or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Seattle, WA - OTA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seattle, WA - OTA - Page 321

post #9601 of 10033
There's no difference in the digital value of a giant "1" or "0" versus a smaller "1" or "0". As long as it decodes, it works.
post #9602 of 10033
Quality and strength are largely unrelated except that you obviously need enough strength to decode. You can have piles of signal, but if there's severe multipath, they're worthless to you and the quality is 0 (this is my situation). Similarly, a weak signal can have very good quality if there's nothing to interfere with it.

- Trip
post #9603 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProjectSHO89 View Post

KCPQ-LD is licensed as a low-power digital station. It therefore is limited to the maximum of 15 kW ERP. KCPQ-DT is using it as a fill in translator. It should have an effective range of up to 40 miles. It came on line several weeks ago.
Built-in TV signal meters don't measure or display the RF signal power of the incoming signals, they usually display a number or graph that corresponds to the ability to decode the digital data, a far more important parameter.

Sony televsions that I have observed have a "Signal Dianogstics" section that have among various realtime readouts: Signal Strength, Errors, SNR(dB), IF-AGC (%). The signal strength bar graph appears to display the actual signal strength in conjunction with the numerical readout of the signal strength.
post #9604 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by GE AVS View Post

Sony televsions that I have observed have a "Signal Dianogstics" section that have among various realtime readouts: Signal Strength, Errors, SNR(dB), IF-AGC (%). The signal strength bar graph appears to display the actual signal strength in conjunction with the numerical readout of the signal strength.

While those Sony sets do indeed display more data than do most sets, they still do not display the received signal power which would be displayed in dBm or dBmV.
post #9605 of 10033
I've seen the Sony TV diagnostics. It's great to see how well the tuner is doing with the signal received.
Those numbers for the readings are NOT real world of what is actually at the tuner end of the cable. I've seen huge variations in actual db readings on my meter vs the TV. Tuners react differently to the same signal problems, which translates to one TV doing fine and the other fails. As others have noted, it's not just the level of the signal, usually expressed in db's, but the wide variety of noise problems, multipath, and more. The various readouts of "signal quality" are good at telling you how well your tuner is doing. Doesn't really say how hard it's working, or how truly strong or weak the signal is, or how ugly it might look on a scope or meter. It makes installations frustrating if you don't realize what's really gong on.

As for the websites that predict reception, like TV Fool or Antennaweb, those are just that, guesstimates. Their predictions are based strictly on data in an ideal world that's flat, no hills, trees or other obsructions, and assumptions that the transmitter is working properly to the max output filed with the FCC.
Along with other variables, it means they're not real accurate. They do give you a good idea of what direction to aim, what the frequency is and what type of antenna you need, like UHF or VHF. As for the amount of signal you will get, or what size antenna you need, not very real world. I've entered addresses at these websites that are for locations where there's no hope of reception because of a huge hill, but are close in distance, and they always come back with great predictions with coat hangers for antennas.

As for ch13 from Seattle vs the main site at Gold Mt., your readings on the Tivo are not really telling you what the actual signal level is in dbs, nor it's real waveshape on a scope. Also, power or level readings are measured on a logarithmic scale, so without knowing what the real numbers are, trying to compare one against the other is a bit difficult.
What IS important is the final readings your tuner says IT sees. If it's happy, it's all good. You could actually have a huge difference in levels between the two locations, yet see identical numbers on the tuner readings. OR, be right on the edge of what the decoder in the tuner can handle, and a small difference of 1db could show you 100% or zero%.

I just checked my antenna, Federal Way location, and the meter shows the real ch22 as being in the mud. That's as it should be for me, as I only have a 4221 behind some very close fir trees. Ch25 KZJO is a +5db, again normal for here. Your location must be just right for a good shot to their tower on Capital hill, and the Tivo doing a pretty good job.

I wasn't aware of the addition, thanks! That gives me some more options close in.
Dan
post #9606 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanKurts View Post

As for the websites that predict reception, like TV Fool [...], those are just that, guesstimates. Their predictions are based strictly on data in an ideal world that's flat

I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but that piece of it is incorrect. The Longley-Rice model used by TVFool, the FCC, and by my own site most definitely takes terrain into account.

