Need help choosing OTA antenna

[ucladave]

I live in los angeles (zip 90064) and have until recently been with Directv. I just bought a HD samsung TV and am wanting to get away from the monthly fees, so Im going OTA.

I am in a pretty good location. While I am 26 miles from the antenna farm on mt wilson, it is up on a mountain and I have an unobstructed view of it from my apt unit. I live on the top floor of a 4 story building. I currently have two sets of coax coming into the unit for the two TV's I have, both going to the roof into the directv dish.

My goal is to find a reasonably small antenna that I can put on the roof, and send the signal down those two cables to each TV. I had looked at the winegard square shooter but I really have no idea what Im looking at other than size.

Other info of note: While digital stations are all UHF now, in 2009 channels 7-13 will be using their VHF frequencies to transmit. 2-5 will remain on their UHF.


Questions:

1) What antenna should I get?

2) Will I need some sort of a splitter to service two lines? And if so, will the signal still be strong enough?

 

[Jim5506]

I'd probably go with a Channel Master 3677. A standard in line splitter ought to do (3dB loss).

 

[charper1]

If it were me I would go with a smaller UHF only antenna like the CM4221/4228 for now, then after the switch back to VHF really does happen, see if that current antenna still works or not. I know people receiving the VHF High with the "UHF only".



and any of the following..

Eagle Aspen P-1000-2AP-GX 2-Way Splitter (P-1000-2AP-GX)

Skywalker 2-way Splitter (SP2WAPHL)

Perfect Vision PV22-303 2-Way Splitter 5-1000 Mhz (PV22-303)

 

[ucladave]

OMG that 3677 is HUGE! Way too big for me to be putting on top of my unit's roof. The channel master 4221 seems like it might not be TOO big, but I am worried about getting the upper VHF channels in 2009. I really would like to get one antenna to last me forever, rather than possibly having to change in a little over a year.

I had been looking at the Terk HDTVs which I hear is the same as the winegard square shooter. I like that it comes with mounting hardware and is quite small - the size of a dish maybe. Any thoughts on this one?

 

[charper1]

You want to avoid TERK

 

[airgator96]

AntennaWeb

Which one do you think I should get? I've bought 2 or 3 from Walmart, and I have to battle to pick up channels 4-19(see link). And if I do seem to lock in it is so choppy they are unwatchable.

The furtherest away seems to be just under 12 miles. I have never picked up 9.1 abc.

help!

thanks guys

 

[Jim5506]

The 3677 is a mid size antenna. I foyu want VHF performance you have to have an antenna that matches the frequencies of the channels. A 4221 is a poor choice for VHF.

If you can't use the best, try this: RadioShack.com - Home Entertainment: Accessories: Antennas: Outdoor: Philips Magnavox 20-Element VHF/UHF/FM TV Antenna

 

[Peter Parker]

I have a 4221 and it does quite well on VHF channels 7 and 9. . It depends on what VHF channels will be used. I would not expect many low VHF channels after the transistion but supposedly one station in my area wants Ch 2.

 

[ucladave]

Ok, let me make some more restrictions here. While I have access to the roof, there is no way that I can install a 6 foot (or 10 foot!) antenna up there. Its got to be reasonably sized, maybe the size of a satellite dish or smaller.

The terk HDTVs is supposedly made by wineguard (square shooter) and seems about the right size. Other than "stay away from terk" do you guys have any advice? Would the square shooter do the trick here?

If I go with the 4221 antenna, would it most likely pull in 7,9,11, and 13? If so I am good to go with that one as I dont need the low band VHF now or in the future.

 

[oljim]

The square shooter sucks at VHF 13, and below, your best bet is 4228

 

[texasbrit]

According to antennaweb using just the zip you are in a poor reception area but as you say you are high up and with a clear line of sight to Mount Wilson that probably isn't the case.
With KABC, KCAL, KTTV and KCOP going back to VHF-hi in 2009, VHF reception is your major issue. Most of the small antennas are poor at VHF, it's just the physics of the thing. VHF frequencies need larger antennas than UHF (and VHF-lo needs BIG antennas, at least all your VHF stations are VHF-hi!).
The CM4221 is of course a UHF antenna and does not have any decent gain at VHF-hi. The square shooter is even worse - far worse than just "rabbit ears". The only UHF antenna with enough VHF gain for your situation is probably the CM4228.
What sort of VHF reception on the analog stations at 7 thru 13 do you get with a set of unamplified "rabbit ears"?

