Is there such a thing as DX for FTA?

[glen4cindy]

In the past, I have played with DX'ing on different RF bands such as AM radio, VHF/UHF Television and CB. I was never able to play with Amateur Radio but, I know there was often DX activity there too.

This makes me wonder if there is such a thing as DX with FTA or satellite TV in general. I don't have any C-Band equipment, so I am limited to my 80cm dish unless I upgrade at some time. So, does this exist? Is it ever in any way possible to be receiving a signal in an area where a signal should not be possible? An example would be catching a bird that is beaming everything to Brazil or South America here in the St. Louis area.

In my current location, I will not ever be able to experiment with C-Band unless I can come up with the formula for Transparent Aluminum that could be used to construct my dish!

Thanks!

[rid0617]

I've been playing with free to air since 2004. No such thing as DX like the other bands. This is pretty much a line of sight communication that is not affected by the same situations. Now, severe enough sunspots can disrupt satellite communications.

Been a ham operator since 1971 and there is lots of DX there. That's what got me in FTA. The love of distant signals.

[boroda1]

Look at satellite footprints.
Everything with a low numbers maybe considered as DX . And no magnetic storms can bring you something from far away

[glen4cindy]

Thanks for the answers. I knew that atomspheric conditions would not be likely to affect satellite signals in the same way they do AM radio for instance and CB as well because I think CB uses AM as it's means of transmission.

But, for instance, I can receive Amazonas at 61.0°W which according to Lyngsat supposedly only has 1 TP that is showing a North America beam. Most of the rest say Brazil, but, the actual footprint seems to indicate that North American viewers can see it, and I in fact get several video channels from it.

I just wondered how widespread that sort of thing was. I really don't know how the spot beams like Dish Network uses for local channels actually work. I did not realize that a satellite was capable of sending such a confined beam to cover a certain geographical area.

Anyway, I was just curious and I knew this would be a great place to ask.

Thanks!

[radiobob]

There are times when I think of FTA satellite watching as the shortwave listening (SWL) of the 21st Century. While in some ways everything on satellite is DX, as you surmised you can sometimes push the envelope a little. If you're in the right location, you can catch signals on the edges of a footprint aimed at another part of the globe (say, South America).

Hey, glen4cindy, you can still get your ham ticket! The Technician class exam requires no Morse code and they've just revised the question pool to make it even easier (some would say "dumbed it down", but I don't want to get into that kind of discussion). General aviation and ham radio go great together; if you can pass an FAA exam, you can ace an FCC test.

Something to think about...

Bob
K5IQ

[glen4cindy]

I've thought alot about the Technician Class license. I started in ham radio back when the first grade required 5 words per minute, but, never went any further with it.

I don't actually have any FAA license's but, fly regularly on MS Flight Simulator! I would like to get my Technician's Ticket. That would give me a 2nd reason to erect a flag pole in my yard. I think I could conceal a great ham antenna in a flagpole!

Thanks for the nice plug for ham radio! I know you are so right about almost everything being DX in that the signal travels like 26,000 miles to get to our dishes, which is way further than most other signals travel.

Is there any truth to the thing I have heard about painting your dish with a reflective metallic paint to boost the signal? I know I have read about folks painting their DSS dishes being warned to NOT use a reflective paint for fear of over powering the LNBF. If painting is possible, it may make those on the edge signals a little stronger.

[N4ST]

Originally Posted by glen4cindy

Is there any truth to the thing I have heard about painting your dish with a reflective metallic paint to boost the signal? I know I have read about folks painting their DSS dishes being warned to NOT use a reflective paint for fear of over powering the LNBF. If painting is possible, it may make those on the edge signals a little stronger.

RF wise, you want the dish as reflective as possible, there is no such thing as being too reflective. I believe there is an issue about the dish being too reflective for sunlight, especially infrared, because of the time-of-year, time-of-day when the sun crosses the main response beam of your dish and it becomes a solar oven with the LNB at the focal point (quite literally, the hot spot). I believe it is primarily an issue for the bigger C-band dishes, though I guess an 80/90cm Ku dish could gather a lot of solar energy also.

[glen4cindy]

So, then, to address my original question, would it be possible to paint the dish to boost signal?

As much tweaking as I can do only brings me to 80%, and of course I have to balance that because when I was peaking on say IA5 might bring it's signal up a little higher but would make another too low. So, I had to find a happy medium.

