From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3NIflgo015838 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:41:52 -0400 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NIJ0kB032683 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:19:23 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx3Vi-0001Ar-4L for video4linux-list@redhat.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:18:58 +0000 Received: from 139.85.239.116 ([139.85.239.116]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:18:58 +0000 Received: from ndbecker2 by 139.85.239.116 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:18:58 +0000 To: video4linux-list@redhat.com From: Neal Becker Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:18:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <412bdbff0904230647x8eb2b34u5ddebba380e70ade@mail.gmail.com> <20090423114955.724f5b48.b3782802@columbus.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Subject: Re: recommendation for hd atsc usb device? List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: video4linux-list-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: video4linux-list-bounces@redhat.com List-ID: Neal Becker wrote: > b3782802@columbus.rr.com wrote: > >> Neal Becker wrote: >> >>> My ATSC reception is marginal. >>> Are there any recommendations for devices that give better ATSC >>> performance (I think the main issue in my location is multipath) >> >> Yes! >> >> Get a highly directional antenna. >> A big honkin' UHF Yagi[1] should do the trick. >> Better yet, mount it high (like on a chimney). >> Better yet, use an antenna rotor[2]. >> > I've got a big outdoor antenna on a rotor. My question is, are some > chipsets better/worse for fringe performance, and particularly with > respect to multipath? > I'm considering WinTV-HVR-1950. Any comments? Samsung claims: "The new S5H1411 boasts a higher reception success rate than other devices in multi-path environments where signal interference is high, such as densely populated urban areas; dynamic environments with serious signal distortion among many moving vehicles; environments with major signal phase errors because of cable retransmission and remote areas where reception is generally poor." Well, at least they have their heart in the right place :) I have never been able to find real lab test results for ATSC reception performance. -- video4linux-list mailing list Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list