what is the best antenna for this location

[Fringe Reception]

John and dkreichen,

There is a similar 'long' antenna, the Winegard HD-9095 and I suspect it would provide similar performance. The advantage I see right off the bat is the way the antennas are mounted: the 9095 mounts from its rear and is supported by two additional angular braces and it is heavy, whereas the 91XG is center mounted and 'balanced'.

I purchased my 9095 'used' on Craigslist dot org and if I had kept the antenna, it would have required guy wires to be installed even on a simple chimney-mounted 10 foot mast. I shipped it to Forum member Piggie for testing, but I haven't heard if he has tested it yet.

Winegard HD 9095P UHF Yagi Style HDTV TV Antenna (HD9095P) - Winegard - HD-9095P - 615798317539

Jim

 

[johnlvs2run]

Ani-700 product brochure PDF

Question: When using two of these, is there a minimum distance that one needs to be higher than the other?
Also can you tell me the weight of this antenna.
Thank you

Ani-Av Answer (within 2 minutes): If pointing in opposite directions, it really does not matter the separation.
10 pounds.

 

[Fringe Reception]

John,

The basic rule of thumb to avoid antenna interaction is one wavelength between antennas, based on the lowest frequency intended to be received. If I recall correctly, at Channel 35 it's about 36 inches. The lower the channel - the greater the required spacing.

One exception would be 'screen' antennas mounted back to back because they use an 'electrically common' reflector on a (hopefully) grounded mast.

Jim

 

[MrPogi]

The ANI-700 seems to be good as a "niche" antenna in the USA, ONLY if you are looking to get good gain in the upper UHF.

Otherwise, I'd go with the Antennas Direct 91 XG. It's proven and gets lower UHF better.

 

[johnlvs2run]

The basic rule of thumb to avoid antenna interaction is one wavelength between antennas, based on the lowest frequency intended to be received. If I recall correctly, at Channel 35 it's about 36 inches. The lower the channel - the greater the required spacing. One exception would be 'screen' antennas mounted back to back because they use an 'electrically common' reflector on a (hopefully) grounded mast.

The pole is 10 feet, on a 6 foot tall chimney.
I can raise the pole a foot or two from the roof, which makes a tight squeeze for having antennas three feet apart.

I wonder if there's a bidirectional antenna, or smaller antenna that would be easier to handle.

I'd go with the Antennas Direct 91 XG. It's proven and gets lower UHF better.

I presume that's because of the apparent size of the elements.

 

[Fringe Reception]

John,

The next question: are you going try to combine two UHF antennas into one 75 ohm coaxial downlead? By definition, that isn't going to work very well (if at all) and two seperate coaxial downleads are indicated. You will also need an antenna switch. I have three seperate UHF antenna systems here in order to keep my antennas isolated from each other: before I went to the trouble and expense, I tried 'mixing' my antenna's signals together and as anticipated, I had lousy results as in 'no way'... Here's where an antenna rotor works wonders.

Jim

 

[johnlvs2run]

are you going try to combine two UHF antennas into one 75 ohm coaxial downlead?

Yes. I was thinking of two 5 foot cables connected to a splitter. Here was Ani-AV's answer to that.

You can combine two antennas as long as the cable lengths are exactly the same when connected to a combiner (splitter used backwards). However, you need to be cautious of multipath which causes ghosting.

By definition, that isn't going to work very well (if at all) and two seperate coaxial downleads are indicated. You will also need an antenna switch. I have three seperate UHF antenna systems here in order to keep my antennas isolated from each other: before I went to the trouble and expense, I tried 'mixing' my antenna's signals together and as anticipated, I had lousy results as in 'no way'... Here's where an antenna rotor works wonders.

It looks like having 2 antennas is going to be more hassle than a rotor.
The thing is the stations around here are not very good, just occasional movies on 6.2 or 38.2.
And I'm not a tv watcher.

Maybe the $$ would be of better use for FTA satellite, though I don't know much about it.

Does a rotor use the same RG6 cable, and give you a digital display of degrees?

 

[johnlvs2run]

It is currently advertised to receive all UHF channels, 14-83, however, our television spectrum has been reduced to channels 14-51.

I think it says 14-69.

