# OTA HDTV Antennas



## billcushman

Very few digital OTA stations are broadcasting in the VHF Low Band (channel 2 thru 6). Most are presently in the UHF Band. In February, many UHF digital stations will move back to the VHF High Band (channel 7 thru 13). If you are presently using a UHF only antenna to receive digital OTA, you will probably have reception problems. 

Until recently there were no high performance antennas designed to receive the VHF High Band plus the UHF Band, excluding the VHF Low Band. This is important because the elements necessary to optimize the VHF Low Band are very wide and make the antenna very large. There are now several antennas designed to receive channels 7 thru 69.

Two excellent choices are the Winegard HD7696P and the Antennacraft HBU22. Winegard has five antennas in the HD769 series. The HD7696P has high gain, excellent front-to-back ratio, and narrow beam width. It is only 36" wide but is about 111" long. The Antennacraft HBU22 is smaller and much lower cost, has lower gain but good properties for a smaller low cost antenna. 

Other manufacturers many introduce antennas of this same type. They are ideal solutions for most digital OTA reception.


----------



## davring

Very good information, thank you.


----------



## EXTACAMO

Yes thanks. And another good resource is http://www.dennysantennaservice.com/


----------



## ziggy29

Some of these combo 7-69 antennas are a good, convenient choice for "medium range" reception (roughly 30-50 miles of relatively unchallenging terrain). But for fringe and deep fringe reception, it's still hard to beat separates for UHF and high VHF. I don't know any reasonably priced single 7-69 antenna that will beat or match the combination of a UHF antenna like a CM4228 or 91XG together with a high VHF yagi like the YA-1713 in the deep fringe.


----------



## joshjr

I think I am gonna get this antenna. http://www.consumer.philips.com/con...DV7700K_17_US_CONSUMER/TV-antenna+SDV7700K-17 It looks fantastic and should just about cover everything.


----------



## Scott in FL

joshjr said:


> I think I am gonna get this antenna. http://www.consumer.philips.com/con...DV7700K_17_US_CONSUMER/TV-antenna+SDV7700K-17 It looks fantastic and should just about cover everything.


It's also very big and very expensive, and you'll never use the low band VHF capability of this antenna. Even after February there will be no stations in your reception area broadcasting on channels 2-6 (I checked Miami, OK on tvfool.com).

This is the point the original post made.


----------



## joshjr

I plan on using this to get locals from Tulsa Oklahoma. The local towers are anywhere from 70-85 miles away and there are channels that are in the 2-6 range. In case you want a zip code to check it out try 74101. NBC and CBS will both be in the 2-6 range. Since I plan on using this antenna with my DVR and the locals are so far away I need the best antenna I can find. But thanks for checking in Miami for me anyways.


----------



## HDTVFreak07

I may be wrong here but a guy from our local television station (that works as an engineer) said that many television are currently broadcasting analog and digital, which makes them having to broadcast digitally in lower power than they would have if not for analog. He said that both analog and digital need their own power source, so until Feb 17, 2009, digital signals are usually broadcast in lower power. As soon as analog is cut off, digital signals will be broadcasted in higher power, making it travel farther.

It is still morning to me and I can't think of a better way to explain anything clearer. Grr. I'm looking forward to the cut-off date so that I can begin receiving more digital stations from further away that I'm receiving with low signals.


----------



## Scott in FL

joshjr said:


> In case you want a zip code to check it out try 74101. NBC and CBS will both be in the 2-6 range.


I plugged in zip code 74101 with an antenna 50' above ground level and there will be no digital stations transmitting on channels 2-6 now or in the future. You can have a look by going to tvfool.com. Just remember, your NBC and CBS stations may be known as channels 2 and 6, but they are actually transmitting on channels 56 and 55 now (moving to channels 8 and 45 after February).


----------



## Scott in FL

HDTVFreak07 said:


> I may be wrong here but a guy from our local television station (that works as an engineer) said that many television are currently broadcasting analog and digital, which makes them having to broadcast digitally in lower power than they would have if not for analog. He said that both analog and digital need their own power source, so until Feb 17, 2009, digital signals are usually broadcast in lower power. As soon as analog is cut off, digital signals will be broadcasted in higher power, making it travel farther.