- Trip
post #9607 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but that piece of it is incorrect. The Longley-Rice model used by TVFool, the FCC, and by my own site most definitely takes terrain into account.
- Trip

Try these addresses
3163 SW 172nd st, Burien, WA
3458 Perkins Lane West, Seattle, WA
22968 Woodway Park Road, Edmonds, WA
2818 4th ave north, Seattle, WA

Dan
post #9608 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanKurts View Post

3163 SW 172nd st, Burien, WA

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc49b29c45b598

Shows LOS for four stations, 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.
Quote:
3458 Perkins Lane West, Seattle, WA

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc498429062f4d

Shows LOS for five stations, 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.
Quote:
22968 Woodway Park Road, Edmonds, WA

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc4926a7b56a8e

Shows LOS for six stations, 1- or 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.
Quote:
2818 4th ave north, Seattle, WA

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc49c9a474b880

I'm not 100% convinced the address resolved right on this one, as it was placed in the middle of the road, but even still, LOS for four stations, 1- or 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.

I'm uncertain what that exercise was supposed to prove; I saw a model work that takes terrain into account. The model is not perfect, as no model is, but it certainly doesn't assume the Earth is "flat."

- Trip
post #9609 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc49b29c45b598
Shows LOS for four stations, 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc498429062f4d
Shows LOS for five stations, 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc4926a7b56a8e
Shows LOS for six stations, 1- or 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc49c9a474b880
I'm not 100% convinced the address resolved right on this one, as it was placed in the middle of the road, but even still, LOS for four stations, 1- or 2Edge for everything else. Definitely not "flat" by any account.
I'm uncertain what that exercise was supposed to prove; I saw a model work that takes terrain into account. The model is not perfect, as no model is, but it certainly doesn't assume the Earth is "flat."
- Trip

Trip
I agree, it has improved a bit since I last looked at it years ago. It is taking some terrain into account, but very little.
All of these addresses are backed up to a very fast rising steep hill, 300 to 500 foot or more, with no hope of reception for the major networks here, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS. A few have LOS to a repeater for one major station, but those are far away and weak. The dbm numbers on the charts are a reference, and meant to give a rough idea of results, but real world are way off on most channels for the examples given.

As another example, 616 post avenue in Seattle. Distance wise and terrain wise, slam dunk for KOMO, KIRO, KING & KONG. Small problem, all the tall buildings in downtown are smack in the way, zero reception for this location.
Something else it doesn't seem to allow for is the transmitting pattern. KING has a figure 8 pattern, big lobes being north/south. People on the eastside of Seattle have problems with it. If you use an antenna that just barely works well enough for KOMO, KIRO, KCTS, KZJO, the KING channel doesn't come in. Take a look at 26331 northeast valley street, Duvall, WA. Granted, KING is much higer in frequency than KOMO or KIRO, but the big drop off in real level there is more to do with the pattern. TV Fool shows it only slightly less. Real world it's at least -15db down, if not more, very significant. Enough to put you below the threshold of many receivers. If you look at KING from north or south of the tower, it falls much more in line with the other two. All three of these stations transmit with about 1000kw, and are located within blocks of each other, at the same height above sea level. For this example, you need to use a much larger antenna than what TV Fool would indicate, and one that has good gain at the higher UHF frequencies, or a preamp to pull you out of the mud.

I not only comment on this forum, but have talked to many other customers that have used the the TV Fool results and had problems trying to understand why their install is not working. My intent is to let people know those reports are great for certain things, like how many stations they might get or what direction to look for them. The part about what their results would likely be, for actually getting those channels, needs to be taken with the understanding that trees, buildings, and to a large part terrain, have not been accounted for. This is just my opinion, and from my experience working with these same customers.

