Cutting the cord

[RF Steve]

While coax wiring problems frequently do cause reception problem. All you really need on the antenna end of the coax is a simple 300 to 75 ohm matching transformer. While the one in your photo should work. It is not the design I would recommend. To use the one in your photo I would simply use a short piece of 300 ohm twin lead attached to the screw terminals on the transformer. Split the twin lead wide enough to connect on the antenna end. What you've done should work. I would shorten the wire leads, and place the transformer with the screw terminal side toward the antenna.
I knew the Amphenol antenna was VHF by the design of the antenna and size of the elements. I read the spec sheets from the links posted in this thread. While the gain charts are a bit blurry the frequencies listed are clearly those of VHF channels. The gain charts appear to be those of a reputable antenna manufacture. Most of the signals in your area are now UHF, but at one time were probably VHF. In the move to UHF channels the stations kept their old VHF channel numbers as virtual channel numbers. Here is a link to a chart that shows the relationship of real channels to frequency.
TV channel frequencies
With a real channel six in your area they could be quite valuable as working hardware to someone who is having reception problems with that channel and understands the need for an antenna designed to receive low VHF channels.

 

[Rickideemus]

Thanks Steve; That's the best explanation I've seen regarding the TV fool report ie, real vs. virtual channels.

Shucks, even I knew that! I was just lazy in not putting in the real channel numbers on your report. Here it is:

RF# Virt Affiliation, etc.
    ual#
49  62   TEL  Yes
22  23   PBS  Yes
11  61   Ion  No ??????
26  3    CBS  Yes
34  10   NBC  Not when split
17  17   MyN  Not when split
42  29   Fox  Not when split
29  65   Uni  Not when split
35  35   Ind  Not when split
32  57   Cw   No
4   4    Ind  Yes, 68°
27  48   Ind  No
25  51   Ind  No
2   2    MeTV Yes
12  12   PBS  Yes
6   6    ABC  Yes
----------------------------
51  8    Mfx  No
44  53   Ind  No
24  8    Mfx  No
23  14   Classic Arts No
28  28   Uni  No, analog

Isn't that pretty? We can see a pattern, where everything VHF is coming in fine, even waaaaaay down on the report -- except for one station: the third one on the list, real channel 11. And it's north on the compass just like most of the others. Do me a favor and enter RF11 manually. I bet you can get it.

How do you know the Amphenol antenna I'm using is only VHF?

Cause everyone knows that, Keith! First off, you can just look at the thing. The size of the elements determines what frequencies will "resonate." Plus which, UHF didn't even exist when that antenna was made! The FCC allowed the very first UHF stations to go on the air in 1952. Plus which, as I mentioned above, you can see the gain chart take a nose dive even on high VHF.

I've seen many digital antennas on the market today that don't even specify UHF, as if it doesn't matter.

That's because they all do UHF now. The antenna with VHF capability is the exception nowadays. Lots of people (like me) can live without it.

Waaaaaait a minute! I think I see the reason for your confusion. Above, MrPogi said the following:

The TVfool report solves the mystery of how these antennas that were not designed for VHF get that many channels. Strong signals, so many in the green!

I guarantee you that was a typo. MrPogi knows better than anyone your antennas WERE designed for VHF. They were not designed for UHF.

If I add an antenna like the UHF antenna you linked, based on my signal strength, do you think I could attach it to the Amphenol in the attic or would it have to be mounted on the roof?

I'd try it in the attic first. Saves a lot of hassles. You can move that antenna outside if it turns out to be necessary. Before you even do that though, I'd take the two antennas you're not using and move 'em to the basement. If these were directional Yagis, it would hardly matter, but having those massive chunks of metal alongside your antenna is just like the problem people have with human bodies acting as resonators on indoor antennas. (Don't get up to make popcorn, Dad! Wait for the commercial!!)

If Steve and MrP both checked in and didn't notice anything amiss with your wiring, I think you're probably OK there. I hang around here just hoping some of their knowledge rubs off. But remember there's no way we can look INSIDE your insulation. Personally, I'd never make a homebrew adapter like that. I think they're like five bucks on eBay.