The reason digital stations are at lower power than their analog counterparts is because digital requires less power. This is one of the reasons for the switch (and one of the reasons tv stations want the switch to go through... lower electrical bills).

There may be some cases where the digital channels will increase power when the analog signs off as you say, but I think you'll find in most cases the powers will remain the same _for their channel allocation._ VHF-Lo stations will transmit at the lowest power levels (not many of these though). VHF-High stations are next with more power, followed by UHF stations that will get the highest power allocations.

You can see all of this on tvfool.com. Plug in your address and compare the channels and transmit power levels for the digital stations before and after February 2009.


----------



## jkane

billcushman said:


> Until recently there were no high performance antennas designed to receive the VHF High Band plus the UHF Band, excluding the VHF Low Band. This is important because the elements necessary to optimize the VHF Low Band are very wide and make the antenna very large. There are now several antennas designed to receive channels 7 thru 69.


What!? Where do people get this kind of mis-information from? There have been excellent well tuned antenna for all of those frequencies for most of the entire life times of people on this board!

Bottom line ... if you get the signal, you get it. No fancy sales pitch about how this piece of wire is better than that piece of wire is gonna improve what works. Yes, a well tuned antenna is better, but excluding low VHF will very seldom improve your signal on the other bands. A log periodic (which most OTA antenna for TV are) is not the best for a single channel. But it has proven itself to be the most efficient for getting the most channels in the most circumstances.

If you live in mountainous region or at extreme distances, then you might need something tuned to your particular situation. But try the stuff on a store shelf first. Chances are it will work. And if it does not, then chances are the special tuned one you buy will not work either!

Radio waves are regulated by the laws of physics. You can't rewrite that law.


----------



## Scott in FL

Hi Jeff,
I think what Bill said was up until now there were no tv antennas designed to receive _just_ the frequency range from channel 7 - 69, and I think he's correct. To my knowledge, until DTV came along, there was nothing that was designed for VHF-High and UHF (no VHF-Lo). At least I can't think of any.


----------



## ziggy29

Scott in FL said:


> Hi Jeff,
> I think what Bill said was up until now there were no tv antennas designed to receive _just_ the frequency range from channel 7 - 69, and I think he's correct. To my knowledge, until DTV came along, there was nothing that was designed for VHF-High and UHF (no VHF-Lo). At least I can't think of any.


That was how I understood it, too.

There used to be behemoth combo antennas that received 2-83, but for people in most markets, 7-69 will suffice for the future (actually, 7-51 for most people). As a result, the new generation of "single antenna solution" hardware is more optimized for a narrower range of channels AND is considerably smaller because they have no low VHF capability designed into it.


----------



## billcushman

Thanks Scott and Ziggy. I have one of those behemoths on my roof. Its 17 feet long and has excellent properties on 2 thru 83. Physics are why its has to be so big to have good gain and beam width on channels 2 thru 6. Most people desire a smaller antenna, and the new 7 thru 69 antennas represent a way to get performance almost equal to giants or complex arrays with a reasonable cost and size. 

Incidently, my college degree is in Physics and I am a life member of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers).

Some Houston digital stations have an effective radiated power of 1 megawatt. The UHF transmitters are very inefficient and have high power consumption. The towers here are over 2000 feet tall. Transmission lines won't work at those UHF frequencies. The expansion and contraction with temperture gradient and changes on a 2000 foot long waveguide is a lot of fun.


----------



## jdspencer

I have the Winegard HD 7084P. I'm only 9.5 miles from my towers, but there is a hill in between. One of my locals is using ch4 for their digital signal. They plan to return to their analog channel assignment (34), but they've asked for an extension as the new transmitter won't be in place by 2/2009. Once, they get away from ch 4, then I may be able to get a smaller antenna. BTW, two other locals will stay with high VHF (ch 7 and 8).


----------



## joshjr

Scott in FL said:


> I plugged in zip code 74101 with an antenna 50' above ground level and there will be no digital stations transmitting on channels 2-6 now or in the future. You can have a look by going to tvfool.com. Just remember, your NBC and CBS stations may be known as channels 2 and 6, but they are actually transmitting on channels 56 and 55 now (moving to channels 8 and 45 after February).


Thanks again for all you work on this. I want the best antenna that I can get and never have to worry about a station changing the channel number. This antenna covers everything I might need. You might think its a waste but its my money and its what I want. I will be ready for anything.


