# OTA antenna



## caseystone (Feb 21, 2006)

Hello:

If I subscribe to HD locals is there any reason to put up a good OTA antenna? Does that enable the 622 to record three shows at once (basically, does it add a tuner that it can use to record shows on those HD Locals OTA)?

My installer said nothing would be gained by hooking up an antenna.

EDIT: Actually, I just looked and James already told me this was possible. Can I just get one more confirmation before I buy a $150 antenna? 

Thanks.

-Casey


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

caseystone said:


> Hello:
> 
> If I subscribe to HD locals is there any reason to put up a good OTA antenna? Does that enable the 622 to record three shows at once (basically, does it add a tuner that it can use to record shows on those HD Locals OTA)?
> 
> ...


As is usually the case, James is 100% correct.
With LiL HD locals and OTA, you will be able to record 3 HD events simultaneously, or record 2 and watch a 3rd live.

Why $150.00? Unless you live in a canyon/mountain area, or have multipathing/directional issues, you should only need a modest outdoor OTA antenna in LA?
My OTA antenna was under $50., is LD and works at 55 miles. (click on the link in the sig to view it)


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Casey, I would agree with kdg454 that it is unlikely you will need a $150 antenna. You can go to this website and enter your location information and it will help you pick the right antenna. 
http://www.antennaweb.org
In all honesty, being in LA, the Radio Shack antennas will do fine for you. Although Winegard and Channel Master make excellent antennas, they are rugged enough to handle the snow and ice that are in other parts of the country. In LA, you don't have any of those conditions. I have Radio Shack UHF Yagi on my roof to receive stations that are about 50 miles away and it has been up for about 6 years with no problems in terms of adjustments or connections. Typically something as simple as a 4 bay bowtie is all that is need. Go through the exercise at antennaweb and then let us know what the choices are. I think having the ability to record OTA and Sat is a good deal although you can also record two locals off of Sat. I am still waiting for San Francisco locals to show up but the flexibility it gives you having 3 separate tuners is just great.

..Doyle


----------



## Mark3:35 (Feb 2, 2006)

caseystone said:


> Hello:
> 
> If I subscribe to HD locals is there any reason to put up a good OTA antenna? Does that enable the 622 to record three shows at once (basically, does it add a tuner that it can use to record shows on those HD Locals OTA)?
> 
> ...


I connected an OTA antenna to my 622 for local HD because most of the area (Colorado Springs) stations transmit both SD and HD programming. I split the OTA signal so that it goes into the 622 and directly into my Sony HD TV. The OTA signal also splits to combine with the 622 TV2 output to provide local programming to my SD TV through my home coax connections for some of the local stations that haven't gone digital yet. My OTA antenna is a Winegard Squareshooter which is compact, sells for under $100 and is easy to install (see the SS-2000 at solidsignal.com).


----------



## emoney28 (Mar 1, 2004)

caseystone said:


> Hello:
> 
> If I subscribe to HD locals is there any reason to put up a good OTA antenna? Does that enable the 622 to record three shows at once (basically, does it add a tuner that it can use to record shows on those HD Locals OTA)?
> 
> ...


Don't forget that some of your locals will not be broadcast over the satellite in the short term, and maybe not in the long term either. Here in Chicago WGN is not over the satellite, so I have to watch my World Series winner White Sox OTA!

Erik


----------



## rjruby (Dec 29, 2002)

You'll pickup the subchannels which in my case includes two weather channels from the ABC and NBC affiliates.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Another thing to keep in mind besides the benefit of recording 3 shows at once and having additional channels that Dish doesn't offer in HD, is the fact that the channels that you get OTA may look better than the ones from Dish and you may prefer them to the Dish channels. Since the OTA channels are not going through a MPEG4 encoding and compression routine they will probably look better than the Dish provided MPEG4 locals. Can't say for sure since they aren't up in Seattle yet.


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

Over the past week, I've been routinely comparing the games on CBS between the local OTA HD feed, and the CBSHD SAT feed, which I believe is in MPEG2.
If there is any difference, I can't see it on my RP's. Perhaps on the higher quality Panels or FP's it would be noticeable.
In theory, presuming they don't throttle it up too much, MPEG4 should only be better.
Still, my OTA antenna is staying put, if for nothing else, the added versatility aspect.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Good to know. However, I'd be curious to hear from some members that have both OTA and MPEG4 locals and how they compare side by side. Especially in markets outside of LA and New York (assuming they may be allocated more bandwidth since they are also used as distant locals for some, i.e. back when I was still fortunate enough to have LA, NY, and Seattle locals in SD from Dish years ago, I always watched LA or NY because the picture quality was much better).