Anyway, that being said, if I could boost my signal, it might help. I have a totally clear line of sight with no obstructions at all, and only about 30 feet of cable so, physically I don't see any way to boost my signal.

Thanks.

[rainman]

Originally Posted by glen4cindy

So, then, to address my original question, would it be possible to paint the dish to boost signal?

As much tweaking as I can do only brings me to 80%, and of course I have to balance that because when I was peaking on say IA5 might bring it's signal up a little higher but would make another too low. So, I had to find a happy medium.

Anyway, that being said, if I could boost my signal, it might help. I have a totally clear line of sight with no obstructions at all, and only about 30 feet of cable so, physically I don't see any way to boost my signal.

Thanks.

the easiest way to boost signal is use a larger dish.

[radiobob]

Sorry to say, there's no magic bullet. Since your Ku dish is already solid metal, it is unlikely that a layer of paint would have any effect on electromagnetic energy at the wavelengths we're dealing with. (But if you made it really shiny, you could always remove the LNB and install a grill and have a solar-powered barbecue !)

Besides...signal level is relative; if you get TV without pixilation and dropouts, it really doesn't matter what the signal level is. For example, I can watch some South American channels on Nahuel 1 (71.8W) even though the signal level is probably in the 60s, and the quality indicator barely moves.

Bottom line...are there channels you want that you can't pull in?

All the best,
Bob

[elgemcdlf]

Signal readings are relative. Much to do with what is being sent. As to peaking one sat and losing another that is alignment. If you are tracking the arc correctly you will receive peak from every sat in your arc. The highest reading I have ever got from the Platinum and a 90cm dish has been 93%. I have many very watchable channels in the 20% range. I believe FEC is what makes this all possible.

If you are dealing with a FEC of 7/8 you will require a really good capture of signal to have a watchable picture. If you can get it the picture will be crystal clear. With the DSR922 and a FEC of 7/8 my picture quality is better than any DTV or DN HD I have seen. Now if you get into a FEC of 1/2 you will not require near as much capture to have a watchable picture. Will not be the crystal clear picture, perhaps a little fuzzy when comparring to a 7/8 (both sampled on a properly aligned dish) but very watchable with a reading of perhaps as low as 20% but that would be pressing it.

C Band signal readings have a tendency to come in much weaker on the DVB boxes. I believe this is due to not needing to push so much out there as the capture surface is much larger. Hence you are trapping far more of the signal. No spill over.

[wejones]

Originally Posted by elgemcdlf

Signal readings are relative. Much to do with what is being sent. As to peaking one sat and losing another that is alignment. If you are tracking the arc correctly you will receive peak from every sat in your arc. The highest reading I have ever got from the Platinum and a 90cm dish has been 93%. I have many very watchable channels in the 20% range. I believe FEC is what makes this all possible.

If you are dealing with a FEC of 7/8 you will require a really good capture of signal to have a watchable picture. If you can get it the picture will be crystal clear. With the DSR922 and a FEC of 7/8 my picture quality is better than any DTV or DN HD I have seen. Now if you get into a FEC of 1/2 you will not require near as much capture to have a watchable picture. Will not be the crystal clear picture, perhaps a little fuzzy when comparring to a 7/8 (both sampled on a properly aligned dish) but very watchable with a reading of perhaps as low as 20% but that would be pressing it.

I am no expert on this, so I may well be wrong here, but I while I agree with the first part of what you said abobe, I don't think the last part is correct. Ie I don't think that you get a fuzzy or less crystal clear picture with a 1/2 FEC signal, compared to a 7/8 FEC signal. Once the error correction has taken place, and the receiver has the mpeg2 signal, there really should be no difference between the 2 signals. Where the FEC becomes important, is that a 7/8 FEC signal takes up less bandwidth than a 1/2 FEC signal, and as you say, if you have a marginal signal, the error correction might not be able to handle a 7/8 signal. But if you can receive the 2 signals, I think a 1/2 FEC would be no worse than a 7/8 signal, assuming that they are in fact the same signal.
I'm guessing, however, that because a 1/2 FEC signal takes more bandwidth, that uplinkers using 1/2 FEC might tend to use more compression, which WILL give a lower quality signal, although lower quality due to artifacts, rather than fuzzyness. Ie given a locked digital signal, I don't think I've ever seen a FUZZY or less CRYSTAL CLEAR image. And I've never seen a situation where getting better reception gave you a clearer image. With digital you either get it or you don't get it. The only in between is when you get errors in the signal, but that usually results in missing blocks and stoppages, and other digital artifacts, not fuzzyness.
Anyway, that's my opinion.