I think the TV Fool concept is a great idea. The wealth of data, the presentation and the website are all well done. Wish it would work better for our area, but it's just not there. I'm certain our trees have some effect, more or less, and buildings, too. The terrain model or algorithm is way off. How to integrate all this into the mix would be a real challenge. I hope somebody can. It could cover a lot more than just TV reception, and be a very valuable asset to a wide variety of RF related industries.
To the developers of that app, let me know. I'll be the first guy to buy it!
Dan
post #9610 of 10033
It takes terrain fully into account. The model is the same model used by the FCC, the widely accepted Longley-Rice model. It, like anything else like this, is a projection. It makes assumptions of ground clutter, amount of signal that will diffract over terrain, etc. that sometimes work better or worse depending on the specific circumstance. Here's a great example that goes the other way:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc4935151a898c

At that location on the Interstate, barreling down the highway at 70MPH, I've decoded WVIR, WHTJ, WRLH, WTVR, WRIC, and WCVE more than once. While moving. On a Silver Sensor antenna inside the vehicle, with and without amplification. This is at mid-day, not during an atmospheric event. People in the valley regularly watch those stations, as in greater than 90% of the time. The model predicts significantly less signal will make it over the mountain than actually does. Yet if the model was corrected to account for that in this instance, you would see the predicted strengths on your example locations go up even more, because in your area the signal diffraction is not nearly as effective.

I have no disagreement with your general argument that it's a prediction and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I understand that and agree with that. My only dispute was with your singular argument that the models do not take terrain into account, or to use your words, "their predictions are based strictly on data in an ideal world that's flat," which is demonstrably untrue.

- Trip
post #9611 of 10033
If those particular addresses are all on sharply changing terrain, they likely fall into the margin of error caused by the "terrain averaging" algorithm used by TVFOOL and other LRI calculations. Such abrupt terrain can cause wildly optimistic or pessimistic projections.
Edited by ProjectSHO89 - 12/9/12 at 7:41am
post #9612 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

It takes terrain fully into account. The model is the same model used by the FCC, the widely accepted Longley-Rice model. It, like anything else like this, is a projection. It makes assumptions of ground clutter, amount of signal that will diffract over terrain, etc. that sometimes work better or worse depending on the specific circumstance. Here's a great example that goes the other way:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dcc4935151a898c
At that location on the Interstate, barreling down the highway at 70MPH, I've decoded WVIR, WHTJ, WRLH, WTVR, WRIC, and WCVE more than once. While moving. On a Silver Sensor antenna inside the vehicle, with and without amplification. This is at mid-day, not during an atmospheric event. People in the valley regularly watch those stations, as in greater than 90% of the time. The model predicts significantly less signal will make it over the mountain than actually does. Yet if the model was corrected to account for that in this instance, you would see the predicted strengths on your example locations go up even more, because in your area the signal diffraction is not nearly as effective.
I have no disagreement with your general argument that it's a prediction and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I understand that and agree with that. My only dispute was with your singular argument that the models do not take terrain into account, or to use your words, "their predictions are based strictly on data in an ideal world that's flat," which is demonstrably untrue.
- Trip

Trip
I agree, the Longley-Rice model appears to take into account the terrain and/or clutter.
A little, tiny amount.
I can't speak for your location you mentioned, haven't really seen it.
If you have Google Earth, you can view my examples as they have the street view. Put in the example 2818 4th ave north, Seattle, WA, and when you get there, go to the street view. Spin around so you're looking south. That street is so steep, the car they used to take the pictures couldn't even level it out. Check the houses, trust me, they aren't all tilting and falling over! The street is one-way down only. You can loose traction in the rain trying to go up. The hill rises to the south over 200ft in a matter of 2 blocks and continues to 300ft above this in another few blocks. According to the TV Fool report, another slam dunk for KIRO, KING, KOMO, and KONG. You're only one mile from the towers, as the crow flies. However, reception is zero here. It's a relatives house. We tried everything, even thought about VooDoo. In the old analog days, she had a 30ft mast and got nothing but ghosts, but could hear some TV, so that's what she used until cable came in.
According to the report, those first 4 channels are LOS. Even taking that with a grain of salt, or even a mountain of salt, it shows that the terrain portion of the FCC's model is waaaaaaaay off. And in fact, none of those channels listed there can be had. To the southeast is a little thing called the Aurora Bridge, couple of tons plus of steel and concrete blocking signals from there. To the southwest, for KCPQ ch13 VHF, there's 400ft elevation of hill in the way, for over a mile.

In the 3163 SW 172nd st, Burien, WA report, it says that the stations in red may need a rooftop antenna. Okay, I'll give them that. Try 300ft up and then you will see those stations. The cliff behind these homes rises to 275ft above sea level in just one block as the crow flies. All the main Seattle channels are straight into that cliff and hill, except FOX KCPQ, which goes sideways across the hill, and is very hard to get with a big yagi, yet says LOS on the report.