----------



## jkane

They might not have been on a shelf in a Walmart, but those antenna's have been available. It has only been in the past 20 years that cable companies put the idea of an "ugly" antenna in the heads of people. Prior to that a big antenna on your roof was a status symbol! And if you ordered it, you could get any kind you wanted to. But since the bigger you had, the higher your status, the idea of making them smaller on purpose wasn't done very often. It was only done for space issues, not for visual aesthetics. I have 5 antenna's on my house today. And 2 of them are super ugly. I don't use them any more. I keep them as a protest to the do gooders who re-define beauty every few years.

Sorry for my tone yesterday. I was a bit grumpy. Could have been a tiny bit nicer in my wording.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

You're lucky - Philly is going to have a low-band VHF channel come February. Even worse, it's channel 6 (adjacent to FM).

It's an ABC O&O.

Really dumb on their part.


----------



## boba

I just found another Winegard to throw in HD1080 it is another 7-69 but this one is designed like a UHF bow tie. Dimensions 34.5"W x 18.25" H range 40 miles


----------



## Tower Guy

wilbur_the_goose said:


> You're lucky - Philly is going to have a low-band VHF channel come February. Even worse, it's channel 6 (adjacent to FM).
> 
> It's an ABC O&O.
> 
> Really dumb on their part.


I disagree. Channel 6 has not yet been proven to be a deficient DTV channel.

FM stations on the low end of the dial have always had to protect WPVI analog. The protection to DTV will continue.


----------



## Scott in FL

Tower Guy said:


> I disagree. Channel 6 has not yet been proven to be a deficient DTV channel.
> 
> FM stations on the low end of the dial have always had to protect WPVI analog. The protection to DTV will continue.


Why oh why the United States continues to hang on to VHF I will never understand (and I worked for a TV station that actually sued the FCC to get a VHF-Hi DTV allocation as opposed to a UHF). This is our opportunity to break away from large antennas and go with the rest of the world and migrate to UHF.

Sorry, I disagree with your comment completely. In fact, I was talking to a friend during the NAB in April (he's a partner in a DC consulting engineering firm that did a lot of the DTV conversion applications). He said the FCC and many TV stations now realize that VHF-Lo is a mistake.

Example: I can receive the Harrisburg, PA, DTV signals in Frederick, MD, with one exception: WHP-DT channel 4. The rest are all VHF-Hi and UHF.

Sorrry, I disagree. VHF-Lo is a mistake.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

TowerGuy - sorry, but you're wrong...

I KNOW I'll lose my OTA signal when WPVI-DT transitions from UHF67 to VHF6 on 2/29.


----------



## Tower Guy

Scott in FL said:


> Sorrry, I disagree. VHF-Lo is a mistake.


Let's get real specific here. I was talking about channel 6 and all of a sudden the subject gets changed to low band and channel 4.

The two are not the same. Even a consultant can make mistakes when generalizations are taken out of context.

Let's see why channel 6 is the right channel is some instances. Consider Blue Ball, PA; zip code 17506. According to tvfool, WPVI's transition assignment on channel 64 has a signal strength of -108 dbm. The same location on channel 6 will have a signal strength of -87.4. As you can see, when terrain intervenes, channel 6 outperforms UHF by 20.6 db. Therefore, channel 6 low band VHF is much better than UHF in hilly areas.

A small receive antenna is not the most important criteria when reception on UHF is impossible due to terrain losses.


----------



## Tower Guy

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I KNOW I'll lose my OTA signal when WPVI-DT transitions from UHF67 to VHF6 on 2/29.


How did you determine that?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Easy - I have a UHF antenna


----------



## Tower Guy

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I have a UHF antenna


That's a mistake!


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

I was never told they'd go back to their VHF assignments till earlier this year.


----------



## Scott in FL

Tower Guy said:


> Let's get real specific here. I was talking about channel 6 and all of a sudden the subject gets changed to low band and channel 4.
> 
> The two are not the same.


Channel 4 and channel 6 are both VHF-Lo frequencies, separated by only 16 MHz. In the world of radio wave propagation the two channels are essentially the same.

VHF-Lo channels are a bad choice for antenna size reasons. It takes a lot more antenna (size) at VHF-Lo frequencies to get the same gain as at UHF.

