Review on TV antenna

Page 2 of 3  
Micky wrote: "Even if I could duplicate what I have now by buying an antenna twice the size and mounting it on a 30 foot mast , why would I do that when I can get the same result with a maybe iirc $30 amplifier? "
Gain theory. Maximize gain before you hit an amplifier. Otherwise you are just amplifying the effects of a weak signal. I'm about 40 miles outside of Manhattan, and I get everything out of there just fine without an amp, along with a couple stations from Long Island and NJ.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 22:10:26 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

You make amplifying a weak signal sound bad. It's actually good.
Your reason is that you amplify noise, but that applies little or not at all to digital signals.

How big and how high is your antenna?

That's mostly because the TV antennas in NY are high up on the Empire State Building.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/24/2015 09:30 PM, Micky wrote:
[snip]

An amplifier can work well in some situations, but it does need a decent signal at its input.
--
Currently: happy holidays (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00 AM for 1
day).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sam E:
You said it!
One analogy of using an amplifier with a less than ideal antenna:
Trying to use the EQ on a mixing board to improve the sound of a source picked up with a poor choice of microphone or bad mic placement. Pick a better mic or relocate the existing one before trying to "fix in the mix"
Same thing with the antenna: Pull in enough signal to begin with before deciding to amplify it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, you want the strongest possible signal, but you are stuck with what you get. Amplifiers generate noise, but feedlines also generate noise. Having an amplifier at the antenna results in an improved signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver, compared to having the same amplifier at the receiver end of the feedline. This is especially true for signals that were marginal to begin with.
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Freddie MacK, et al:
Example of antenna to steer clear of: http://freakinreviews.com/hd-free-tv-reviews/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Freddie MacK, et al:
Example of antenna to steer clear of - unless you live 20 blocks from the transmitter:
http://freakinreviews.com/hd-free-tv-reviews/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Reminds me of an anenna I got with one of the dongles that turns a computer into a TV. It is about the size of a mouse pad. It will pick up a few stations if close, but not much if very far from a station.
At the house I get about 2 stations with it,but about 30 or more on an outside antenna. Granted many of them have 2 ot 3 from the same transmitter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
- show quoted text - Yes, you want the strongest possible signal, but you are stuck with what you get. Amplifiers generate noise, but feedlines also generate noise. Having an amplifier at the antenna results in an improved signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver, compared to having the same amplifier at the receiver end of the feedline. This is especially true for signals that were marginal to begin with.
Fred "
You may be raising the signal higher above the line & receiver noise, but you are also amplifying any noise *in the signal itself*. THAT is why I advocate maximizing gain first, via the biggest antenna you are able to/are permitted to install.
Again, the only situation in which I would recommend an amp is when feeding multiple receivers(TVs, recorders, FM tuners, etc). NOT to make up for a dinky(read: low-gain) antenna.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Micky wrote:

Where do you mount(position) the amp module? What's the tech spec of amp? S/N ratio, gain on VHF or UHF? power fed by coax or separage power cord?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's near the antenna.

Dunno, dunno, dunno, power through the coax.
It's not an expensive amp, but it yields a perfect picture.
Of course, as Sam says, the input has to be decent, but that's one of, will that's the big advantages of digital. It's decent enough. All this elitist stuff about buying expensive equipment when it doesn't help goes all the way back to monster cable for hi-fis, probably farther, and most of it is nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Micky wrote:

Ever heard of a hobby called TV DXing? Do you know any amp. which can only amplify signal?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Hwang wrote: "- show quoted text - Ever heard of a hobby called TV DXing? Do you know any amp. which can only amplify signal? "
I heard of DXing, just not in the TV context. I'm just providing advice for how to pull in the ballgame, that's all. And anything that requires amplification to achieve that goal is just adding noise and is a waste of money.
One circumstance where it may be necessary is where you have a rooftop antenna like the one In my image link, and are feeding 4-8 devices, I.E. 4 TVs and 2 recorders/DVRs. In that case you run power to your attic, so the amp is as close to antenna is possible. Coax into the amp, and out of it into the splitter, and out into the rooms. All RG-6, by the way. Good digital reception is an all- or-nothing proposition - unless you live within visual range of the transmitters.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course .

Huh? You don't address my question. Why would digital tv be different from analog wrt using an amp to get distant stations, like 370 miles away.
PaintedCow, you're the one that said that was so, but I don't understand why.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moc wrote:

Your "skip" was most likely due to a temperature inversion between different layers of the atmosphere, not the skip you get on HF frequencies like on CB.
Propagation via a temperature inversion works for UHF as well as VHF, so it is still possible. The problem is that your HDTV is programmed to only see channels it found in the scanning process. You would need to re-scan during the temperature inversion in order to find more distant stations.
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you are really interested, you could manually add any channel that you might be likely to get if the inversion is right. UHF is pretty much line of sight tho and the problem with digital is you get it or you don't. There is no "snowy picture" stuff. These days, I suspect DXing TV is just being able to say you got a carrier.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred:
That's why I always suggest throwing the
BIGGEST BADASS antenna you can at it. :) Minimize skips and pixelation. You can always add an attenuator later.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/22/2015 03:23 PM, snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moc wrote:
[snip]

We have one VHF channel (7) around here.
--
2 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PaintedCow wrote: "What HAS changed, is that most tv signals are now UHF. Few still use VHF. So, some of the VHF elements on the older antennas are really not needed anymore. Thus, antennas could be made smaller and still be as "
Just leave on the elements critical to picking up FM radio. Some folks do use those aerials for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have good desired channels on old 12 and 13 VHF. I think 5 take that space.
I looked at amazon reviews on motorized product. Mixed, but mostly say cheap junk. I was always interested in that product.
I can get near 40 channels on cheap indoor amplified antenna. An older RCA rabbit ears also works good. I went out to get another RCA current model for another tv. Could not get any VHF reception on 5 PBS like station. The amplified antennas seem to pick up the VHF band. I looked inside that rabbit ear base. Saw possible solder bridge, bu that didn cure problem. I returned item, and no replacement for fear of defective design. It also seemed lesser quality than the one I bought several years ago.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.