Sylmar, CA: Need help choosing an antenna. Posted results inside - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 Old 11-15-2012, 01:52 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
kingofthecrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Ok so I am a single story home and I was thinking that no more than 15 feet would be appropriate to install.


http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc494916d19b94



I am just looking to get the local channels in HD and tell Directv to go rob somebody else

3 things in life my father said to me

1. Deny till death
2. If you dont sleep with her, someone else will
3. If it dont fit, force it
kingofthecrate is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 Old 11-15-2012, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mikepier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island and Upstate NY
Posts: 2,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
You have a bit of a challenge. Your report shows terrain around you which will affect reception, but it should still be receivable.
Basically you need a VHF/UHF antenna mounted outdoors. If you can go higher than 15 feet, the better.
The HBU-22 from Radio Shack or Winegard 7694 are good choices.
mikepier is offline  
post #3 of 10 Old 11-15-2012, 08:51 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
kingofthecrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Yes I live right against the mountains. I can see what I can do, I will look into those antennas. cheers

3 things in life my father said to me

1. Deny till death
2. If you dont sleep with her, someone else will
3. If it dont fit, force it
kingofthecrate is offline  
post #4 of 10 Old 11-16-2012, 06:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The foothills north of Burbank are usually a black hole for reception. Results will be HIGHLY variable with most of the signals flying over your head and then bouncing off the mountains around you.

TVFool's algorithms are a) overly optimistic, b) wildly inaccurate, or c) somewhere in between in cases such as yours for the LOS propagation path calculations when you're on the immediate back side of the terrain obstruction. YMWV.

You will likely find you need a lot more antenna than was suggested.
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
post #5 of 10 Old 11-16-2012, 07:31 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
kingofthecrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
SOunds like im going with apple TV and jailbreaking it. I am tired, tired to death of paying over 130 a month for directv's poor programming.

3 things in life my father said to me

1. Deny till death
2. If you dont sleep with her, someone else will
3. If it dont fit, force it
kingofthecrate is offline  
post #6 of 10 Old 11-16-2012, 08:22 AM
Member
 
gcd0865's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
With the NM's shown on your TVFool report, I'd suggest a 91XG for UHF, 2-3 feet above a Y10-7-13 for VHF-high, on the same mast, both aimed toward 106 degrees true. Since UHF signals do not follow the curvature of the terrain as well as VHF, you'd use the tilt feature of the 91XG to tilt the front of the antenna upwardly 10-15 degrees, aiming it at the top of the mountain. You'd use a UVSJ and two 3-4-foot RG-6 coax pieces to properly join the antennas into a single RG-6 coax downlead to your tv. If reception weren't satisfactory, you could then try adding a preamplifier up at the mast (which would replace the UVSJ if it had separate UHF and VHF inputs).

http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=91XG
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=Y10-7-13
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=UVSJ
gcd0865 is offline  
post #7 of 10 Old 11-30-2012, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Rick_R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Simi Valley, CA USA
Posts: 3,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
In my previous home I used a Winegard 8200 with a 8275 preamp. Both are VHF/UHF. The 8200 is just about as good as the 91XG according to a guy with both in Burbank, CA. In any case play with the direction and height to find the sweet spot for the worst channels.

Rick R
Rick_R is offline  
post #8 of 10 Old 11-30-2012, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The 91XG is a UHF-only antenna. The 8200 is an all-channel antenna. That's why it's 10 feet wide at the back and 14 feet long. The UHF portion is the front part, the part that resembles the 91XG. There's nothing on his TVFool chart that suggests an all-channel would be either necessary or even useful.

For UHF only the 91XG is superior to the UHF section of the 8200. However, channel 7-13 still need coverage for his major stations. If you want a single antenna, the 7698 would be the equivalent to the 8200 without the big, honkin' channel 2-6 elements. It would easier to try the configuration already suggested unless you want to try to handle a behemoth like the 7698.
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
post #9 of 10 Old 11-30-2012, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The 91XG is a UHF-only antenna. The 8200 is an all-channel antenna. That's why it's 10 feet wide at the back and 14 feet long. The UHF portion is the front part, the part that resembles the 91XG. There's nothing on his TVFool chart that suggests an all-channel would be either necessary or even useful.

For UHF only the 91XG is superior to the UHF section of the 8200. However, channel 7-13 still need coverage for his major stations. If you want a single antenna, the 7698 would be the equivalent to the 8200 without the big, honkin' channel 2-6 elements. It would easier to try the configuration already suggested unless you want to try to handle a behemoth like the 7698.
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
post #10 of 10 Old 11-30-2012, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The 91XG is a UHF-only antenna. The 8200 is an all-channel antenna. That's why it's 10 feet wide at the back and 14 feet long. The UHF portion is the front part, the part that resembles the 91XG. There's nothing on his TVFool chart that suggests an all-channel would be either necessary or even useful.

For UHF only the 91XG is superior to the UHF section of the 8200. However, channel 7-13 still need coverage for his major stations. If you want a single antenna, the 7698 would be the equivalent to the 8200 without the big, honkin' channel 2-6 elements. It would easier to try the configuration already suggested unless you want to try to handle a behemoth like the 7698.
ProjectSHO89 is offline  
Reply HDTV Technical

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off