Your 20 dB difference argument is valid. But compare the receive signal strengths of WHP now on channel 4 with their post transition signal strength on channel 21. They're pretty much the same. This is not over a long distance. So you're correct: over long, hilly distances VHF-Lo channels do better. But over long, hilly distances multipath causes problems and you could wind up with no reception at all. So is this a valid reason to use lower frequencies?

UHF channels are transmitted at higher power levels to equalize the difference between the two. So essentially it comes down to antenna size. I would much rather have a small, high gain UHF antenna than a VHF-Lo band monster. Thus my comment about the US being behind the rest of the world (yet again).

And finally, let's not forget the tropo/ducting effects that occur during the Spring time that affect VHF-Lo frequencies. Stations as far away as 1000 miles can interfere with a channel 6 station. With analog, the interference would be seen as "something in the background." With digital, the demod could very well lose lock resulting in a blank screen.

In my opinion, allocating DTV channels to the VHF-Lo range is a very bad decision. It is for these reasons that my consulting engineer friend made the "generalization."


----------



## Tower Guy

Scott in FL said:


> Channel 4 and channel 6 are both VHF-Lo frequencies, separated by only 16 MHz. In the world of radio wave propagation the two channels are essentially the same.
> 
> VHF-Lo channels are a bad choice for antenna size reasons. It takes a lot more antenna (size) at VHF-Lo frequencies to get the same gain as at UHF.
> 
> Your 20 dB difference argument is valid. But compare the receive signal strengths of WHP now on channel 4 with their post transition signal strength on channel 21. They're pretty much the same. This is not over a long distance. So you're correct: over long, hilly distances VHF-Lo channels do better. But over long, hilly distances multipath causes problems and you could wind up with no reception at all. So is this a valid reason to use lower frequencies?
> 
> UHF channels are transmitted at higher power levels to equalize the difference between the two. So essentially it comes down to antenna size. I would much rather have a small, high gain UHF antenna than a VHF-Lo band monster. Thus my comment about the US being behind the rest of the world (yet again).
> 
> And finally, let's not forget the tropo/ducting effects that occur during the Spring time that affect VHF-Lo frequencies. Stations as far away as 1000 miles can interfere with a channel 6 station. With analog, the interference would be seen as "something in the background." With digital, the demod could very well lose lock resulting in a blank screen.
> 
> In my opinion, allocating DTV channels to the VHF-Lo range is a very bad decision. It is for these reasons that my consulting engineer friend made the "generalization."


I know that you didn't mean it, but your conclusion continues to be a generalization.

According to published studies, the noise level on channel 4 is about 2.5 db higher than channel 6. Ray tracing programs show that the beam tilt on a receive antenna due to interaction with the ground is 2 db worse on channel 4 than channel 6. The combination of the two yield a 4.5 db advantage for channel 6 over channel 4. That is not "essentially the same".

You are right, a resonant antenna on low band is larger than a resonant antenna on UHF. The low band antenna also has a larger capture area than a UHF antenna, that's another reason why the path loss calculations show stronger signals on channel 6 for the same amount of antenna gain. So you don't need as much antenna gain on VHF than UHF.

Tropo ducting effects UHF and VHF equally. You may be confusing ducting with Sporadic E. Sporadic E is unique to low band VHF. Sporadic E also has a greater effect on channels 2-4 than 5 & 6.

The situation with WHP shows that both 4 and 21 is strong enough to be received easily in Blue Ball, PA. The .7 db calculated weaker signal on channel 4 is immaterial.

There is one and only one conclusion. Once you erect a proper antenna channel 6 is better than UHF.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

I still don't think you're right.

I'll talk analog here... I remember when CBC-Toronto switched from channel 5 to channel 6 back in the 1970's. We could pick up channel 5 with no problems, but channel 6 was a bear. Buffalo has some FM stations in the 88.* range, and many thought they were interfering.

Besides, I live peacefully with my HOA due to my SquareShooter antenna. But there's no way they'd go for a big old VHF antenna. And I don't have the $$$ to pay attorney bills to defend me, even though it'd be my right. Furthermore, I don't really WANT an ugly VHF antenna.

WPVI really blew it here... Just check the avsforum.com OTA forum for Philly. 99% of us are upset.


