Question: ID this antenna for me please

#23
give the general flavor of the reception area... Here is a new report link generated as close as I can get to my actual location. I had to put in a 40 foot height in order to get these results.
TV Fool
General flavor: I can say I've never seen anyone get a station below NM=-10, except in a thread where an antenna salesman put up an amplified "super-yooper" array on the edge of Lake Michigan to eliminate every trace of man made noise. That led me to appreciate the role man made noise (e.g. fluorescent lights) have on RF signals. Ham radio operators used to talk about that.

But -10 is normally the cut off point so -14.1 is a miracle. And if that's a miracle, -19.6 is a lost cause. It's less than a third the signal strength of -14.1 on the dB scale, so MrPogi is right as usual. You have to try different spots and heights on the TVF report. If you really want to find a sweet spot for half-useable reception, see if you can get some stations above zero.

Rick
 
Last edited:

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#24
I'm really thinking that that VHF antenna is already in a sweet spot. Can you post a picture of the VHF antenna?

I would spend my efforts to maximize your channel 7 reception before trying anything else. You might actually have better luck setting up a Ku band FTA satellite system, it consumes very little power and you could get it set up for $50 - $200. Cache Free TV: Using FTA Satellite To Get Free TV
 
Last edited:

bobrok

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#25
Thanks, everybody, for the info! I intend to keep trying with channel 7 and do more experimenting with my UHF toy on 50 and 16, especially since they all come from approximately the same heading.
I do have a 10' triangular mast I also picked up from c/l which could give me more height advantage.
FYI, I am traveling for the next few weeks so it might be a while before I can post anything new, including a photo of my VHF hi, but I will be back ASAP with more info.
I appreciate everyone's input.
bob
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#26
Thanks, everybody, for the info! I intend to keep trying with channel 7 and do more experimenting with my UHF toy on 50 and 16, especially since they all come from approximately the same heading.
I do have a 10' triangular mast I also picked up from c/l which could give me more height advantage.
FYI, I am traveling for the next few weeks so it might be a while before I can post anything new, including a photo of my VHF hi, but I will be back ASAP with more info.
I appreciate everyone's input.
bob
One funny thing about "edge signals" (which is what you are getting from Watertown) is that lowering the antenna may actually improve your reception. I know in my location I cant get a certain channel that is about 70 miles distant over the mountains using my rooftop antenna. But one day while testing a new antenna sitting on the ground on my patio, there it was, clear as a bell.

So try moving the antenna down as well as up, a foot or two at a time.
 

bobrok

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#27
I can tell you that I have a metal roof on my camp and that my VHF antenna is no more than 3' higher than the roof. Actually, because the roof ridge runs at probably a 45° angle to the orientation of the antenna, at one point there is probably 1' of separation between the two (the front of the antenna and the roof ridge).
Who knows? Perhaps this helps???
 

bobrok

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#30
^ That was a very interesting read, although I don't understand a lot of the technical stuff, I am impressed at what he accomplished in that mountainous area of eastern NY and southern VT.
So I guess now I have a lot of repositioning possibilities, both up and down, not to mention sideways.
Where does one go to borrow or rent a tv signal spectrum analyzer? It sounds like this a lot easier that re-scanning every time I move an antenna.
And also looks expensive to buy.
 
#31
Some televisions and converter boxes will do direct channel entry of real channel numbers. That feature is not always documented in the owners manual, and is not even consistent in different models of the same brand. Others I have personally ran across have an add channel scan, partial scan, add local channel menu, or aim antenna menu. Some require that you press the channel number every couple of minutes when searching for a signal. The ones I hate are the ones that require a full scan. I recently worked with a TV that required a full scan that included a search for analog and cable channels, about 30 minutes. A real piece of transition period junk. A 2006 CRT TV.
Steve
 

bobrok

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#32
Yep, that's what I have. Not only does my tv scan analog first, then digital, but it's also bold enough to put a warning up on the screen that it could take 45-50 minutes to do so.
I don't see anything about inputting channels, but couldn't I just enter a real channel number via the remote, say 50-1 or 16-2, etc?
Am I missing some important knowledge here?
 
#33
It depends the TV. Some will do direct channel entry. Some will not. On the ones that will you must use real channel numbers not virtual channel numbers. The real channel numbers are listed on the TV fool report. Real channel numbers are the channel the signal is actually transmitted on, and do not contain a dash, or dot. I've sometimes found this by accident as it is not always mentioned in the owners manual. If the receiver will do direct channel entry, and available real channel numbers are known it is not always necessary to do a scan. Not all TV's are OTA friendly. Some of them are a real pain to program, and require a full channel scan.
Steve
 

Similar threads

Top