[edit: Oops! I cross posted with RF Steve. Please read his last post carefully. He's put together a dozen or so antennas from scratch.]

Keep us posted,
Rick

 

[Keith]

I've just spent, and lost, all the time to thank everyone, all my replies with quotes took so long I timed out. When I logged in, it was gone. I'll give you the details tomorrow. Thanks Rick and Steve and Mr. P.

 

[MrPogi]

I guarantee you that was a typo. MrPogi knows better than anyone your antennas WERE designed for VHF. They were not designed for UHF.

I guarantee it. It was a brain freeze for sure. Other than the facts of design, we have a link to the original specs (from an earlier post) that states the frequencies. So old, in fact, that it was mainly designed for channels 2-6: because when it was built there was little TV on VHF-hi. Most stations wanted a VHF-lo channel because the signals traveled further.

From Wikipedia:

The U.S.'s FCC allocated television broadcasting to a channelized roster as early as 1938 with 19 channels. That changed 3 more times: in 1940 when Channel 19 was deleted and several channels changed frequencies, then in 1946 with television going from 18 to 13 channels with different frequencies again, and finally in 1948 with the removal of Channel 1 (channels 2-13 remain as they are today). [SUP][8][/SUP]

 

[MrPogi]

I've just spent, and lost, all the time to thank everyone, all my replies with quotes took so long I timed out. When I logged in, it was gone. I'll give you the details tomorrow. Thanks Rick and Steve and Mr. P.

You can prevent being logged out by checking the box labeled "keep me logged in" next time you log in.

 

[Keith]

Thanks, Already did it, but only after the second time I lost a message. I'll be back, in the meantime I've got a question about DVR's for OTA. Please check out my post when it hits the other forum. Thanks again everyone for your help.

 

[Keith]

I guarantee you that was a typo. MrPogi knows better than anyone your antennas WERE designed for VHF. They were not designed for UHF.

That explains a lot, as do the messages from Rick and Steve. A quick note regarding my understanding based on all the feedback:
It was suggested that I get a UHF and try using it in the attic with my 69 yr old Amphenol "VHF" antenna. I'll use a VHF/UHF filter to combine the signals into one coaxial. I'll change my antenna connection from my homemade wire to a RF to Coaxial transformer (a worth while investment at $2.29). When doing so, I assume I will stop getting any UHF from my Amphenol antenna, so I hope the UHF that was suggested can do the job.

Question: Is this plan better than getting a new antenna that does both? Remember, my plan is to send the signal through the house-wide coaxial. Based on all the admiration for my old (very well made in the USA) Amphenol VHF antenna, I'm guessing you guys feel like I can't replace that quality for low VHF without a much bigger investment. Is that right?

An update about the channels I'm now getting, prior to adding UHF to the mix, will be posted as a separate reply to Rick.

 

[Keith]

OK, so Will Rodgers was correct when he explained "it's what we think we know, that isn't so, that causes all our problems". First, all the wiring confusion. Since I expected to get both VHF and UHF on my 69 year old antenna, I thought my reception problems were coming from my poor wiring connection. So my Homemade wire (previous photo) using a 75 ohm to 300 ohm connector may be working because maybe it thinks it's an antenna. lol I used coaxial to replace the old rf wire and stripped away the shielding, only as much as necessary to get a clean link using the coaxial's center copper. Although I plan to replace it with a proper (current technology) RF to Coaxial transformer using standard rf wire, you will be surprised at the results I'm having with my VHF antenna.

I'm getting all the channels listed by Rick down to the line before splitting the signal to the house. Further, on a good day, I get all but two even after splitting to the house, albeit all the UHF frequencies are around 30-50% strength and go in and out on a regular basis.