Here is a link to a review of a similar (possibly the same) antenna.
Televes DAT-75

That looks like a different antenna.
Here's the link to the article, written in April, 2006.

 

[Fringe Reception]

John,

You advisor's statement may be correct assuming both (identical) antennas are pointed in exactly the same direction where their signals become additive. However, when two antennas are pointing in different directions, something else comes into play and here is an 'idealized' example that does not include any actual losses in coaxial cable or a 2:1 antenna signal splitter (in this case used backwards as an antenna signal joiner).

Antenna A is pointed North, Antenna B is pointed West. Both antenna's signals travel to a splitter which combines what they are receiving. One half of the signal from antenna A goes to the TV set and one half of the signal goes to antenna B, and is rebroadcast to the West. One half of the signal from antenna B goes to the TV set and one half of the signal goes to antenna A and is rebroadcast to the north.

It works like a lawn sprinkler with two outlets: each antenna's signal goes two places. That's why one antenna that rotates toward different antenna farms or seperate antennas on seperate coaxial feeds running to an antenna switch is called for.

An exception to this is when UHF and VHF antennas are combined to one coaxial downlead: this can be easily done using a different kind of splitter called a UVSJ (UHF-VHF Signal-Joiner). VHF and UHF antennas can be pointed different directions in this situation, but they should be seperated (distance) as far apart from each other as is practical to reduce antenna interaction.

I use an older antenna rotor on one of my systems and mine requires a seperate 3-wire cable to run it: other rotors use 4 wires. I use Ma Bell's D-Station 4-conductor copper wire on mine, but Solid Signal, Radio Shack, Home Depot, etc. have 4-conductor flat tape rotor wire available. Some newer rotors have an infrared remote control that can be programmed to automatically move to a pre-selected compass point based on the channel you want to receive. Pretty cool!

Jim

 

[johnlvs2run]

Jim, thanks.

Ed, the helpful fellow was from 3starinc.

Here's another exchange with Avi-Av:

Q: Is this suited mostly to high UHF, or does it pick up low UHF and high VHF well too?
Do you happen to have a performance report for the different frequencies? Thank you

Ani-AV: UHF ONLY.

Q: Okay, how is it with low UHF compared to high UHF range? People on a forum posted that it looks good for high UHF but would not be as good for low UHF.

Ani-AV: This antenna works the full range. You can review my feedback and ask other buyers.

 

[Fringe Reception]

John,

I have to agree the better choice is Mr Pogi and Dk's recommendation of the Antennas Direct 91 XG over the European Band triple-beam antenna. If you had problem channels in the high 40s to 51, or if channels 52-83 were still being used it might be a viable choice.

Jim

 

[dkreichen1968]

John,

The way a Yagi antenna works is that it is designed to have its highest gain at its highest channel, and the gain drops off from there. If you have 2 16dB Yagi antennas, one built for channel 79, and one built for 69, the one built for 69 will have higher gain on channel 14. The ANI-700 is built for 79, and the 91 XG, or other American designed antennas, are built for 69. Post transition US digital channels end at channel 51. The ANI-700 may pick up low UHF, but not as well as an antenna that is built for a lower channel. The same principle explains why it is possible to pick up high VHF on a good UHF Yagi.

 

[johnlvs2run]

Jim & DK, thanks for that information..
The Ani-AV literature says the range is 14-69. However I'll drop that design.

It would be nice if DTV antennas were tuned for 51 on down.

Are there others that might compete with the WG 9032 or AD 91xg?

The RCA ANT751 has good reviews, though there's hardly anything to it.

 

[Fringe Reception]

dkreitchen is spot-on, and that's why in many situations a screen-type antenna is inherently superior to Yagi-design antennas: they have a much wider bandwidth.

On the other hand, when a single channel or several channels within a narrow range of frequencies are to be received, a single-channel Yagi has special merits. I built my Project 38 Yagi specifically to receive a 'troublesome' station, knowing it would also work well receiving channel 39, which is not a problem here. On the other hand, this antenna is dead when I try to receive channel 35: my home-brew Project 35 antenna resolved that problem.

All multi-channel antennas are compromised designs to be able to receive a wide bandwidth, so its best to try an antenna at least meant to receive the current bands used in the Americas.