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

Rob,
Are the new HD locals, the ones now up and running, actually using MPEG4 compression technology?
I seem to remember reading they have a MPEG4 header, used to block them from MPEG2 receivers, but the actual compression technology is still MPEG2.
No--Yes??


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

That's a good question. I don't know.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rob Glasser said:


> Especially in markets outside of LA and New York (assuming they may be allocated more bandwidth since they are also used as distant locals for some, i.e. back when I was still fortunate enough to have LA, NY, and Seattle locals in SD from Dish years ago, I always watched LA or NY because the picture quality was much better).


NY and LA are MPEG2 as I understand it, so that wouldn't be a good comparison anyway. I'm not sure how finely divided the bandwidth can be, but I'm betting that there aren't lots of options. The difference may come entirely from how efficient the encoders are.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

kdg454 said:


> Are the new HD locals, the ones now up and running, actually using MPEG4 compression technology?


I heard all but NY and LA are MPEG4 compressed.


> I seem to remember reading they have a MPEG4 header, used to block them from MPEG2 receivers, but the actual compression technology is still MPEG2.


The opposite is likely. The carrier is MPEG2 but the content is MPEG4. As has been pointed out, MPEG4, by design, lacks a formal transport protocol.


----------



## caseystone (Feb 21, 2006)

Wow..

Thanks for all of the replies. I've been to Antennaweb and if I say that there are not tall trees/buildings in the way I get yellow and if there are, I get Red. Not sure which one it truly is. There are some big trees around.

I have an old Terk TV50 VHF/UHF antenna which I have hooked up. I can sometimes get around 70% signal strength on some channels. It is outside and aiming the right direction, but if I bought a new one I'd mount it a few feet higher on a pole from the roof. Oh, the TV50 came with a small amplifier which I have, aparently, lost.

The one I was considering is this maybe.

I actually may have line-of-sight to the towers from the roof.. I should check. What I like about this one is that it looks "cool" not like an "old fashioned" antenna. I know, that's kind of lame...

Also, I'd rather get something a bit stronger to avoid the possiblity of missing a scheduled recording because of bad reception.

Anyone tried this one? Have other ideas for "cool" antennas.

Thanks.

-Casey


----------



## redbird (May 9, 2005)

I'm using this $26 UHF antenna from Radio Shack. On my 622, I'm getting 100% on three channels and four are in the mid 90's. I'm even getting a 72% on one station transmitting on VHF channel 8 located off the antenna's left rear corner.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103088&cp=2032057.2032187.2032189.2032205&parentPage=family


----------



## Mark3:35 (Feb 2, 2006)

caseystone said:


> Wow..
> 
> Thanks for all of the replies. I've been to Antennaweb and if I say that there are not tall trees/buildings in the way I get yellow and if there are, I get Red. Not sure which one it truly is. There are some big trees around.
> 
> ...


Casey,

The Audiovox antenna looks similar to the Squareshooter by Winegard. I have the SS-2000 (amplified) and it works great. I pointed it for line-of-sight to the broadcast antennas and then adjusted the skew for optimum signal strength. Check out the Squareshooter at solidsignal.com.

Mark


----------



## oljim (Aug 6, 2002)

Why do people spend $100 for a squareshooter when a $25 R/S will work better?


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Another great antenna is the Channel Master CM4221. I am about 16+ miles from the main group of towers, even further for a couple other stations and it performs wonderfully. This assumes that all the HD stations in your area are UHF. Also, this type of antenna isn't good for cutting through trees but if you don't have that issue it might be great for you. You can get it shipped from Solid Signal for around $30.00.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Unfortunately the marketing guys have taken advantage of the move to HD and now antennas are being packaged and marketed as "HD" antennas at premium prices. If the look of the antenna is important then people may spend more money just to have that high tech antenna look. The physics of antennas hasn't really changed and there are not a bunch of new designs hitting the market. For UHF, typically one uses either a Yagi, a Bow Tie or a reflecting dish. Each has their own characteristics. The CM4221 is a 4 bay bow tie and is an excellent antenna designed by people who have made their reputation building high quality antennas with actual specifications. 
For those reading this thread that might want to learn a little more about antennas before purchasing, here is a good site to get you up to speed on various antenna types and their performance. Also some nice do it yourself projects on this site for those that might be in really deep fringe areas.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/types.html

..Doyle


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

oljim said:


> Why do people spend $100 for a squareshooter when a $25 R/S will work better?