Shucks, even I knew that! I was just lazy in not putting in the real channel numbers on your report. Here it is:

RF# Virt Affiliation, etc.
    ual#
49  62   TEL  Yes
22  23   PBS  Yes
11  61   Ion  No ??????
26  3    CBS  Yes
34  10   NBC  Not when split
17  17   MyN  Not when split
42  29   Fox  Not when split
29  65   Uni  Not when split
35  35   Ind  Not when split
32  57   Cw   No
4   4    Ind  Yes, 68°
27  48   Ind  No
25  51   Ind  No
2   2    MeTV Yes
12  12   PBS  Yes
6   6    ABC  Yes
----------------------------
51  8    Mfx  No
44  53   Ind  No
24  8    Mfx  No
23  14   Classic Arts No
28  28   Uni  No, analog

Isn't that pretty? We can see a pattern, where everything VHF is coming in fine, even waaaaaay down on the report -- except for one station: the third one on the list, real channel 11. And it's north on the compass just like most of the others. Do me a favor and enter RF11 manually. I bet you can get it.

I tried, and do get virtual 61.1 (ION) but the real channel is 31, not 11 according to my TV fool report. Nothing at 11.1, nor at 5.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.

Cause everyone knows that, Keith!

(Not Me, that's what I get as a DIY'r on an advanced forum, sorry)

First off, you can just look at the thing. The size of the elements determines what frequencies will "resonate." Plus which, UHF didn't even exist when that antenna was made! The FCC allowed the very first UHF stations to go on the air in 1952. Plus which, as I mentioned above, you can see the gain chart take a nose dive even on high VHF.

That's because they all do UHF now. The antenna with VHF capability is the exception nowadays. Lots of people (like me) can live without it.

We got's to have ABC!

I'll move my other two antennas out of the attic once I know which one is positioned best for my house run.

???As for direction, one more question. When using an iPhone as my compass, does it give me the azmuth or magnetic reading? As I do this I want to make sure the antenna is pointing in the right direction.
Anyone that has any experience with DVR's/ TV channel guides, ect.., please check out my question on the sub-forum for OTA, DTV ect. Thanks for all the help. Two weeks and counting until we pull the plug, NO MORE CABLE BILL!!!

 

[Rickideemus]

OK, so Will Rodgers was correct when he explained "it's what we think we know, that isn't so, that causes all our problems".

Keith, I still feel you don't know how to complain properly. In the first post starting this thread you said:

I've connected to one of the antennas and get a great signal, picked up 48 digital channels.

Nobody would EVER guess from that, that you are asking for advise on improving reception. Everyone thought it was old-home week, buzzing about the glory days when an antenna was an antenna, by god, and "Made in the USA" meant something! Now you say:

you will be surprised at the results I'm having with my VHF antenna... I'm getting all the channels listed by Rick down to the line before splitting the signal to the house. Further, on a good day, I get all but two even after splitting to the house, albeit all the UHF frequencies are around 30-50% strength and go in and out on a regular basis.

Please stop saying you're "getting" all the channels listed, then turn around to say they "go in and out on a regular basis." Here's the proper way to say this: "I CAN'T GET ANY UHF STATIONS!!" That's the correct, accurate thing to say if you want to get serious help from busy people. Nobody is surprised by this. After all, you have only a VHF antenna installed indoors. Let's say you get a UHF station 85% of the time. That does NOT count. You can't watch a program and know you'll be able to see them catch the bad guy at the end.

You should be able to get ALL the green I listed, not half the time, not two-thirds of the time, but 99+% of the time -- more reliable than cable, and better quality to boot. You should really be able to get all the green PLUS all the yellow 99% of the time.

I'll move my other two antennas out of the attic once I know which one is positioned best for my house run.

I don't know how you can even tell that when 66% of the metal up there is doing nothing but causing multipath. This could be a huge factor, or it could be nothing. IMHO, you have to fix this before you know anything. You might not even need a second UHF antenna.

Rick

 

[Keith]

Keith, I still feel you don't know how to complain properly.

My wife says I complain too much, so I'm confusing everyone with my positive spin; SORRY!