----------



## Scott in FL

Tower Guy said:


> I know that you didn't mean it, but your conclusion continues to be a generalization.
> 
> You may be confusing ducting with Sporadic E. Sporadic E is unique to low band VHF. Sporadic E also has a greater effect on channels 2-4 than 5 & 6.


Good morning Tower Guy.

You're right: I meant sporadic E which affects the lower frequencies and moves upward. Which is one reason I stated that VHF-Lo was a poor choice compared to VHF-Hi and UHF.

I also agree with your conclusions regarding capture area, path loss, etc. Although I'm having a difficult time agreeing with you that channels 4 and 6 are not essentially the same. Ground effects decrease with antenna height, and I maintain that for the purposes of this discussion the differences between the two channels is splitting hairs.

I still get back to the practical side. When I put up my DTV antenna I cursed my employer for being the only station in Ft Myers with a VHF allocation (channel 9). I was thankful that at least they went with a VHF-Hi channel and not VHF-Lo. I'd love to have a tall tower with big antennas (I'd put some of my amateur antennas on it as well). But we don't all have that luxury. Some aren't allowed to put up any antennas. So sorry for the generalization, but it is a reality. Big antennas can be a problem for many.

Add in interference and multipath, and I remain 100% against VHF-Lo. Interference, man made or from distant stations, can not be ignored. Your gain statements ignore this aspect completely.

You might find this article interesting, which brings up other points that you and I have not discussed.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0001/t.1169.html

I'm going to generalize yet again, but there are a lot of viewers, engineers and stations that are against VHF-Lo (for example, WHP which is going back to UHF after the transition). I'll go as far as to say the jury is still out. Could be interesting to see what happens with Channel 6 in Philly and channel 3 in Chicago after the switch.


----------



## Tower Guy

Scott in FL said:


> I'm going to generalize yet again, but there are a lot of viewers, engineers and stations that are against VHF-Lo.


That is certainly true. The empirical data on low band VHF reception does show issues. Yet almost none of that data comes from channel 5 or 6 installations.


----------



## Tower Guy

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I'll talk analog here... I remember when CBC-Toronto switched from channel 5 to channel 6 back in the 1970's. We could pick up channel 5 with no problems, but channel 6 was a bear.


I grew up in Wheatfield. My folks still live there. I continue to be a Bills fan.

For us, channel 6 was always stronger than 5 is now.

But your real point is FM interference. The Buffalo FM stations were not required to protect Toronto TV. The FM stations around Philly are required to protect WPVI.


----------



## Tower Guy

Scott in FL said:


> You might find this article interesting, which brings up other points that you and I have not discussed.
> 
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0001/t.1169.html


The article talks mostly about difficulty with WBBM-DT. WBBM reception is the worst possible one to use as a comparison.

Here are the specific issues with WBBM.

Interference from WWMT analog on channel 3 120 miles away. 
The ERP of WWMT analog is 100 KW vs 4.4 KW for WBBM-DT.
There is no terrain blockage between WWMT and WBBM.
Chicago has extremely high air traffic.
There are few hills in Chicago for low band VHF to knife edge over.
The thunderstorms on the plains tend to be full of lightning.

Add this to the other known issues with the lowest of the low band VHF channels and your observation is correct, WBBM-DT doesn't work well.

The situation with WPVI on channel 6 is not the same as WBBM's channel 3.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

But Tower Guy - I get an FM station in my car at 88.1, and of course WXPN at 88.5.

Couldn't those interfere?

BTW - I was in Tonawanda!


----------



## Tower Guy

wilbur_the_goose said:


> But Tower Guy - I get an FM station in my car at 88.1, and of course WXPN at 88.5.
> 
> Couldn't those interfere?


88.1 WPEB 1 watt vertical only polarization.....won't interfere with WPVI.
88.5 WXPN 5 KW, but colocated with WPVI...again should be fine.


----------



## billcushman

boba said:


> I just found another Winegard to throw in HD1080 it is another 7-69 but this one is designed like a UHF bow tie. Dimensions 34.5"W x 18.25" H range 40 miles


Thanks for mentioning the Winegard HD1080. I just found the performance data on the HD1080. On high VHF channels 7 thru 13, this unit has a gain of -11 to 0 dB, and a front to back ratio of 0 dB. On the UHF channels 14 thru 69 it has a gain of 6 to 10.7 dB, and a front to back ratio of 2 to 8 dB. The polar pattern is not well centered on the UHF channels.