Originally Posted by elgemcdlf

C Band signal readings have a tendency to come in much weaker on the DVB boxes. I believe this is due to not needing to push so much out there as the capture surface is much larger. Hence you are trapping far more of the signal. No spill over.

I don't really understand at all what you're trying to say here, but this is an interesting topic to me. I actually had the opposite opinion and experience. Ie since on any dish, the gain at KU frequencies is considerably greater than for C-band, I expected that I'd get much better reception of KU signals than C-band signals, plus, it used to be the case that KU sats were more powerful than C-band (not sure if this is still the case or not). HOWEVER, in general, I get considerably higher signal strength on C-band signals than on Ku band. On of the exceptions to this is that religious channel on AMC-6, which bends the needle, signal strength wise. This may, however be due to the type of signals that are found on C-band. Ie on C-band, there are a lot of channels for which the end user are home viewers, and they have to send the signal out with higher power, whereas on Ku, most of the signals are not intended for home viewers, so they can save money and send out signals that aren't as strong, because the intended viewer has a bigger dish. But whatever the reason, I've been confused as to why in general I seem to get stronger signals on C-band than I do on Ku.

[elgemcdlf]

I am pulling numbers in the 20's for many C Band stuff. A perfect example is 40.5. Picture is very watchable without any breakup. I am getting high 80's to low 90's pretty much across the board with the 90cm on Ku. Has been a bit since I have taken any readings from the C Band side but when I have a chance I will look again.

As to fuzzy might be my eyes But seriously I have many channels that are far clearer than others. Have not looked to see if FEC was a factor or not but I do believe bandwidth usage is the culprit. A really good example is Zee TV DVB on C Band. Crystal clear to the point of being better than HD on DTV or DN. Flip side would be RTN on G10R. Of course that could be the quality of the film prior to transmission also. Caught Boy in the Bubble (I think that is the name of it) on White Springs this weekend. Was so fuzzy I did not watch it. I have seen the same with sporting events. Some are crystal clear and others have the old analog broke down edges look to them.

Maybe fuzzy is a bad term. Perhaps blurry would be better.

[wejones]

Originally Posted by elgemcdlf

As to fuzzy might be my eyes But seriously I have many channels that are far clearer than others. Have not looked to see if FEC was a factor or not but I do believe bandwidth usage is the culprit. A really good example is Zee TV DVB on C Band. Crystal clear to the point of being better than HD on DTV or DN. Flip side would be RTN on G10R. Of course that could be the quality of the film prior to transmission also. Caught Boy in the Bubble (I think that is the name of it) on White Springs this weekend. Was so fuzzy I did not watch it. I have seen the same with sporting events. Some are crystal clear and others have the old analog broke down edges look to them.

Maybe fuzzy is a bad term. Perhaps blurry would be better.

There are several parameters that could make the video look less sharp, such as if they used a lot of compression, (as you say, to save bandwidth), or if they are sending them down with a low resolution, and I think the video bit rate is a factor too, but I don't think that FEC is a parameter that affects sharpness. The compression, resolution, bit rate type things are just that they are sending inferior video, and you're getting what they are sending, and the quality of your reception doesn't affect the sharpness you see. I shouldn't have said that I've never seen anything blurry, but what I should have said is that I've never seen anything blurry because of the satellite reception, only because they sent it down blurry.
Where I see the biggest problem with video is when there is motion. Ie pictures will be crystal clear when there is no motion, but when they don't use enough bandwidth, there are all sorts of video artifacts when there is motion.

[elgemcdlf]

On another "blurry" note I was sitting watching a football game last night and they were using DTV HD on ESPN. I asked how many channels they actually use (commercial establishment) and stated it looked like they were using either DTV or DN due to picture quality. He proudly stated it was DTV and at that point knew it was useless to persue the conversation.

They had what I would consider a fair picture on still images for nonHD and when any motion it would not have been worth watching in my house. I have seen some pretty bad DTV before but I think labelling that HD should be a criminal offense