[billcushman]

Very few digital OTA stations are broadcasting in the VHF Low Band (channel 2 thru 6). Most are presently in the UHF Band. In February, many UHF digital stations will move back to the VHF High Band (channel 7 thru 13). If you are presently using a UHF only antenna to receive digital OTA, you will probably have reception problems.

Until recently there were no high performance antennas designed to receive the VHF High Band plus the UHF Band, excluding the VHF Low Band. This is important because the elements necessary to optimize the VHF Low Band are very wide and make the antenna very large. There are now several antennas designed to receive channels 7 thru 69.

Two excellent choices are the Winegard HD7696P and the Antennacraft HBU22. Winegard has five antennas in the HD769 series. The HD7696P has high gain, excellent front-to-back ratio, and narrow beam width. It is only 36" wide but is about 111" long. The Antennacraft HBU22 is smaller and much lower cost, has lower gain but good properties for a smaller low cost antenna.

Other manufacturers many introduce antennas of this same type. They are ideal solutions for most digital OTA reception.

 

[davring]

Very good information, thank you.

 

[EXTACAMO]

Yes thanks. And another good resource is http://www.dennysantennaservice.com/

 

[ziggy29]

Some of these combo 7-69 antennas are a good, convenient choice for "medium range" reception (roughly 30-50 miles of relatively unchallenging terrain). But for fringe and deep fringe reception, it's still hard to beat separates for UHF and high VHF. I don't know any reasonably priced single 7-69 antenna that will beat or match the combination of a UHF antenna like a CM4228 or 91XG together with a high VHF yagi like the YA-1713 in the deep fringe.

 

[joshjr]

I think I am gonna get this antenna. http://www.consumer.philips.com/con...DV7700K_17_US_CONSUMER/TV-antenna+SDV7700K-17 It looks fantastic and should just about cover everything.

 

[Scott in FL]

I think I am gonna get this antenna. http://www.consumer.philips.com/con...DV7700K_17_US_CONSUMER/TV-antenna+SDV7700K-17 It looks fantastic and should just about cover everything.

It's also very big and very expensive, and you'll never use the low band VHF capability of this antenna. Even after February there will be no stations in your reception area broadcasting on channels 2-6 (I checked Miami, OK on tvfool.com).

This is the point the original post made.

 

[joshjr]

I plan on using this to get locals from Tulsa Oklahoma. The local towers are anywhere from 70-85 miles away and there are channels that are in the 2-6 range. In case you want a zip code to check it out try 74101. NBC and CBS will both be in the 2-6 range. Since I plan on using this antenna with my DVR and the locals are so far away I need the best antenna I can find. But thanks for checking in Miami for me anyways.

 

[HDTVFreak07]

I may be wrong here but a guy from our local television station (that works as an engineer) said that many television are currently broadcasting analog and digital, which makes them having to broadcast digitally in lower power than they would have if not for analog. He said that both analog and digital need their own power source, so until Feb 17, 2009, digital signals are usually broadcast in lower power. As soon as analog is cut off, digital signals will be broadcasted in higher power, making it travel farther.

It is still morning to me and I can't think of a better way to explain anything clearer. Grr. I'm looking forward to the cut-off date so that I can begin receiving more digital stations from further away that I'm receiving with low signals.

 

[Scott in FL]

In case you want a zip code to check it out try 74101. NBC and CBS will both be in the 2-6 range.

I plugged in zip code 74101 with an antenna 50' above ground level and there will be no digital stations transmitting on channels 2-6 now or in the future. You can have a look by going to tvfool.com. Just remember, your NBC and CBS stations may be known as channels 2 and 6, but they are actually transmitting on channels 56 and 55 now (moving to channels 8 and 45 after February).

 

[Scott in FL]

I may be wrong here but a guy from our local television station (that works as an engineer) said that many television are currently broadcasting analog and digital, which makes them having to broadcast digitally in lower power than they would have if not for analog. He said that both analog and digital need their own power source, so until Feb 17, 2009, digital signals are usually broadcast in lower power. As soon as analog is cut off, digital signals will be broadcasted in higher power, making it travel farther.

The reason digital stations are at lower power than their analog counterparts is because digital requires less power. This is one of the reasons for the switch (and one of the reasons tv stations want the switch to go through... lower electrical bills).

There may be some cases where the digital channels will increase power when the analog signs off as you say, but I think you'll find in most cases the powers will remain the same for their channel allocation. VHF-Lo stations will transmit at the lowest power levels (not many of these though). VHF-High stations are next with more power, followed by UHF stations that will get the highest power allocations.

You can see all of this on tvfool.com. Plug in your address and compare the channels and transmit power levels for the digital stations before and after February 2009.

 

[jkane]

Until recently there were no high performance antennas designed to receive the VHF High Band plus the UHF Band, excluding the VHF Low Band. This is important because the elements necessary to optimize the VHF Low Band are very wide and make the antenna very large. There are now several antennas designed to receive channels 7 thru 69.

