HD tv antenna

[lynnmor]

I use a King Surelock signal finder mounted to the rear of my bedroom TV which is next to the antenna crank.  Very handy, it can be used wherever it can be attached to a TV cable. The Sensar is wall mounted and next to impossible to move to a better location.

 

[John From Detroit]

I am permanently parked here and I doubt the tv stations are going to move.

Well.. I'm about 40-50 and just now recptition is spotty due to solar activity (I can really hear the solar stuff on my ham gear).

But . Well RV can be translated in a couple of ways.. Now my Motor home... Like the first R2 Unit Luke's adoptive father choose..  Well it has a bad motivator  (Plain translation... Blown engine) but once I get the funds to properly re-motivate it It's going to be a ROAMING VEHICLE..  Which of course means I won't be in the same place long.

But yes, if you are parked long term.. Well, what works, should continue to work.. But few are that close to "Transmitter Hill".


Oh, I should point out one other thing.. Due to the fact this park is kind of "out there" TV wise.. The owner provides us with free Cable  The local phone company has a nice tall tower with an antenna or antennas on it.. Well, it's not tall enough.. You see, with the sunspots firing off the Aroras.. I'm getting crappy reception, but I am getting reception.. When I switch to the park Cable . SAME CHANNEL.. SAME TRANSMITTER... No joy at all. it's far worse than using my Wineguard.    Now once the sun settles down I'll get solid copy here.. Not so solid via cable  (It is normally a bit better than what I get now but My antenna always does better than Darian Telephone's.. Amazing isn't it.)

 

[denmarc]

The new Rayzor auto-seek/tune model (no crank-up) is spiffy and convenient.

"spiffy"?
Sorry. I haven't heard that word in what seems a hundred years!  ;D

 

[denmarc]

One thing I think that's also very important to mention...

I didn't see anyone bring up the fact that OTA signals are "line of sight" signals. Meaning, geographic location of transmitter and receiver,  any obstacles (buildings, trees, hills, etc.) that may be in between, as well as distance between the two, all make a difference on what your final outcome will be. Atmospheric conditions can also effect the signal.

Just saying that there are variables involved when relying on terrestrial signals. When traveling, you might be at the mercy of where you parked in relationship to where the signal originates from. Even the best antenna on the market has its limits. You can't expect perfect TV pic quality everywhere you go.

 

[SeilerBird]

I didn't see anyone bring up the fact that OTA signals are "line of sight" signals. Meaning, geographic location of transmitter and receiver,  any obstacles (buildings, trees, hills, etc.) that may be in between, as well as distance between the two, all make a difference on what your final outcome will be. Atmospheric conditions can also effect the signal.

I didn't bring it up because I lived in Ventura County fifty miles north of Los Angeles for thirty years. There is a range of mountains in between VC and LA and yet I could pick up a few dozen OTA TV signals from LA without issue. In fact I never once had cable because OTA was just fine.

 

[denmarc]

I didn't bring it up because I lived in Ventura County fifty miles north of Los Angeles for thirty years. There is a range of mountains in between VC and LA and yet I could pick up a few dozen OTA TV signals from LA without issue. In fact I never once had cable because OTA was just fine.

Understood. I just wanted to bring up the fact that some may expect exceptional reception due to high dollar antennas and what they see on their TV is not what they expected after spending the money.

 

[ArdraF]

OTA signals are "line of sight" signals

Really???  First time I've heard that one.  Microwave signals are line of sight, but like Seilerbird we had wonderful reception of OTA TV signals 30 miles from San Francisco and never needed cable.  The TV towers generally are placed as high as possible to maximize reception distance but we've camped in many out-of-the-way places where we had better TV from the batwing antenna than we did cell service.

ArdraF

 

[Larry N.]

Really???  First time I've heard that one.  Microwave signals are line of sight, but like Seilerbird we had wonderful reception of OTA TV signals 30 miles from San Francisco and never needed cable.  The TV towers generally are placed as high as possible to maximize reception distance but we've camped in many out-of-the-way places where we had better TV from the batwing antenna than we did cell service.

ArdraF

It's pretty much true, Ardra. UHF is more so than VHF, and microwave more so yet. VHF freqs will bend very slightly, and all TV signals are subject to multipath distortion (parts of the signal bouncing in different directions, thus arriving at slightly different times -- ghosts in analog TV, pixelation in digital TV). Microwaves (satellite, for example) can be severely attenuated by tree leaves and other seemingly innocuous things. UHF can be attenuated too, but not as badly. VHF is only minimally subject to that with the vegetation though, of course, metal blocks just about all radio waves.

Radio waves vary a lot in their behavior, depending on frequency (and other things, too), including how much they bend, bounce, follow the ground, travel long distances, etc. etc. etc. Lower follows the ground better, higher is closer to line of sight. And this, of course, is over-simplified but hopefully gives the idea.