In comparison the Winegard HD7696P has a gain of about 10 dB on high VHF, with a front to back ratio of 20 dB on all channels except 7 which has a front to back ratio of 13 dB. On UHF the gain is about 11 to 13 dB and the front to back ratio is 20 dB on mid range UHF channels. It is larger and more costly than the HD1080 however.


----------



## jpoet

I wonder how the Winegard compare to the new AntennaDirect ClearStream antennas?

http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?PROD=C4

John


----------



## billcushman

jpoet said:


> I wonder how the Winegard compare to the new AntennaDirect ClearStream antennas?
> 
> http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?PROD=C4
> 
> John


The AntennasDirect C2 and C4 are UHF only antennas with good to excellent gain but wide beam width and a very low front-to-back ratio. They might work well in rural areas to receive UHF only reception, but in locations where multipath is common, a narrow beam width and high front-to-back ratio is necessary. Many stations will be broadcasting in the high VHF band (ch7 thru ch 13) after analog is shut off, so a UHF only antenna is not suitable unless your area is UHF only.


----------



## thestaton

For those looking for a really nice UHF only antenna I have nothing but great things to say about antennas direct DB4.


----------



## joshjr

The one I am considering is the Channel Master 3671. If my waivers are not signed off on then this is the one I think I am going to try.

http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?prod=ANC3671


----------



## jpoet

Thanks, billcushman.

Now I am looking at the Channel Master CM-2018:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=119545&d=1221161770

It does not look like it will be available until the end of the year, but that is fine with me. The CM-2016 can be had now.

John


----------



## thestaton

For anyone who is in the lexington, ky market I would highly recommend the terrestrial digital V15. I finally found something that can pick up faux 56.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr

thestaton said:


> For those looking for a really nice UHF only antenna I have nothing but great things to say about antennas direct DB4.


You may want to also look at the Channel Master 4228.

It has excellent UHF directional gain.

Thanks to it's continuous screen reflector, it also has decent bidirectional VHF High reception, too.


----------



## n3ntj

Scott in FL said:


> Channel 4 and channel 6 are both VHF-Lo frequencies, separated by only 16 MHz. In the world of radio wave propagation the two channels are essentially the same.
> 
> VHF-Lo channels are a bad choice for antenna size reasons. It takes a lot more antenna (size) at VHF-Lo frequencies to get the same gain as at UHF.
> 
> Your 20 dB difference argument is valid. But compare the receive signal strengths of WHP now on channel 4 with their post transition signal strength on channel 21. They're pretty much the same. This is not over a long distance. So you're correct: over long, hilly distances VHF-Lo channels do better. But over long, hilly distances multipath causes problems and you could wind up with no reception at all. So is this a valid reason to use lower frequencies?
> 
> UHF channels are transmitted at higher power levels to equalize the difference between the two. So essentially it comes down to antenna size. I would much rather have a small, high gain UHF antenna than a VHF-Lo band monster. Thus my comment about the US being behind the rest of the world (yet again).
> 
> And finally, let's not forget the tropo/ducting effects that occur during the Spring time that affect VHF-Lo frequencies. Stations as far away as 1000 miles can interfere with a channel 6 station. With analog, the interference would be seen as "something in the background." With digital, the demod could very well lose lock resulting in a blank screen.
> 
> In my opinion, allocating DTV channels to the VHF-Lo range is a very bad decision. It is for these reasons that my consulting engineer friend made the "generalization."


I can't wait until WHP-DT goes back to channel 21. I live 30 miles from their site but can't get them. I can get WHTM-DT and WITF-DT easily.

I was hoping WPVI would have chosen a post-Feb 2009 channel in the 20's or 30's. I can just barely get their current Digital channel and nothing on channel 6 (analog).


----------



## billcushman

joshjr said:


> The one I am considering is the Channel Master 3671. If my waivers are not signed off on then this is the one I think I am going to try.
> 
> http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?prod=ANC3671


I had a Channel Master 3671 Crossfire prior to replacing it with a Channel Master 1160a Quantum in 1979. Channel Master Engineering said the Quantum series had superior front-to-back ratio. The 1160a has a boom length of 189" and the 3671 has a boom length of 173". The 1160a Quantum was discontinued a couple of years ago. The 3671 had good performance but the Winegard HD8200U has much better specs in gain and front-to-back ratio. If you do not need the VHF-Lo band (channels 2 thru 6), the new Winegard HD7698P has superior polar plots when compared to the HD8200U, even though both have the same gain and front-to-back ratio on channels 7 thru 69. You may not have realized that the 3671 was available well over 30 years ago. Incidently the 1160a has survived two major hurricanes, Alicia and Ike. Ike killed power to over two million customers in Houston, with massive destruction to the to the power distribution system.