Please stop saying you're "getting" all the channels listed, then turn around to say they "go in and out on a regular basis." Here's the proper way to say this: "I CAN'T GET ANY UHF STATIONS!!" That's the correct, accurate thing to say if you want to get serious help from busy people. Nobody is surprised by this. After all, you have only a VHF antenna installed indoors. Let's say you get a UHF station 85% of the time. That does NOT count.

As everyone knows, with digital signals, you either get it or you don't. As I was testing different antennas in the attic, different wire connections, and going direct vs. splitting to the house, I was relying on the feedback from my TV's (Auto Scan) to measure and determine what my reception was. I was carefully tracking all this data to identify what provided me with the strongest reception based on re-scanning for channels on various TV's. This led me down that "Will Rodgers" path of jumping to incorrect conclusions. It was not until I used the TV's signal meter (I found it on a menu called support) when I determined how much fluctuation there was in the signal. It would take time to actually watch any of these stations to realize they were going in and out, and since I haven't removed my cable service yet, I'm only seeing OTA as I test my hardware.

I don't know how you can even tell that when 66% of the metal up there is doing nothing but causing multipath. This could be a huge factor, or it could be nothing. IMHO, you have to fix this before you know anything. You might not even need a second UHF antenna.

Rick

Now your confusing me. How is it possible to get reliable UHF from my VHF antenna? Even after I remove anything interfering with the signal, I'm being led (by members posting here) that my antenna may be providing some UHF, but it was never built to do that, as UHF was not even being broadcast when this antenna was manufactured. So, until I get a UHF antenna added to the mix, I won't be able to determine if I'm getting interference from the other antennas up there. I now know that the original owner of this house must have used these three antennas to provide reception to different parts of the house, and I may want to do that as well. I considering using one antenna to directly feed a separate DVR without splitting the signal to ensure optimal reception on programs I want to record.

I hope all that clarifies my status. Please excuse my lack of knowledge in the field of technology, but I'm always willing to learn. Don't I deserve some kudos for trying to be a DIY'r "Cutting the Cord"?

 

[MrPogi]

Question: Is this plan better than getting a new antenna that does both? Remember, my plan is to send the signal through the house-wide coaxial. Based on all the admiration for my old (very well made in the USA) Amphenol VHF antenna, I'm guessing you guys feel like I can't replace that quality for low VHF without a much bigger investment. Is that right?

In a nutshell, this is probably your best solution. For VHF, the old antenna is good. Add a UHF antenna on top of it, and it should work out well.

 

[RF Steve]

Keith, Cleaning up the wiring a bit in the way I suggested in post 41 of this thread could result in a small increase in signal. It looks like you should be able to find a small scrap of 300 ohm twin lead. In your last photo you have the transformer (balun) upside down of the way it should be when used in this type installation. When you split the twin lead to connect it to the antenna try to keep both sides of equal length. Keep the feed line on the antenna side of the transformer off of metal objects. Some matching transformers might not have long enough leads to easily hook to the old antennas you might still have to get creative even when using a new transformer, and might not see any improvement.
Taking the extra antennas out of the attic might help. I would not expect big improvements in signal from cleaning up the installation a bit. Every little improvement that can be made helps.
When signals are strong enough about anything will work for an antenna. In the area where I live all full power broadcast channels are high VHF, but In many locations in the valley I can get by using a UHF antenna that is needed to receive the low power translators in this area. The VHF signals here are strong enough to still be received with a UHF antenna.
Antenna aiming won't be to critical on the old VHF antennas. The aim will be a bit tighter on the UHF side.
I admire you for trying there have been some who post here who spend weeks asking questions, but never try anything. Building a good antenna system for your needs and location might not happen over night. There is no plug and play antenna solution for all locations.
Try to keep things simple. There are still plenty of things to go wrong in a simple well planned installation.
Steve

 

[Keith]

If there is nothing different about RF wire today vs. the scraps I have that are used on this antenna, I can try it again paying attention to your advise re position. Also, the transformer or adapter (75-300) that I have are old, but if nothing has changed in how those are made today, then I don't have to change them out. If I have to add rf wire to these in order to reach the spread, is wrapping with electrical tape the best way to reduce interference or is there something better?