What!? Where do people get this kind of mis-information from? There have been excellent well tuned antenna for all of those frequencies for most of the entire life times of people on this board!

Bottom line ... if you get the signal, you get it. No fancy sales pitch about how this piece of wire is better than that piece of wire is gonna improve what works. Yes, a well tuned antenna is better, but excluding low VHF will very seldom improve your signal on the other bands. A log periodic (which most OTA antenna for TV are) is not the best for a single channel. But it has proven itself to be the most efficient for getting the most channels in the most circumstances.

If you live in mountainous region or at extreme distances, then you might need something tuned to your particular situation. But try the stuff on a store shelf first. Chances are it will work. And if it does not, then chances are the special tuned one you buy will not work either!

Radio waves are regulated by the laws of physics. You can't rewrite that law.

 

[Scott in FL]

Hi Jeff,
I think what Bill said was up until now there were no tv antennas designed to receive just the frequency range from channel 7 - 69, and I think he's correct. To my knowledge, until DTV came along, there was nothing that was designed for VHF-High and UHF (no VHF-Lo). At least I can't think of any.

 

[ziggy29]

Hi Jeff,
I think what Bill said was up until now there were no tv antennas designed to receive just the frequency range from channel 7 - 69, and I think he's correct. To my knowledge, until DTV came along, there was nothing that was designed for VHF-High and UHF (no VHF-Lo). At least I can't think of any.

That was how I understood it, too.

There used to be behemoth combo antennas that received 2-83, but for people in most markets, 7-69 will suffice for the future (actually, 7-51 for most people). As a result, the new generation of "single antenna solution" hardware is more optimized for a narrower range of channels AND is considerably smaller because they have no low VHF capability designed into it.

 

[billcushman]

Thanks Scott and Ziggy. I have one of those behemoths on my roof. Its 17 feet long and has excellent properties on 2 thru 83. Physics are why its has to be so big to have good gain and beam width on channels 2 thru 6. Most people desire a smaller antenna, and the new 7 thru 69 antennas represent a way to get performance almost equal to giants or complex arrays with a reasonable cost and size.

Incidently, my college degree is in Physics and I am a life member of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers).

Some Houston digital stations have an effective radiated power of 1 megawatt. The UHF transmitters are very inefficient and have high power consumption. The towers here are over 2000 feet tall. Transmission lines won't work at those UHF frequencies. The expansion and contraction with temperture gradient and changes on a 2000 foot long waveguide is a lot of fun.

 

[jdspencer]

I have the Winegard HD 7084P. I'm only 9.5 miles from my towers, but there is a hill in between. One of my locals is using ch4 for their digital signal. They plan to return to their analog channel assignment (34), but they've asked for an extension as the new transmitter won't be in place by 2/2009. Once, they get away from ch 4, then I may be able to get a smaller antenna. BTW, two other locals will stay with high VHF (ch 7 and 8).

 

[joshjr]

I plugged in zip code 74101 with an antenna 50' above ground level and there will be no digital stations transmitting on channels 2-6 now or in the future. You can have a look by going to tvfool.com. Just remember, your NBC and CBS stations may be known as channels 2 and 6, but they are actually transmitting on channels 56 and 55 now (moving to channels 8 and 45 after February).

Thanks again for all you work on this. I want the best antenna that I can get and never have to worry about a station changing the channel number. This antenna covers everything I might need. You might think its a waste but its my money and its what I want. I will be ready for anything.

 

[jkane]

They might not have been on a shelf in a Walmart, but those antenna's have been available. It has only been in the past 20 years that cable companies put the idea of an "ugly" antenna in the heads of people. Prior to that a big antenna on your roof was a status symbol! And if you ordered it, you could get any kind you wanted to. But since the bigger you had, the higher your status, the idea of making them smaller on purpose wasn't done very often. It was only done for space issues, not for visual aesthetics. I have 5 antenna's on my house today. And 2 of them are super ugly. I don't use them any more. I keep them as a protest to the do gooders who re-define beauty every few years.

Sorry for my tone yesterday. I was a bit grumpy. Could have been a tiny bit nicer in my wording.

 

[wilbur_the_goose]

You're lucky - Philly is going to have a low-band VHF channel come February. Even worse, it's channel 6 (adjacent to FM).

It's an ABC O&O.

Really dumb on their part.

 

[boba]

I just found another Winegard to throw in HD1080 it is another 7-69 but this one is designed like a UHF bow tie. Dimensions 34.5"W x 18.25" H range 40 miles

 

[Tower Guy]

You're lucky - Philly is going to have a low-band VHF channel come February. Even worse, it's channel 6 (adjacent to FM).

It's an ABC O&O.

Really dumb on their part.

I disagree. Channel 6 has not yet been proven to be a deficient DTV channel.

FM stations on the low end of the dial have always had to protect WPVI analog. The protection to DTV will continue.