Just setup DirecTv service but do not have OTA setup. Do I need both? Is there much a picture quality difference between teht wo? My DirecTv service comes with local programming. Thanks.

You do not need both, but it is nice to have both for; 1) backup, 2) OTA is free, and 3) generally, OTA does provide a better picture. I have had DTV for many, many years and have always had, and used, OTA.

And, depending on where you live, you might find there are OTA channels you cannot get on DirecTV. For example, I'm in Detroit and can receive Toledo stations. Helpful when Detroit pre-empts a show I like for news, weather or a Billy Graham special. And I don't think they carry Canadian stations. We get CBC over the air, here, too.

Most likely you have newer receivers that don't have ATSC tuners in them, what models did you get?

Yes, you should always have OTA. In the event of severe weather, OTA will be there to give you news and information, while satellite ussually goes out. And the picture quality difference is HUGE. I also don't think satellite carries all the digital subchannels, do they?

"And the picture quality difference is HUGE."

It's not that huge, at least in my market, D* is doing a pretty good job of carrying my locals and I've seen plenty of other comments backing that. It is very useful as a back up and/or sub channels though.

I have the HR21 but my TV has a built in tuner so I could connect to that.

You can also get the AM21 add on for the HR21 if you want the ability to record them.

You can also get the AM21 add on for the HR21 if you want the ability to record them.

Good point.

Has anyone checked the quality difference? Is OTA really that much better?

I've compared them both, and the difference is quite a lot... maybe HUGE is an exaggeration, but it's DEFINATELY noticeable.

Assume you mean HD service.

I have both and would recommend if getting OTA is easy to get. Quality here is about the same, -OTA better - but more subchannels on OTA if you are intersted in that aspect. If you have other markets close that is also a plus for OTA.

I agree with having both is good for if one is down the other may be watchable. ABCHD has been MIA for days here OTA, but I can watch on D*. My FOX D* pixelates alot, but OTA is rock solid.

Alpanguy, where are you at? I think that might have a lot to do with the diffence in quality. I have compared my local channels that I get using the AM21 to my locals over DirecTV and I see very little difference at all here in Peoria, IL. Actually DirecTV tends to break up a little less often because I am using an indoor antenna for OTA that isn't the greatest. The only reason I even use the AM21 is becuase I can use it to get locals that DirecTV doesn't carry (the CW is a subchannel here so DirecTV doesn't carry it).

It's also nice to have OTA for during heavy storms like the others mentioned.

I put up an old fashion antenna just for the built in TV tuner, works great for bad weather situations, and gives me an option during big games, which at times the picture is superior to what Directv provides.

I had an OTA with C-Band which of course you couldn't get locals with, and again with VOOM and Dish in FL. When we moved to AZ it was just Dish. There is a HUGE difference in picture quality with HD and digital with an OTA over satellite and cable. It's uncompressed for one and just because PBS has 2-3 channels doesn't qualify as compression imho.

Jeff

OTA is almost always going to be at a higher bit rate. The real numbers don't lie. Having said that, the only time I see any difference is for some live sports/events. Quality has much to do with the production of what you are watching.

Time for accurate information on receiving local HDTV channels:

Cable/DBS/Fiber/IPTV providers most always get the local HD signals the same way OTA viewers do, using an antenna and DTV tuner. This means a local viewer using an antenna and DTV tuner can get the OTA signal in it's most pristine form, before any additional processing by the provider.

- In the case of DBS, the local OTA signals are always reduced in some form.
- For cable, it can vary. At best they can provide a signal equal to what the antenna and DTV tuner can receive, but never any better.
- The major IPTV system, AT&T U-verse consistently reduces HD image quality compared to the OTA signal.
- Verizon FiOS does not reduce HD image quality from any source. They provide a signal equal to what the antenna and DTV tuner can receive, but never any better

To answer the OP, it can never hurt to have an OTA setup. First, the signal is better (or worse case 100% equal) as all other sources. Second, it's the most reliable way to receive TV, more reliable than all other providers. Third, it's free.

Further, when using a DTV tuner and antenna, you can receive all the channels in your area, some of which may not carried by other providers. In some cases, depending on where you live, you may be able to pick up a second TV market with an antenna and DTV tuner.

Ken H, that is all very good information, but it depends on one thing. Being able to set up an OTA antenna and getting good reception at your home.

Sometimes people leave in places where they cannot set up an OTA antenna to get very good reception. If you have an OTA antenna with 50-60% signal strengths your OTA picture is likely to be much worse than what you would get from DirecTV or cable, who can place their antenna's in better locations than yours.