These two examples are the worst cases, but it shows how very far off their terrain model is. AND, because of that, it really skews the results for predicting reception in our part of the planet, a lot. Granted, in some of the locations where the hills and other obstructions are not a factor, then it's working a bit better. Even then, though, it doesn't appear to take in to account the transmitting pattern differences, like I mentioned at the Duvall address.

Thanks for the info, Trip, learned a lot.

Which all brings me back to my original intent.
For people expecting the results of a TV Fool report to be the end-all be-all, don't. Take it for what it does right, number of possible stations, directions to them and distance in miles. As for your reception possibilities, it's not very accurate. Look around your site. If you're buried in the trees, down in a gully, more than 50 miles away or have a big hill close by and between you and Seattle, then you probably have some challenges. What are your neighbors using? If you see an antenna on a home nearby, stop and ask how many channels they are getting, how well, and what they are using.
That's going to be the best predictor for reception at your home.

Dan
post #9613 of 10033
FYI
Customer just sent me this
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/cable-subscribers-are-about-get-sneaky-fee-1C7476067
Looks like I'll be doing some upgrades to their smaller sets that were on free QAM.
I'm on Comcast, too, and they used to give you the first two converter boxes free for the older TV's that didn't have QAM. I did get some notices that said they were going to "switch over to all digital", but thought that meant they were just going to finally pull the plug on the few local channels that were still analog.
It didn't say anything about encrypting them. Here's how they're "helping" the consumer

“By permitting cable operators to join their competitors in encrypting the basic service tier, the Commission has adopted a sensible, pro-consumer approach that will reduce overall in-home service calls and accelerate cable operators’ transition to all-digital networks,” said Michael Powell, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) in a statement.

Ya gotta wonder how much the Cable lobbyists stuffed into the FCC's pockets for that.

Guess I better put the antenna meter back on charge and clear the day tomorrow....
Dan
post #9614 of 10033
I've used and currently use Tvfool for my location near Mill Creek and I'd say it's roughly 80% accurate.

Currently I'm using it as a tool to find a 'sweet spot' for particular channels up north that is predicted to be LOS, but yet normally too far past the earth's curvature (eg, past 80+ miles away).

I wish I knew about Tvfool before I bought my current place which seems to be in a shadow of the channels of interest (though I would consider myself in high-ground (400 ft elevation roughly).
post #9615 of 10033
Try 21835 SE 221st St, Maple Valley, WA 98038

The only ones that can be received are the top 4, all to the NE on West Tiger Mountain.
post #9616 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyD View Post

Try 21835 SE 221st St, Maple Valley, WA 98038
The only ones that can be received are the top 4, all to the NE on West Tiger Mountain.

Peggy D
The main problem is Cedar Mt, about 4 miles away. You're also running along the ridge from your house for about a mile loaded with Fir trees, and then you split the gap between two steep hills, along Petrovitsky, again surrounded with trees. At that point Cedar Mt is 400ft higher than you. Ch13 and from Bremerton is going to be even worse.
Tiger Mt is line of sight for you, obviously, which is why those top channels are coming in.
Not looking good. Even if you could find a spot where you might have a peek at Seattle stations, with a big outdoor antenna and preamp, the several miles of trees are going to play havoc with the signal when the wind moves them even a little. And trees tend to get bigger, not smaller.
Wish it were better news, sorry.
Dan
post #9617 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gilbert View Post

Did anyone else notice that FOX added a transmitter in Seattle at real frequency 22? . It's only 720p.

This started in early September. KCPQ broadcasts in 720p, since that is what FOX uses for their network feeds.
post #9618 of 10033
I wonder if KCPQ-DT (ch 13) dropped some power on their main feed heading toward the North Kirkland / South Bothell area in the last few days in deference to a boosted signal on KCPQ-LD (ch 22). I hadn't noticed any issues until Sunday, when after 10 years of pulling it in without drops I suddenly got drops like crazy. KCPQ-LD is doing better, but still not perfect like I was accustomed to with KCPQ-DT.