Because it doesn't look "cool".

It is the job of the marketing people to convince people that the laws of physics can be bent or broken with enough investment on the part of the unwitting customer.

When I was in college, I used a six foot chunk of weathered RG59 for an FM antenna and it pulled in stations from 80 miles away. Much better than the $5 dipoles that they sold at Radio Shack.

Antenna design cannot be reasonably cheated. Customers are easily cheated.


----------



## liferules (Aug 14, 2005)

oljim said:


> Why do people spend $100 for a squareshooter when a $25 R/S will work better?


I don't know about the squareshooter, but I tried 4 different RS and CC antennas without much success. As a last temporizing measure, I bought the Winegard Sharpshooter SS-3000 and was surprised by its ability to get outstanding reception on all OTA HD channels in the area (which was not able to be done by all the others)...


----------



## oljim (Aug 6, 2002)

Liferuls how far are you from stations? We are talking about stations that can not be hit with a rock. All my stations are 42-71 miles away, your overprice indoor ants will get me nothing.
Like Harsh said, you could make one for a few bucks if a fancy indoor works.


----------



## sendy (Jan 18, 2006)

Iam still using the antena that was provided by voom for OTA  
iam using the 622 and the HD OTA pictiure is great ,
dont pay 5 bucks for SD local Chanels go OTA


----------



## sendy (Jan 18, 2006)

Iam still using the antena that was provided by voom for OTA  
iam using the 622 and the HD OTA picture is great ,
dont pay 5 bucks for SD local Chanels go OTA


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

I would be careful picking the Winegard Squareshooter unless you are in a neighborhood with lots of high buildings or something similar that causes reflections. The Squareshooter is specifically designed to pick up Reflected signals as opposed to an antenna that is designed to reject reflected and pickup direct signals. The Sharpshooter is an indoor antenna and although some are forced to use indoor antennas, they typically don't compare to a decent outdoor antenna. The bottom line is that if it works for you great! If you are trying to figure out what will work for your situation, ask questions and describe your situation. 

..Doyle


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

DoyleS said:


> I would be careful picking the Winegard Squareshooter unless you are in a neighborhood with lots of high buildings or something similar that causes reflections. The Squareshooter is specifically designed to pick up Reflected signals as opposed to an antenna that is designed to reject reflected and pickup direct signals. The Sharpshooter is an indoor antenna and although some are forced to use indoor antennas, they typically don't compare to a decent outdoor antenna. The bottom line is that if it works for you great! If you are trying to figure out what will work for your situation, ask questions and describe your situation.
> 
> ..Doyle


Doyle thanks for giving out the correct information. In san francisco I am on the ground floor and the sharpshooter is the only antenna that works. I now can pick up the local HD program which with the other antenna I was unable to do so.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

I have had several HD friends who have really been frustrated by the OTA reception in San Francisco. With the combination of hills and buildings, you can be 5 miles from Sutro Tower and still not be able to get a decent signal. I am not sure what Winegard did to design an antenna that relies on reflected signals but it sounds like they might have a winner for some of these difficult Metro situations. 

..Doyle


----------



## liferules (Aug 14, 2005)

oljim said:


> Liferuls how far are you from stations? We are talking about stations that can not be hit with a rock. All my stations are 42-71 miles away


I'm 30 miles away. (Guess I have a strong rock throwing arm) Like I said, I tried lots of RS cheapos before I spent my $99 on the Winegard. I'll eventually put an antenna in the attic, but am too busy these days to run the wire, etc... My take on it is if its working without the hassle of an attic install, then it works for me...

You're pushing it to get HD UHF at 70 miles...I'd be impressed if even a rooftop one will get great reception...


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

It really depends on the terrain. On flat land or if you have an unobstructed view, you can pull stations in at 100 miles with the right antenna. On the other hand, put a hill in the way and you can be stymied at 15 miles. UHF does not like to bend over hilltops or around buildings. 

..Doyle


----------