 

[Rickideemus]

As everyone knows, with digital signals, you either get it or you don't.

Non, no, no, no -- that's at any one particular moment. You don't get haze or "ghosting" with digital, like people used to get with analog. At any one instant in time, you either get a picture or you don't. But if the signal fades in and out in the fourth dimension of time (e.g. "pixelation" or audio chopping in and out), that's a normal sign of unacceptable weak reception.

As I was testing different antennas in the attic, different wire connections, and going direct vs. splitting to the house, I was relying on the feedback from my TV's (Auto Scan) to measure and determine what my reception was. I was carefully tracking all this data to identify what provided me with the strongest reception based on re-scanning for channels on various TV's.

No, no, no ... no way to run a railroad. I get about 20 reliable stations on a scan -- plus at least 4 or 5 that will never come in. Each scan is largely the luck of the draw. I'm sure it depends on the tuner, but I don't think my experience is unusual.

It was not until I used the TV's signal meter (I found it on a menu called support) when I determined how much fluctuation there was in the signal. It would take time to actually watch any of these stations to realize they were going in and out,

Maybe your TV is an exception, but we've found TV meters to be very unreliable. There's no accepted standard for what they're actually measuring. I think you said your TV has two different meters, which might be nice, but you really don't know a heckova lot til you sit down and watch each channels for a couple minutes at various times of the day (middle of night and middle of day, maybe). Spend more time watching and less time posting. opcorn:

Now your confusing me. How is it possible to get reliable UHF from my VHF antenna?

It's easier for a big antenna to resonate to high frequencies, than a small antenna to resonate to low frequencies. You got a piano? Try this: Hold down low C on the piano. Just push down the key so slowly that the hammer doesn't strike the strings. This takes the damper off the low C strings -- you won't hear anything. Keep holding down low C and strike another higher C, two or three octaves up, and let go of it. As long as you keep holding down low C you will hear that high C faintly in the distance. You let go of low C, and it's gone -- no sound at all. Musicians call this "sympathetic vibrations." The low C string is able to divide up and vibrate in parts, as long as the higher note is part of the harmonic series of low C.

Sound is a much more complicated phenomenon that you'd think! And so are radio waves. If you try to reverse the experiment and get high C to vibrate in sympathy with low C, it ain't gonna happen. Also, if you try something like high F sharp, while holding down low C, that's a nonstarter. And like I say, the sympathetic sound is faint. But you have an amplifier in your TV -- so you don't know til you try. Any multipath invalidates the experiment -- like trying to listen to a piccolo solo while the orchestra is tuning.

So, until I get a UHF antenna added to the mix, I won't be able to determine if I'm getting interference from the other antennas up there. I now know that the original owner of this house must have used these three antennas to provide reception to different parts of the house, and I may want to do that as well.

Better to add a pre-amplifier before the split. A plain old 15 dB amplifier multiplies the signal 32 times -- it's more powerful than 32 Amphenols perfectly ganged and pointed. Now, a pre-amp adds its own noise to the system, but so does each Amphenol antenna, which is what I've been trying to tell you. A pre-amp is made for the job of splitting up signals.

Don't I deserve some kudos for trying to be a DIY'r "Cutting the Cord"?

You deserve credit for cutting the cord, and saving some hard earned moolah, but the one doesn't imply the other. I managed to cut the cord, but DIY stuff is strictly against my religion. I punt all that stuff over to Steve. :becky:

Rick

 

[Rickideemus]

If you try to reverse the experiment and get high C to vibrate in sympathy with low C, it ain't gonna happen.

In case anyone tries this, I'd better clarify. The high C WILL actually vibrate when you strike and release low C (assuming your piano is tuned), and this is still called sympathetic vibration, so I misspoke. But the note sounding will still be high C -- not low C. The higher string can not vibrate at a lower pitch, which makes my point about big antennas being able to vibrate at high frequencies, but not the reverse.