I'm not saying that OTA setups are a bad thing, or not needed. They just aren't always feasible in some situations.

Ken, another OTA advantage: DTV is not a mature technology and problems often occur, either with equipment or the operator. With OTA, you're taking a huge potential source of reception troubles out of the chain - the cable or sat operator. With a pay TV provider, if you have problems (and you will), you don't know if the problem is on your end, the local station or the cable/sat provider. OTA eliminates the cable/sat provider variable.

With a pay TV provider, if you have problems (and you will), you don't know if the problem is on your end, the local station or the cable/sat provider. OTA eliminates the cable/sat provider variable.
How do you know that people will definitely have problems when using Pay TV? Yes, I admit, I do have occasional problems on my cable, but that doesn't mean everyone does. Three of my co-workers (2 use satellite and 1 uses Fios) said they never had a single problem.

Ken H, that is all very good information, but it depends on one thing. Being able to set up an OTA antenna and getting good reception at your home.

I'm not saying that OTA setups are a bad thing, or not needed. They just aren't always feasible in some situations.Obviously, OTA reception is location specific, but not perhaps to everyone, especially to someone just getting onto HDTV.

Receiving local DTV stations is an art as much as a science, but a very high percentage of those living in the US are able to do so.

How do you know that people will definitely have problems when using Pay TV?Because even the providers themselves admit it. And the point above is correct, for local HD stations, OTA removes an entire technical infrastructure from potentially being problematic.

For example, for a DBS provider, they receive the signal with an antenna, uplink it to their head end, route it/process it/assign location on their system (and more), and then downlink it to end users.

Off topic posts deleted, keep on topic.

Ken H, that is all very good information, but it depends on one thing. Being able to set up an OTA antenna and getting good reception at your home.

Sometimes people leave in places where they cannot set up an OTA antenna to get very good reception. If you have an OTA antenna with 50-60% signal strengths your OTA picture is likely to be much worse than what you would get from DirecTV or cable, who can place their antenna's in better locations than yours.

I'm not saying that OTA setups are a bad thing, or not needed. They just aren't always feasible in some situations.


I thought with OTA for a HD signal, either you get the signal/picture or you don't so that signal strength isn't an issue. Is this not the case, i.e. might I still be able to see the OTA HD picture but have poor quality because of a weak signal?

Because even the providers themselves admit it. And the point above is correct, for local HD stations, OTA removes an entire technical infrastructure from potentially being problematic.

For example, for a DBS provider, they receive the signal with an antenna, uplink it to their head end, route it/process it/assign location on their system (and more), and then downlink it to end users.
I see. Thanks. Boy, I need to stop believing my co-workers. I guess not everyone is truthful today.

I thought with OTA for a HD signal, either you get the signal/picture or you don't so that signal strength isn't an issue. Is this not the case, i.e. might I still be able to see the OTA HD picture but have poor quality because of a weak signal?

No you can end up with macroblocking, temporary audio/video dropouts, and a couple of other issues if your signal strength isn't high enough.

All TVs imported into the US or tranported across state lines since Feb2007 have been required to have OTA digital tuners in them.
Some cable and satellite companies actually downscale slightly the resolution of the gigital signa they get from the broadcasters to save bandwidth and they normally boradcast only the primary sub channel from any broadcaster which means that you will have more digital channels available with no resollution downscaling OTA then you will from cable or satellite.
Net result if you can the channels you want for fre with an antenna and a built in OTA digital tuner then you do not need to spend any money for any other HD source.

I thought with OTA for a HD signal, either you get the signal/picture or you don't so that signal strength isn't an issue. Is this not the case, i.e. might I still be able to see the OTA HD picture but have poor quality because of a weak signal?
With digital, a weak signal can cause pixelation, freezing picture, or no picture at all. No such thing as a snowy picture when watching digital.

Time for accurate information on receiving local HDTV channels:

Cable/DBS/Fiber/IPTV providers most always get the local HD signals the same way OTA viewers do, using an antenna and DTV tuner. This means a local viewer using an antenna and DTV tuner can get the OTA signal in it's most pristine form, before any additional processing by the provider.