According to antennaweb.org, KCPQ-LD is 10 miles at 214° (slightly more foliage) from here, while KCPQ-DT is coming from 31 miles at 246° (clearer path). Any idea which "should" give me a more stable picture? Perhaps I should try adding a second antenna into the mix?
post #9619 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluxon View Post

I wonder if KCPQ-DT (ch 13) dropped some power on their main feed heading toward the North Kirkland / South Bothell area in the last few days in deference to a boosted signal on KCPQ-LD (ch 22). I hadn't noticed any issues until Sunday, when after 10 years of pulling it in without drops I suddenly got drops like crazy. KCPQ-LD is doing better, but still not perfect like I was accustomed to with KCPQ-DT.

Television broadcast patterns for antennae are created in the factory prior to mounting. You cannot adjust the amount of power broadcasting to a certain area after the fact. Both main and low power antenna are behaving normally as far as output power is concerned. Nothing has changed. Check your equipment. Could be a cable or connector issue.
post #9620 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by x43x View Post

Television broadcast patterns for antennae are created in the factory prior to mounting. You cannot adjust the amount of power broadcasting to a certain area after the fact. Both main and low power antenna are behaving normally as far as output power is concerned. Nothing has changed. Check your equipment. Could be a cable or connector issue.
I replaced the cable runs and all the connectors within the past year. The change to a noisier signal was suddenly apparent and very noticeable (Saturday night it was solid and Sunday morning when I switched on the Cowboys game it was the worst I've ever seen), not gradual like I would expect with a degrading cable or connector (what led me to change everything out in the past year). There's no doubt in my mind that the change happened from beyond our yard, but I wouldn't know how to tell if it was at the sending end or if there was some kind of heretofore unnoticeable interference between the transmitter and the antenna.

Thanks. I wasn't aware that the transmitter output couldn't have changed.
post #9621 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluxon View Post

I replaced the cable runs and all the connectors within the past year. The change to a noisier signal was suddenly apparent and very noticeable (Saturday night it was solid and Sunday morning when I switched on the Cowboys game it was the worst I've ever seen), not gradual like I would expect with a degrading cable or connector (what led me to change everything out in the past year). There's no doubt in my mind that the change happened from beyond our yard, but I wouldn't know how to tell if it was at the sending end or if there was some kind of heretofore unnoticeable interference between the transmitter and the antenna.
Thanks. I wasn't aware that the transmitter output couldn't have changed.
I live in the Finn Hill area and I have had no significant change in the past week. I would guess it is with your immediate surroundings sorry to say. I even watched the Cowboys game with the signal being pretty much normal. wink.gif
post #9622 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanKurts View Post

Peggy D
The main problem is Cedar Mt, about 4 miles away. You're also running along the ridge from your house for about a mile loaded with Fir trees, and then you split the gap between two steep hills, along Petrovitsky, again surrounded with trees. At that point Cedar Mt is 400ft higher than you. Ch13 and from Bremerton is going to be even worse.
Tiger Mt is line of sight for you, obviously, which is why those top channels are coming in.
Not looking good. Even if you could find a spot where you might have a peek at Seattle stations, with a big outdoor antenna and preamp, the several miles of trees are going to play havoc with the signal when the wind moves them even a little. And trees tend to get bigger, not smaller.
Wish it were better news, sorry.
Dan

It's not my house any more. It was just so frustrating going to the various sites that said we should get OTA & I knew we didn't & why.

Can you tell me why I can't get Ch 11 OTA at the south end of Lake Morton. I can get ch 9 & its sub-channels without any problems.
post #9623 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyD View Post

It's not my house any more. It was just so frustrating going to the various sites that said we should get OTA & I knew we didn't & why.
Can you tell me why I can't get Ch 11 OTA at the south end of Lake Morton. I can get ch 9 & its sub-channels without any problems.

Usually if you can get one station but not the other than it is a multipath problem. You don't say what kind of antenna you are using but a highly directional antenna is required. Then you have to find a location in your house with the least amount of multipath interference, similar to the analog TV days where you had to move your rabbit ears antenna for the "best" reception. It is not easy to do. I am located in an all one edge reception location. I had to move my antenna to different locations in my attic until I found a spot where I could receive all my high power stations. It's been over three years since I did that and so far so good, no reception problems, rain, wind, or shine.
post #9624 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyD View Post

It's not my house any more. It was just so frustrating going to the various sites that said we should get OTA & I knew we didn't & why.
Can you tell me why I can't get Ch 11 OTA at the south end of Lake Morton. I can get ch 9 & its sub-channels without any problems.