All the antennas listed above are excellent performers. They all look like antennas and have long booms. Please post your results after you get your new antenna.


----------



## Davenlr

Just to back up the VHF-lo is bad for dtv group...

KETS-DT ch 5, distance 15 miles, receive antenna: Channel Master Quantum 1162. Signal Quality: 100%... EXCEPT...
1:When lightning is within 30 miles
2:A light switch is turned on/off
3:My neighbor turns on a light
4:Either of our AC units kicks on
5:A car with bad plug wires drives by
6: Tropo is above average

In all those cases, it causes the station to drop out for 1 to 3 seconds per occurance for items 1-5, and become totally unreceivable for various lengths of time in item 6.

VHF channel 12, 10 miles, no problem except when lightning between transmitter and my house.

UHF ch 30,32,44...10 miles, no issues, even if lightning over my house.

Draw your own conclusions. I've drawn mine...VHF-lo sucks. The station engineer apparently agrees,as they are moving to channel 7.


----------



## thestaton

VHF Low Band in my area was almost impossible. I ended up getting the terrestrial digital V15 and when I pointed it right at the transmitter I was able to pick it up at about 75% signal strength. However if I am off by more than 10 degrees it's 0% signal strength. 

After talking with the Engineer at Fox 56, he said they might be moving to UHF Channel 31 after the transition if the FCC approves it.


----------



## tweaked

I recently purchased the Winegard HD7698; it's a replacement for one of Winegard's not so old VHF/UHF combos, an HD7080. I'd had the 7080 mounted on a 20' foot mast that was sitting on my one story house.

With the 7080, I was able to pull in (very) deep fringe signals from a distant market on those occasions when atmospheric conditions were favorable, that market being San Francisco. I live in Sacramento and as the crow flies, it's a good 85+ miles to the SF Bay Area transmission towers. With the 7080, reception was always contingent on Mother Nature and at best, it proved to be a hit-and-miss deal with misses far more the rule. 

With a new mast (a Channel Master 50 footer which was raised up to 40') and the new Winegard HD7698, I was hoping to be able to pull in those same distant signals while being less dependent on atmospheric conditions. I wasn't expecting to receive a bulk of the Bay Area transmissions on a constant basis, I was just hoping to improve the odds of pulling them in more often, even if the clouds and/or fog weren't on my side. As it's turned out, I'm able to acquire far more channels from those same towers thanks to the increased height I raised the new antenna to as well as the fact that it's got a good deal more gain than the HD7080 it replaces. 

My local towers are <30 miles out with no less than 15 channels transmitted from that same locale. I did toy with the idea of installing an amplifier, a Winegard HDP269 which is a low gain unit that's marketed and aimed at those who live in areas situated relatively close to transmission towers. With the length of cable I'd be running (around 90'), I knew an amp wouldn't be necessary but I was thinking it may be of assistance in pushing through those weak, distant channels... helping them overcome the loss in travel from the antenna to the receiver. Thanks to a helpful and enlightening conversation I'd had with a fellow DBSTalk member, Bill Cushman, I opted to not install it as there would likely be noise and interference issues being I'm relatively close to my local broadcast towers. What I did NOT want to do was raise up and guy a 50 foot mast/antenna only to lower it should problems arise (Channel Master's 9080 steel, galvanized guy wire is not easy to work with... very strong stuff).

One of these weekends just for fun, I may hook up the HDP769 and see what happens. If I do, it won't be as close to the antenna as I'd like as I won't be lowering the mast but who knows, it may help.

I haven't had the opportunity to test signal levels as I'd like but one thing's for certain, the HD7698's performing far better than the HD7080 it replaces as it's greatly improved the ability to pull in the fringe signals. In my case, there's still a role clouds and fog play but it's now far more hits than misses. It's an investment of labor, time and money I'm glad I made.