 

[ArdraF]

Thanks, Larry.  I knew someone would explain it!    I've just never heard it before, just microwave.

ArdraF

 

[denmarc]

Larry did a great job. Microwave isn't as forgiving in getting around obstacles between transmitter and receiver. You are correct that TV transmission towers are placed geographically as high as possible for the best reception for their viewing area. It's a crap shoot outside their viewing area. You may be parked with very little obstruction between you and the tower resulting in a decent signal. Though it may be weak being outside the viewing area, your antenna (maybe with a pre-amp) could pull in that signal just fine.
But you could also be parked the same distance away from the tower, only 20 miles "north or south" which puts a large building or a patch of trees in between you and the tower which creates ghosts in your TV due to deflection/reflection of that same signal. Your antenna can't distinguish the difference. Your TV just displays the signal that it receives.

Hope that helps.

 

[John From Detroit]

One thing I think that's also very important to mention...

I didn't see anyone bring up the fact that OTA signals are "line of sight" signals.

Television signals have NOT changed in this respect since the boob tube was invented.  However there are some things that have changed.

First. I mentioned HEIGHT IS MIGHT above.. this is because you can see farther over the horizion the higher you go (Makes sense don't it)

But in the early days TV stations broadcast on VHF low and VHF high bands  50 Mhz  to as I recall 210  MHZ.. Then later the UHF band was added 470MHz to 870+Mhz later cut back to 800MHz.

now the UHF bands are very "line of sight" however that line can be "reflected" off a hunk of metal in the right place (Causing Multi-path recption on an omni directional antenna and killing your signal) This is one reason a DIRECTIONAL antenna is better. (not the only one)

With the change to DIGITAL many broadcasters moved from VHF to UHF (not all).. Why.. Well the higher the frequency the more sub-channels you can squeeze in  IF you are in VHF low you might put in 2, 3 woudl be pushing it. (2-1, 2-2) VHF High 2 is good, 3 is reducing quality (Channels 2 in Detroit now broadcast on carrier 7) but I'd not try more than 3 and then only if quality was not a concern  UHF depending on the spot on the band you can het 4 or 5 (high end) without much loss of quality, though 3-4 is the practical limit.

Thus they can pack more shows in a channel slot on UHF .

But it's still the same old 68 channels

OH, what happened to chan 1. (50 MHz) Since nobody was using it, they gave it to me (Ham Radio Operators) it's my Six Meter band.

 

[Tom_M]

With the change to DIGITAL many broadcasters moved from VHF to UHF (not all).. Why.. Well the higher the frequency the more sub-channels you can squeeze in  IF you are in VHF low you might put in 2, 3 woudl be pushing it. (2-1, 2-2) VHF High 2 is good, 3 is reducing quality (Channels 2 in Detroit now broadcast on carrier 7) but I'd not try more than 3 and then only if quality was not a concern  UHF depending on the spot on the band you can het 4 or 5 (high end) without much loss of quality, though 3-4 is the practical limit.

Thus they can pack more shows in a channel slot on UHF .

But it's still the same old 68 channels

Most of the above is all wrong. The TV broadcast spectrum now goes from channels 2 thru 51. Channels 52 thru 69 have been auctioned off by the government since the digital transition.. All TV channels are assigned a 6 Mhz bandwidth to broadcast on whether it?s VHF or UHF. The number of programs broadcast on each channel does not differ whether VHF or UHF.

I?m a retired TV broadcast tech and the station I worked at changed their digital broadcast from channel 35 UHF to channel 11 VHF when the analog was shut down. Many stations in the U.S. did the same. About 25% of full power TV stations are broadcasting on VHF now.

 

[JiminDenver]

My "HD" antennas are six large binder clips and a DVD case. I live 30-40 miles from Denvers towers and pick up 74 channels over the air. Along with a Homeworx DRV recorder it's like having cable lite.

 

[Charlie 5320]

Probably no difference.  The Sensar IV appears to have simply integrated the Wingman UHF antenna (both old and new models already have an amplifier). Typically the engineers can do a better job with a new design as opposed to an add-on gadget, but I think you have to go to one of the Rayzor models to get a new design altogether. In addition to the fully automatic model, the Rayzar comes in bi-directional and omni-directional versions.

http://www.winegard.com/over-the-air-television-antennas?q=mobile

I just bought a Winegard RVW-395 Sensar IV White DTV/HD TV Antenna off ebay for $123.00 including shipping . My antenna is broken and I didn't want to fool with the repair then add the wingman, so I just bought a new one. I'll be changing it in the spring. I always had good luck with the antenna on the Challenger. Adding the wingman did make a difference on that coach.