Peggy D
Agree completely about frustration. The few times I have had to work without my meter was enough to make me want to pack it in for the day and come back when I had it.
Many things can affect your reception differences. Two main ones are trees and the type of antenna. Although ch9 & ch11 are literally side by side, they are different frequencies.
Trees can act like giant filters and block parts of a signal, or enough to confuse your tuner, and its effect can vary because of the wind.
The antenna type makes a big difference, too. Smaller things like a squashed portion of the cable, flaky antenna balun, fussy tuner, corroded connection can do it as well. Further, because of the high frequencies, the wavelength is small, which means about 8 inches in ANY direction can make or break a marginal channel. It's hard to grasp the concept of digital TV signal, because it doesn't act like the old analog stuff. Each location is different, even just one house away, with the same antenna. The only way to know for sure why is to check it out with meter/scope to see what the signal looks like, not the picture. From there you can narrow it down to see how the other channels look, and that comparison along with a visual inspection of all the bits involved will point to the most likely suspect.
Digital TV is great when it works, picture perfect or nothing. It's like every other technology today, simpler but more complex!
Dan
post #9625 of 10033
Do you have any recommendations for a new antenna? I do know that the cable from the antenna is new since the antenna was not connected when we moved in here.
post #9626 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyD View Post

Do you have any recommendations for a new antenna? I do know that the cable from the antenna is new since the antenna was not connected when we moved in here.

Peggy D
What antenna model do you have now? It will give me a better idea of what might work better.
Dan
post #9627 of 10033
This is what we have now.

post #9628 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyD View Post

This is what we have now.

Peggy D
That looks like it should work, if it's not too rusty. When the new cable was run, did they replace the balun, too? (the part that adapts the 75ohm cable to the 300 ohm antenna) The only other reason would be if you're surrounded by trees. They can really do a number on the signal. Your ch9 could also be barely enough, but the way digital reception works, you would never know. If there's enough there to lock on to, it will be perfect.
Location wise you're better off. No big hills in the way, but there is about a mile of trees before you get a clean shot to the towers. If it's heavy with trees, that might be just enough to give you problems on one channel.

Try a new balun if that wasn't swapped out. If there's no preamp, try a Channelmaster 7777.
If the antenna is old and rusty, or has bent or missing elements, then a big Channelmaster 2020 or Antennacraft HBU55. They may look smaller because there are no big arms in the back. Those are for channels 2 through 6, which we don't have here. The other parts of these antennas are more than what you have now, though, and should make a difference.

The big question is how bad are those trees bothering you. Without seeing what you are getting on a meter, hard for me to reccomend anything smaller. In your case, you can't have too much.
Dan
post #9629 of 10033
Thanks, Dan. I don't think the antenna or any connections are rusty. I'll have to check with my son when he gets home from work since he is the one who installed it. We bought the antenna just a few years ago when we lived in Maple Valley. I think I'll try the Antennacraft HBU55 but it will be awhile before it can be installed - snow & rain on a tile roof is not safe. I'm going to order it from Solid Signal since Radio Shack costs so much more for the same antenna.

Just for kicks I checked Antennaweb for reception & it says we can't get any signal here but that the Maple Valley address can.
post #9630 of 10033
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyD View Post

Thanks, Dan. I don't think the antenna or any connections are rusty. I'll have to check with my son when he gets home from work since he is the one who installed it. We bought the antenna just a few years ago when we lived in Maple Valley. I think I'll try the Antennacraft HBU55 but it will be awhile before it can be installed - snow & rain on a tile roof is not safe. I'm going to order it from Solid Signal since Radio Shack costs so much more for the same antenna.
Just for kicks I checked Antennaweb for reception & it says we can't get any signal here but that the Maple Valley address can.

Peggy D
Before you buy another antenna, verify the balun was replaced when you reinstalled it and ran the new cable.
Dan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Seattle, WA - OTA