Jim

 

[dkreichen1968]

The RCA ANT751 is a close suburban UHF/Hi-VHF antenna. Since you've said your not interested in high VHF (channels 7 & 8), it wouldn't be a fit for you. It would pick up the strong signals from the southeast, but not 333 degrees. If you want to look at smaller corner reflector antennas a Radio Shack U-75R works well.

Also, there will still be some channels (low power analog and digital) that will broadcast in the channel 52-69 range until mid-2012 in the USA, and the Canadian DTV transition is still up coming, so antenna companies are holding off on producing channel 51 cut antennas until those high channels won't be a problem.

 

[Fringe Reception]

Jim & DK, thanks for that information..

It would be nice if DTV antennas were tuned for 51 on down.

Are there others that might compete with the WG 9032 or AD 91xg?

Are you married to using a Yagi-style antenna? If you would consider using a screen-type antenna there are a variety of options including a Kosmic Super-Quad, a new-version Channel Master 4228HD, McLapp, Grey Hoverman bay antennas and others. One trade-off is they typically have higher wind-loading and guy wires are more likely required.

I offer the same link as before for some charted antenna comparison results: Comparing some commercially available antennas

Here's another antenna 'shootout' comparison website: good stuff! http://www.antennahacks.com/AntennaComparison.htm

Jim

 

[MrPogi]

I can vouch for the U75r. Mine works great for UHF, has a 50 degree beam, even gets my stations off the back side, and a LP VHF (8) about 25 degrees off beam. The price is right about $35, and its local. It's good out to about 45 miles over open terrain. If you are near that limit, you may want to consider a more deep fringe antenna, though.

 

[johnlvs2run]

I'm in the process of looking for another very recent post on antenna testing by another Forum member TB.

This one?

Ev says he is not producing his antenna any longer.

I am completely open to using any kind of antenna. I think the yagi preference came out due to not using a rotor but I am open to that now.

However this is what Ed had to say about the tv fool readout on November 9.

You have an ambient signal atmosphere (transmitters close-by, in multiple directions) that precludes use of any pre-amplifier or HI-Gain distribution amplifier.

In consideration of the above, and then adding the co-channel and adjacent channel issues present in your area; the best solution would be a high gain corner reflector mounted on a rotor... period.

The 3rd best solution would be a Bowtie, but not 2 of them back to back. Bowties do not enjoy much in Front to Back rejection ratio. As the wave passes the incidental antenna, the second antenna will collect enough signal, out of phase, to actually reduce the net signal amount injected into your distribution system. A 3S-4228 aimed at 104 and 170 degrees with a 10-15 dB gain distribution amplifier would net a moderate mix of all channels, including those to the rear, providing that some reasonable Line of Sight is achieved in the rearward facing stations at 333 degrees.

And today.

For your purposes, a corner reflector would out perform a 4 bay bowtie…

You will have to research the latest and greatest…

Thanx

ed

 

[Fringe Reception]

John,

Yes, under the same link I just posted above. I have tested four different corner reflectors here against four different 'screen-type' antennas and the two overall winners were an old style Channel Master 4221 and the KSQ, which was best of all on VHF.

The station of most interest to me was a 900 watt translator from 17 miles distance. I settled on the best overall performance which provides 16 channels using the above mentioned CM-4221. None of the corner reflectors came close ... in my location. Most of the antennas I have tested can be viewed in my photo albums here including a 16-bay Grey Hoverman that was nothing to write home about. Again, that's most likely because of my location: as a deep fringe antenna away from local transmitters it may shine.

Jim

PS I wasn't aware EV is no longer building the KSQ. My copy is out on loan being tested north of Seattle. I want it back!

 

[dkreichen1968]

Bowties do not enjoy much in Front to Back rejection ratio.

This is why a single 4 bay pointed toward 333 degrees may be the best solution for your area. It won't reject the strong signals coming from the southeast, and has a wide beam angle. Of course a corner reflector on a rotor will give you the highest signal strength on all channels, but with digital what you want is a receivable, realitively interference free signal for all desired channels, not necessarily the highest signal strength.

I do believe what he had to say about the out of phase signals from a back to back install, but his thing for corner reflectors seems like "analog thinking."