K over-the-air broadcasting. Ever.

 

That very well may be true. However, 4k videos currently are available and can be obtained from YouTube, Amazon, and Yahoo. Roku has come out with their new Roku 4 which allows you to receive 4k content. And finally, even if there will never be any over the air 4k broadcasting, 4k TV's currently do noticably sharpen 1080p broadcasts.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
4 hours ago, 9wood said:

That very well may be true. However, 4k videos currently are available and can be obtained from YouTube, Amazon, and Yahoo. Roku has come out with their new Roku 4 which allows you to receive 4k content. And finally, even if there will never be any over the air 4k broadcasting, 4k TV's currently do noticably sharpen 1080p broadcasts.

+1.   I subscribe to Netflix which has a small collection of 4k content.   More importantly, we have a couple of 4k video/cameras (Panasonic for my wife, gopro for me)  which we make our own 4k content.   Highest resolution photos displayed on 4k UHD is really good.

RiCK

(Play it again, Sam)

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I would like to know which attenna is the best for a weak signal area. The broadcast towers are about 30 miles away as the crow flies. I can elevate the attenna 20' off the ground easy enough. 

In My Bag:
A whole bunch of Tour Edge golf stuff...... :beer:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
8 minutes ago, Patch said:

I would like to know which attenna is the best for a weak signal area. The broadcast towers are about 30 miles away as the crow flies. I can elevate the attenna 20' off the ground easy enough. 

Did you try experimenting w/pointing your antenna via tvfool or antenna web?

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
8 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Did you try experimenting w/pointing your antenna via tvfool or antenna web?

Yeah, I know which way to point the antenna. I have an antenna on our RV, but it's reception is very poor. I am just trying get some idea of what brand/model would give the best results. 20' is the limit the NPS will let us go in height. Maybe a few feet more. .

In My Bag:
A whole bunch of Tour Edge golf stuff...... :beer:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
On 12/24/2015 at 1:16 PM, Patch said:

Yeah, I know which way to point the antenna. I have an antenna on our RV, but it's reception is very poor. I am just trying get some idea of what brand/model would give the best results. 20' is the limit the NPS will let us go in height. Maybe a few feet more. .

I would suggest you check out the Winegard multi-directional antenna which has a built in pre-amplifier. It costs 51.49 and that includes the shipping costs. This antenna should be capable of reaching the distances you mentioned and beyond. The beauty of this antenna is that you don't have to worry about pointing it. See link below.

https://jet.com/product/detail/4dca0003c081429cb4f1bd7a0f0ab896?jcmp=pla:ggl:cwin_electronics_a2:electronics_accessories_antennas_a2_other:na:na:na:na:na:2&code=PLA15&k_clickid=14032264-0f58-4b01-8713-f7fb3933dd47&gclid=CjwKEAiA7_OzBRDA8OfT3orp51oSJACVqslIw_rCKd59zWBywnSUjiLfhFo-9xESIZnv9DSvsbLEWhoCg4_w_wcB

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3813 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.