Hello,
There are a ton of new antennas that are specifically designed for channels 7-69. I live in Sun Prairie, WI and have already tried the Winegard HD-1080. This antenna works great for all the UHF channels, but Fox (the only VHF channel) it very spotty. I have come to the realization I might need a bigger boom antenna to make sure I can get Fox (I need it for Packers football). I am considering the Winegard HD 7694P (only a 65" boom). According to my research, the 1080 has a -1db gain on VHF channel 11 and the 7694P gets a +8db gain. My mount is currently only a couple feet above my chimney cap and points into my neighbors tree. The only other (probably better) mounting option would be to move it from the first story of the roof to the second (which would get it a bit higher and away form the chimney cap). It would still be pointing into the same tree. My question is, should I get the new antenna and tweak that or should the smaller 1080 work in my area? I know there are a lot of variables but I would just like to get the most solid signal before the winter hits. Thanks for any help/information. Here are my tvfool results:

Get the HD 7694. Trees don't block VHF-high signals nearly as much as they do on UHF, so they're not really a factor at your location given what you report for UHF reception. That leaves the antenna as the culprit, and your report of comparative gain figures tells the whole story. That difference of 9 dB means the 7694 is eight times stronger than the 1080 on channel 11. It's got better UHF specs as well -- about 2 dB overall IIRC. Re-locating the 1080 will involve multiple trips to the roof. The 7694 means getting it done right the, er, second time.

You might want to consider relocating the antenna regardless of any other decision you make. An antenna that close to chimney flue will corrode very quickly -- within just a few years -- from combustion byproducts (gas, oil and wood fuels), soot (fuel oil) and/or smoke (wood fires). An antenna's signal-gathering capability decreases as its aluminum corrodes.

Forget the 1080 for VHF. A paper clip will get better reception.

A paper clip will get better reception.

Uh-huh. Speaking of which:

* The link to the 1080's PDF spec sheet is broken on W-G's site. Sheets are available on every other all-channel model. Hmmm... like I always say: "If you can't find the specs, there's nothing to brag about."

* W-G claims a "0-40 mile range" on it. I'll buy the zero; the forty is an absolute knee-slappin' howler.

Lots of us wonder why W-G would make such outlandish claims for the 1080 under its own name. How bad is it? Terk would love the thing and sell it at a $59.99 MSRP.
/sarc
Offered with sincere apologies to the OP.

I guess that was what I was thinking, I just didn't want to blow $ on another antenna without asking others who know a lot more than I do. My wife already thinks I am crazy for all the time I am spending on the roof.

Note that WMSN has a petition pending to move to 49, but even if it is granted, I'm sure it won't help for the current season. More info on that here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1907A1.pdf

You may want to try diplexing some rabbit ears into your system for now instead up spending more for a VHF antenna which you may not need in the long run.

I tried the HD-1080 and found it to be quite worthless for VHF as well. A CM4221 has a better chance at 11, though I would try rabbit ears before making any significant changes.