Winegard 9095p verses Lava HD2605

New to HD tv and wanted to pull the plug. Picked up the Lava 2605 to play with the concept. Atlanta is about 75 miles away. I am on a hill above most tree lines to Atlanta and put it on the peak of the roof. I pulled in over 20 channels, take out the religious and Hispanic and about 10-12 usable. ABC, NBC, FOX and PBS.

Two months later I decided to upgrade as I hand the proof I needed to proceed.



I purchased a Winegard 9095P with a Winegard ANWI8700 Winegard AP Signal Amplifier. I put it up in the same location but a better mount and a few feet higher.

Manually moved the antenna around a little at a time picking up the same signals but at about 1/2 the strength.

All wiring replaced, know all contacts are good... why? because I took the old antenna and hooked it up to the new. Back to pulling in all the channels. I know the wiring is all good. 2 new leads run so I could run both in the hopes of pointing one in another direction but I get half the signal on the 9095P, which I might add is 4 times the size and 3 times the price of the Lava 2605.

What gives? I am considering ordering another Lava because it works but I know... well I think I know.. that the winegard 9095P is better.

Still want to upgrade, I consider the 9095p a waste of time at this point but do you have any recommendations for me? Thinking about picking up another cheap antenna as a backup, but really? I should be able to do better, at least in my mind.

Any suggestions? Willing to invest but it would be nice if it worked.

Still want to upgrade, I consider the 9095p a waste of time at this point but do you have any recommendations for me? Thinking about picking up another cheap antenna as a backup but really? I should be able to do better, at least in my mind.

How about an antennas direct 91XG?

Welcome to DTVUSA by the way!

John13,

That Lava antenna (at its best) is designed for television frequencies in China and it is NOT designed for the frequencies used in North America. The Winegard HD-9095 is a REAL antenna that is known to work in North America.

Junk versus a real antenna.

Jim

Originally Posted by john13

What gives? I am considering ordering another Lava because it works but I know... well I think I know.. that the winegard 9095P is better.

Couple ideas:
- The 9095P is a UHF antenna. Are you trying to pull in some VHF? (Don't look at the channel numbers on your set, you can see the "real" channel numbers on your tvfool report. VHF is 2 through 13.) The Lava will get VHF.
- The signal strength might not mean much after amplification. The signal can be amped to almost any arbitrary number, but your TV has an amp built in anyhow. What's important is the signal to noise ratio. Even more important: what channels can or can't you pull in with a given antenna on a given TV set?
- Are you sure you're pointing the Winegard in the right direction? The "arrow" should point away from the station.
- The Lava is a joke around here, cause the "125 mile" range is complete horse-puckey. They also tend to break easily. OTOH, the Chinese RF frequencies are basically the same as the U.S. frequencies -- they just list the wrong channel numbers, sometimes, in the ads.

Rick

Originally Posted by Rickideemus

- The Lava is a joke around here, cause the "125 mile" range is complete horse-puckey. They also tend to break easily. OTOH, the Chinese RF frequencies are basically the same as the U.S. frequencies -- they just list the wrong channel numbers, sometimes, in the ads.
Rick

Rick,

Yes and no.

Look at the physical width of any version of a Lava antenna and explain to me how it could be a decent functioning VHF receiving antenna? Fat chance.

Yes, Chinese TV channel frequencies do not match with North American channel designations but consider, North America gave up channels 83 down to 70 many many years ago, then we gave up channels 69 to 52 many years ago. Allegedly, cell phones need the spectrum (a different thread here). The short elements prove the antenna is not designed to take advantage (work here) with the current signals available HERE.

That "antenna" has no reason to be in this Country, but EvilBay vultures have made a gazillion dollars selling them. My local Craigslist has 'used' Lava-type antennas available, all the time with 'promises, promises' usually per the (original) European seller ...

As posted here before, the 125 mile reception range is probably true, as long as you mount your Lava antenna on your 900 foot tall tower. That distance and promise is BS at ground level because of the curvature of the Earth.



Jim

... back to John, our original poster here. As you see, we do not tolerate 'carp' Chinese antennas.

Originally Posted by Fringe Reception

Yes, Chinese TV channel frequencies do not match with North American channel designations but consider, North America gave up channels 83 down to 70 many many years ago,

As did China.

Originally Posted by Fringe Reception

then we gave up channels 69 to 52 many years ago.

You're talking about a range of 163 Mhz that their antennas cover, which recent U.S. antennas tend not to cover. Come on! Would it be better if they LEFT OUT a 163 Mhz wide band needed for our OTA frequencies?
Television channel frequencies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, Canada has allocated some channels in the 52-69 range. I think you should get ready!

Originally Posted by Fringe Reception

That "antenna" has no reason to be in this Country,

Are you suggesting he should buy an antenna made in the good-ol' U.S. of A., even if that gets inferior results for him? The Lava's generally get good reviews on Amazon (the U.S. incarnation of Amazon), except that the rotors fall apart within a week or two.

