Review on TV antenna

[thekmanrocks]

Fred wrote: "In article ,

- 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.

[Ralph Mowery]

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.

[Micky]

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.

[Paintedcow]

Dont know. I bought it over 10 years ago. Same with the amplifier. If there are labels in them, I'm not climbing up on the roof to look in freezing weather. They work and work well, thats all that matters. I did buy the ant, amp, and rotor at Menards. Thats all I remember.