- In the case of DBS, the local OTA signals are always reduced in some form.
- For cable, it can vary. At best they can provide a signal equal to what the antenna and DTV tuner can receive, but never any better.
- The major IPTV system, AT&T U-verse consistently reduces HD image quality compared to the OTA signal.
- Verizon FiOS does not reduce HD image quality from any source. They provide a signal equal to what the antenna and DTV tuner can receive, but never any better

To answer the OP, it can never hurt to have an OTA setup. First, the signal is better (or worse case 100% equal) as all other sources. Second, it's the most reliable way to receive TV, more reliable than all other providers. Third, it's free.

Further, when using a DTV tuner and antenna, you can receive all the channels in your area, some of which may not carried by other providers. In some cases, depending on where you live, you may be able to pick up a second TV market with an antenna and DTV tuner.


Very good point! I live in the suburban Washington DC area and can get all of the major digital Baltimore channels rock solid along with all of the digital DC channels on my OTA setup.

Cable providers are not required to provide any more then one digital channel from any one broadcast statioon so this is another reason to use OTA.

Ok -- I think I see the need for OTA, now I am confused about picking a good antenna. Most of the stations in my area (Baltimore, MD) are located in one direction in teh green and yellow color band on tvfool.com. Looking to put an antenna in my attic but don't want a powered one. Thoughts?

Ok -- I think I see the need for OTA, now I am confused about picking a good antenna. Most of the stations in my area (Baltimore, MD) are located in one direction in teh green and yellow color band on tvfool.com. Looking to put an antenna in my attic but don't want a powered one. Thoughts?

Here you go, build your own cheap. http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/

Wow! I have an HDTV and also have HD service. I never bought an antenna because well, I have cable and don't see the need for one. So, you guys are saying that I should get an antenna for better picture on OTA channels and also as backup in case my cable has problems?

So, you guys are saying that I should get an antenna for better picture on OTA channels and also as backup in case my cable has problems?Yes, and for the other reasons mentioned.

I see. They sell some VHF rabbit ears antennas at my local dollar store. I'll pick one up on the way from work. I live about 6 miles from the broadcast tower, so I don't know how well it will pick up digital signals, especially the UHF ones. It only costs a dollar, so it won't hurt to try it out. If it doesn't work, I'll have to look into buying a better one for more money.

Rabbit ears are not VHF or UHF since you can easily adjust the length of each "ear". VHF stations require longer ears and UHF stations can also be received with longer "ears".

Rabbit ears are not VHF or UHF since you can easily adjust the length of each "ear". VHF stations require longer ears and UHF stations can also be received with longer "ears".?


For basic indoor reception, rabbit ears are designed for VHF, while hoops and bow ties are for UHF. How well they work is subject to a number of factors, including the composition of your residence, how far you are from the transmitters, what's between you and the transmitters, etc.

Here is a common indoor VHF/UHF antenna:

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:aH7JuzffuVYuTM:http://usera.imagecave.com

I bought the rabbit ears antenna and tried it out. It works ok. Some channels get better signal than others. Of course, to increase signal strength on certain channels, one has to move the rabbit ears sometimes. As far as the picture quality is concerned, it's looks the exact same as what's on my cable. The OTA doesn't look any better.

Wow! I have an HDTV and also have HD service. I never bought an antenna because well, I have cable and don't see the need for one. So, you guys are saying that I should get an antenna for better picture on OTA channels and also as backup in case my cable has problems?

I have installed an antenna, getting ready for the switch from cable to satellite this spring. This week, Fox-DT was off line from cable. I :D'ed big and said cool :cool:, I'll switch to OTA! Wahoo! But alas, :mad:, OTA Fox was down too! :eek: Got to watch playoff football in gloriously poor analog SD... :( OTA is not a failsafe backup...

I have installed an antenna, getting ready for the switch from cable to satellite this spring. This week, Fox-DT was off line from cable. I :D'ed big and said cool :cool:, I'll switch to OTA! Wahoo! But alas, :mad:, OTA Fox was down too! :eek: Got to watch playoff football in gloriously poor analog SD... :( OTA is not a failsafe backup...
Hmm. OTA going down? Could it just be a poor reception? The only time OTA was ever down for me was during 9/11 because that's where my broadcast tower used to be.

Well, I should have said that the audio was down on OTA and nothing on Fox-DT with cable. The analog version was present on cable but not OTA (Fox switched to DT only OTA from their main tower).

If it is REALLY important to you to be the first to know,
the OTA signal will be about three seconds "ahead" of
the satellite signal.

The local HD channels here (Boise,ID) are not yet available on
Dish so I use the OTA signal for two HDTVs and the satellite
locals on the other three TVs.

For me, the OTA HD is the best picture I get.