----------



## rgaustad6

The reason that VHF LO (channels 2 through 6) is not good for DTV is because of impulse noise problems at these lower frequencies.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr

FWIW...the title of this forum perpetuates consumer confusion.

There is no such thing as an "OTA HDTV Antenna".

There are simply OTA TV antennas. Analog or digital, standard of high-def, the antenna "doesn't know" or care.

A antenna will capture any RF energy that strikes it, within its bandwidth.

You can talk about UHF, VHF, VHF/UHF, and UHF/VHF Hi antennas...but there are no HDTV antennas. That's only an up-sell catch phase thought up by a marketing agency.


----------



## billcushman

I recently purchased a 7" portable digital television from Radio Shack, Accurian model 16-454. This unit has an internal Lithium polymer battery that will power it for about two hours, comes with a 12 volt car cord, an AC adapter, an AV stereo input adapter, and a right angle antenna adapter. The unit works very well, although I did observe some minor software quirks during extensive testing. Although several other sources show a similar unit, you can actually go purchase the Accurian unit at Radio Shack stores for about $200. I desired to use it with a non-powered indoor antenna to receive all Houston digital stations, both VHF and UHF.

The only way I found to assess the performance of various indoor antennas was to test them using the Accurian TV. I am located about 12 miles from the transmission towers in a location with significant multipath.

The first antenna I used was a genuine Antiference Silver Sensor imported from England. This UHF only antenna worked well on all UHF locals but would not receive any VHF stations (no surprise). Presently Houston PBS digital in on RF channel 9, but in February two major network stations are moving back to their VHF frequencies from their present UHF RF channels.

The next two antennas I tested were the RCA Ant-1400 and RCA Ant-1500. These are similar (except for size) flat panel antennas available locally at Best Buy. They were advertised as working well on VHF and UHF. The larger unit came with a mounting foot that was not included in the smaller unit. Both units were fairly heavy and neither worked on VHF and were not as good as the Silver Sensor on UHF. 

The next antennas were the Radio Shack 15-1868 which cost about $17, and the Radio Shack 15-1874 for about $12. Overall quality and performance on the 15-1874 was not satisfactory, but the 15-1868 worked well on both UHF and VHF. This unit has two extendable poles for VHF with a phasing control for the VHF elements. The UHF section is enclosed in a plastic housing. UHF reception was about the same as the Silver Sensor and VHF reception was satisfactory after adjustment of the pole position, length, and proper setting of the phasing control. The antenna has an F-connector on the plastic body, so it is very easy to attach a connecting lead of the desired length (one is furnished, but I substitued a high quality cable that was more flexible).

I suggested this same antenna to a neighbor who had an Element brand digital TV hooked up to Dish standard definition. With the RS 15-1868 he was able to receive all Houston digital stations which allowed him to view HDTV for the first time. Position and alignment of the indoor antenna was critical for good reception.

All Houston stations are located within about a mile of each other and all towers are about 2000 feet tall. The highest power digital station is broadcasting on RF channel 35 with an effective radiated power of 1 megawatt. PBS digital is broadcasting on RF channel 9 with an effective radiated power of about 3 Kw.

Houston is flat as a board, but has many tall buildings scattered all over the city and many areas have tall trees. Results in other location will vary.


----------



## Norm

Need some advice. I live about 30+ miles from the local HD channels I would like to receive OTA. I already get my local HD channels from Jax, Fl on DirectV but would like to pick up the Gainesville Fl locals which are the ones 30+ miles away (the Jax ones are about 80 miles away). I live in the woods surrounded by Oak trees, My question is what would be the minimum type of OTA antenna I could use? I looked at antenna web and the channels I want to receive are all in the yellow zone but with the trees I am not sure I can get decent signal with the recommended antenna. 

Thanks, Rick.


----------



## scooper

In general - go up at least one color band. And put this antenna outside (if it's in an attic - go up two color bands)


----------



## cdizzy

If you have a tv upstairs you might be able to use the RF antenna from the HR20-100 to get the locals. Believe it or not, it works in the right situation.


----------



## Tower Guy

Norm said:


> Need some advice. I live about 30+ miles from the local HD channels I would like to receive OTA.


Try this channel 7-69 Winegard
http://www.winegard.com/offair/pdf/HD7696P.pdf


----------