I think it's up to YOU to explain John13's test results! How many times have I seen you say "Whatever works best for you is the best antenna"? I think you're contraputing yusef.

Rickledickle

I think something else is at play here.

I suspect that with a high gain antenna such as the 9095 that it is a bit more sensitive to aiming and needs to be aimed better than the Lava which would have a wider beamwidth.

I wonder if the op might be selling those Lava things?

Originally Posted by n2rj

I think something else is at play here.

I suspect that with a high gain antenna such as the 9095 that it is a bit more sensitive to aiming and needs to be aimed better than the Lava which would have a wider beamwidth. I think something else is at play here.

HUH?

That Chinese-wonder "antenna" (kinda a Yagi/kinda a corner reflector) that has its directors a couple inches apart from each other could not have been designed for North American TV reception. Run the math. That's nuts.

The Winegard HD-9095 is a real antenna and not simply because it is 14 times in size and claims similar signal gain levels.

The 9095 is a narrow-beam focussed lunk designed for distant (fringe) TV reception and it is not interested in signals from its sides. I cannot recall an add claiming more than 90 mile range from a 9095, but this little hand-held antenna promises 125 miles reception range? HUH?

Yeah, I physically tested a 9095 copy here. Compared to the chinese wonder ... the Winegard HD-9095 is a real antenna versus recycled beer cans and plastic ...

Jim

Originally Posted by Fringe Reception

HUH?

That Chinese-wonder "antenna" (kinda a Yagi/kinda a corner reflector) that has its directors a couple inches apart from each other could not have been designed for North American TV reception. Run the math. That's nuts.

Why not? Spacing between elements has little to do with the resonant frequency, it has everything to do with bandwidth.

The 9095 is a narrow-beam focussed lunk designed for distant (fringe) TV reception and it is not interested in signals from its sides. I cannot recall an add claiming more than 90 mile range from a 9095, but this little hand-held antenna promises 125 miles reception range? HUH?

I think we both agree on that, which is why I think the OP's aiming of the 9095 may be off.

125 miles is a stretch for the chinese antenna, I agree (but to be fair a lot of antenna mfgs exaggerate their distance claims).

If there's one thing I know about the Chinese, it's that they're honest to a fault. (They will also take every opportunity to turn the words of an agreement in their favor, but that's another story.)

Now, suppose a little Chinese antenna, on a mast 40 feet up, with no obstacles, on a clear day and no sun spots, gets a signal 63 miles to the west. Then when you rotate it 180 degrees, it gets a signal 62 miles to the east. Under normal math-speak, this is a "range" of 125 miles. The diameter of the circle covered is 125 miles. Technically, it's incorrect to quote a much smaller range, since when you define the range of a variable, you're supposed to include all data points.

Now, common usage defines the meanings of words, and we've developed a certain expectation when the word "range" is applied to antennas. But I don't think we know what Chinese word was translated into the word "range," and until some official body begins regulating these kinds of statements, I think we should be careful about bearing false witness against our honorable neighbors of the East.

Rick

Originally Posted by Rickideemus

Under normal math-speak, this is a "range" of 125 miles. The diameter of the circle covered is 125 miles. Technically, it's incorrect to quote a much smaller range, since when you define the range of a variable, you're supposed to include all data points.

Now, common usage defines the meanings of words, and we've developed a certain expectation when the word "range" is applied to antennas. But I don't think we know what Chinese word was translated into the word "range," and until some official body begins regulating these kinds of statements, I think we should be careful about bearing false witness against our honorable neighbors of the East.

Rick

Rick,

You have an interesting 'take' on this. Let's sing: PotAto Potahto, TomAto Tomahto ..." I still call

By that definition my reception 76 miles to my north, 86 miles to my west and 30 miles to my south make a great omnidirectional antenna.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rickideemus

I think we should be careful about bearing false witness against our honorable neighbors of the East.

Rick

??? You copy something from a comic strip, and now it's OK to bear false witness? In case nobody noticed, we are deeply, deeply indebted to the Chinese. You may argue they profit (maybe! time will tell...) from this circumstance, but you can't shift one scintilla of blame to them.

Anyone hear of the 10 Commandments?

R.

Rickideemus wrote: Anyone hear of the 10 Commandments?

Rick,

We watch the 1956 movie annually, but have not had the pleasure of viewing the 1923 version.
The Ten Commandments (1956) - IMDb

Jim

Originally Posted by Rickideemus

??? You copy something from a comic strip, and now it's OK to bear false witness? In case nobody noticed, we are deeply, deeply indebted to the Chinese. You may argue they profit (maybe! time will tell...) from this circumstance, but you can't shift one scintilla of blame to them.

Anyone hear of the 10 Commandments?

R.

Oh come on, I think Tim's post was in jest. It was funny as hell.