 

[ucladave]

I need to check the signal strength on those as I am currently running a set of rabbit ears right now. I get all the digital versions of the stations perfectly, but I do know that channel 7 gave a snowy picture. I could see it but it definitely was not crystal clear. Dont know if that helps much until I get a strength for you (I assume the strength meter will work for analog channels as well)

 

[texasbrit]

I need to check the signal strength on those as I am currently running a set of rabbit ears right now. I get all the digital versions of the stations perfectly, but I do know that channel 7 gave a snowy picture. I could see it but it definitely was not crystal clear. Dont know if that helps much until I get a strength for you (I assume the strength meter will work for analog channels as well)

Your signal strength meter will probably not give any readings when you are receiving analog signals. None of your digitals are currently using VHF so that's why it's useful to see if you CAN receive VHF-hi signals with just "rabbit ears".

 

[ucladave]

Your signal strength meter will probably not give any readings when you are receiving analog signals. None of your digitals are currently using VHF so that's why it's useful to see if you CAN receive VHF-hi signals with just "rabbit ears".

Ok, well I definitely see a picture on the 7-13 channels, and in fact on 2,4,5 as well it just doesnt come in with great quality.

 

[texasbrit]

Ok, well I definitely see a picture on the 7-13 channels, and in fact on 2,4,5 as well it just doesnt come in with great quality.

On channels 7-13 in analog - how good a picture? Is channel 7 noticably worse then 13?

 

[ucladave]

Ok, checked out all the VHF channels and the picture quality is readible on 7, 9, 11, and 13 with just a little bit of snow. of the bunch 11 comes in the worst and has a bit more significant amount of snow. Channels 2,4,5 are pretty horrid but that shouldnt matter, just noting that there is a big difference there.

I know it sounds like the 4228 is the one to get, but it looks sooooo much bigger than the 4221 and I guess I was hoping that I might be able to get away with just that smaller one. My neighbor has something that looks very similar to it (or maybe a DB4)

 

[Peter Parker]

I am not sure of your location. I will say that neither the 4221 nor 4228 is ideal for VHF but both can be passable on VHF Hi. The 422* is larger and has more gain. Since it is bigger it has a narrower beam. If all your stations are close together perhaps the 4228 is the better of the two. If not the 4221 may actually pull in more stations as its beamwidth is wider.

If it helps I am close in and the stations are scattered. I have a 4221 and do better on both VHF and UHF than neighbors with a 4228. But if I was serious about VHF and low band in particular I would get an altogether different antenna.

 

[ucladave]

I am 26 miles from the antenna farm placed about 2000 feet above sea level on a mountainside. I am 26 miles away with a clear line of sight to the towers. Currently all HD is UHF, however in 2009 channels 7,9,11,13 will be going back to VHF. At that point I dont want to have to buy a new antenna basically.

All the stations are basically right next to each other on the hillside so its sounding like 4228 is best, its just going to be awfully big to mount for me.

 

[texasbrit]

Ok, checked out all the VHF channels and the picture quality is readible on 7, 9, 11, and 13 with just a little bit of snow. of the bunch 11 comes in the worst and has a bit more significant amount of snow. Channels 2,4,5 are pretty horrid but that shouldnt matter, just noting that there is a big difference there.

I know it sounds like the 4228 is the one to get, but it looks sooooo much bigger than the 4221 and I guess I was hoping that I might be able to get away with just that smaller one. My neighbor has something that looks very similar to it (or maybe a DB4)

Yes, the DB4 is similar to the CM4221 (except more expensive). From your rabbit-ears test, it looks like the CM4221 will not work well.
But ask your neighbor if he can check the analog channels 7 thru 13 for you with his DB4, if he has an analog tuner TV.

 

[Peter Parker]

Do any neighbors have UHF antennas? If they do ask about VHF reception. It is tricky i do rather well with a 4221 and in your situation perhaps the 4228 would work. But it is hard to say.