Rick

 

[RF Steve]

If there is nothing different about RF wire today vs. the scraps I have that are used on this antenna, I can try it again paying attention to your advise re position. Also, the transformer or adapter (75-300) that I have are old, but if nothing has changed in how those are made today [/QUOTE
It was a lot easier to go down town and buy quality 300 ohm twin lead 30 years ago then it is today. The old scraps might be all you'll be able to find without doing an ebay search. 75 to 300 ohm baluns vary greatly in quality and performance. That new fancy packaged, sometimes overpriced one may not be as good as the old one you find in a junk box.
For the most part I've found the signal meters on TVs and converter boxes to be quite useful, but I did work with one a few weeks back that had an absolutely worthless signal meter.
Steve

 

[Keith]

In case anyone tries this, I'd better clarify. The high C WILL actually vibrate when you strike and release low C (assuming your piano is tuned), and this is still called sympathetic vibration, so I misspoke. But the note sounding will still be high C -- not low C. The higher string can not vibrate at a lower pitch, which makes my point about big antennas being able to vibrate at high frequencies, but not the reverse.

Rick

Now I feel better, that clears up everything! For a moment there, I thought I needed to get my hearing checked.

 

[Keith]

Testing the signal of an antenna in today's world is different than it was 50 years ago, when we would turn and hold the antenna at different angles until, "wait for it" Wow-la, picture and sound came on as we stood on one foot with the antenna over our head.

Non, no, no, no -- that's at any one particular moment. You don't get haze or "ghosting" with digital, like people used to get with analog. At any one instant in time, you either get a picture or you don't. But if the signal fades in and out in the fourth dimension of time (e.g. "pixelation" or audio chopping in and out), that's a normal sign of unacceptable weak reception.Rick

That's exactly my point, as I tested my antenna connection, the station came in when the tuner was getting enough signal "at that moment in time". I was using my TV's Auto-scan function to test different variables. As Rick points out, that's a bad idea!

No, no, no ... no way to run a railroad. I get about 20 reliable stations on a scan -- plus at least 4 or 5 that will never come in. Each scan is largely the luck of the draw. Rick

Exactly Rick, that's why I said it gave me invalid feedback. But what's your solution to this?

Maybe your TV is an exception, but we've found TV meters to be very unreliable. There's no accepted standard for what they're actually measuring. I think you said your TV has two different meters, which might be nice, but you really don't know a heckova lot til you sit down and watch each channels for a couple minutes at various times of the day (middle of night and middle of day, maybe). Spend more time watching and less time posting. opcorn:
Rick

Yes, the TV I'm using has several factors it displays to measure signal reception. One is SNR (db) and the other is a percentage of signal strength. These are details that were very helpful, since standing in front of the TV for each channel to see how well it's coming in is not practical; how long is long enough? First testing one TV with one connection type, then different antennas, then splitting to the house. I have pages of documented results that I could have never analyzed had I just watched the TV over time.

For the most part I've found the signal meters on TVs and converter boxes to be quite useful
Steve

Thank You Steve!

My signal for low VHF is has an SNR of 31 db and MAX 100% signal strength. My UHF signal is coming in between 19-21 db with about 50% strength on most channels, as low as 30% on the fringe reception. These measurements are with a short lead direct to one TV. So, I believe there is no doubt I need a UHF antenna combined with the Amphenol VHF.

Better to add a pre-amplifier before the split. A plain old 15 dB amplifier multiplies the signal 32 times -- it's more powerful than 32 Amphenols perfectly ganged and pointed. Now, a pre-amp adds its own noise to the system, but so does each Amphenol antenna, which is what I've been trying to tell you. A pre-amp is made for the job of splitting up signals.Rick

I agree that before I split this signal 5-8 times, it makes sense to amplify--no doubt about it!

You deserve credit for cutting the cord, and saving some hard earned moolah, but the one doesn't imply the other. I managed to cut the cord, but DIY stuff is strictly against my religion. I punt all that stuff over to Steve. :becky:

Rick

Well, in a way I am punting it over to Steve and anyone else that can help, that's why I'm on this forum. As a DIY'r, I'm doing this not because I have the time or the knowledge (that's obvious). I would gladly pay to have this done by a professional if I had the money, but that's not the case. So, if someone wants to travel here on their dime, I'll light up the grill.

In the meantime, I'll fix my connection one more time and ordering the parts needed today. Happy Father's Day everyone!

 

[Rickideemus]

Testing the signal of an antenna in today's world is different than it was 50 years ago, when we would turn and hold the antenna at different angles until, "wait for it" Wow-la, picture and sound came on as we stood on one foot with the antenna over our head.

No. It's basically the same thing today. Antenna theory hasn't changed. They had signal meters 50 years ago, and they were mostly useless to the ham radio geeks. (My dad was one, so that was 70 years ago.)

These are details that were very helpful, since standing in front of the TV for each channel to see how well it's coming in is not practical; how long is long enough?

I already told you -- two minutes, tops. Even thirty seconds per channel should give you a good idea. Let's look at how "practical" your meter reading has been. You say you've analyzed pages and pages of data. Based on this, the top antenna expert on these forums said you should "chill" and be happy with what we now know is lousy reception. You'd have been better off if you'd never seen any meters.

My TV has no signal meter. A few years later, after the TV, I bought a converter that happens to have a signal meter so I could set up my two tuner / two antenna system (I live in between two major metro areas). I like the meter. Fun toy. But it didn't help setting up the second antenna one bit. You look at the meter. It gives you a number. You write it down. Fine. Then you look at the picture -- NO PICTURE! What, do you just accept the number, and ignore the fact you can't see anything? I don't get it. I honestly haven't looked at the meter in six months.

My signal for low VHF is has an SNR of 31 db and MAX 100% signal strength. My UHF signal is coming in between 19-21 db with about 50% strength on most channels, as low as 30% on the fringe reception. These measurements are with a short lead direct to one TV. So, I believe there is no doubt I need a UHF antenna combined with the Amphenol VHF.

BUT THE READINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT once you get rid of all the multipath up there. Don't you get it???

As a DIY'r, I'm doing this not because I have the time or the knowledge (that's obvious). I would gladly pay to have this done by a professional if I had the money, but that's not the case.

I really need to apologize. I guess we speak different languages. For the record: Installing an antenna is not a DIY project. Building an antenna to your own design from scrap metal is a DIY project. I guess if you had to go up on the roof and ground everything, etc. it would ALMOST be DIY, but you don't even have that. Millions of people buy antennas, put 'em up all on their lonesome, and get great reception. You have a good TV Fool report. I don't know what you think a professional could do for you.

Rick

 

[Keith]

I really need to apologize. I guess we speak different languages. For the record: Installing an antenna is not a DIY project. Building an antenna to your own design from scrap metal is a DIY project. I don't know what you think a professional could do for you.

Rick

I guess we do, however I was responding to you punting over to Steve. For me, anytime I do something I know nothing about, I think of it as DIYing rather than having someone do it for me. So, DIY is a relative term; relative to each individuals knowledge and experience. I realize as I write this how wrong I could be. Oh well, semantics kill me every time! I like to make up words or adopt incorrect words that I think convey a thought. No wonder I confuse everyone.

I ordered the UHF antenna with all the accessories needed to complete my install. I promise to remove any and all interference in the attic!

One question; I have one electric switch in the attic and an outlet. How much would these interfere with the RF signal? Is it a matter of distance or it's location in relation to the line of sight that matters?

I have not bought the pre-amp yet. Trying to decide between the type that needs power at the antenna, vs. down the line where I plan to (and before) I split the signal. The answer to my question above will affect my decision. If the electric in the attic is going to cause a problem, I'd like to avoid adding a power device in the attic. Let me know what you think.